Inconsistency is still condemned in politics. It is a weapon for both journalists and other politicians. We had some entertaining examples this week with the deal between the Government and the Democrats over the GST.
Fear not, this column is not about the GST. Rather it is about consistency.
Labor said, “”Ha, ha, ha, you said a tax exemption for food was a Bad Thing a month ago. Now after dealing with the Democrats you say a tax exemption on food is the best thing since … er …. sliced bread.”
Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello squirmed.
Labor said, “”Ha, ha, ha, you said a tax on books was a Bad Thing a month ago. Now after dealing with the Government you say a tax on books is … er … intellectually respectable.”
Meg Less squirmed.
Similarly, journalists have pointed to the inconsistencies. The electronics have a field day with this sort of thing. It can make for some uncomfortable interviewing.
It is a silly courtroom tactic that will become irrelevant before long.
Cross-examining barristers play the inconsistency card, for the same reason as politicians and journalists. “”You said XYZ at the committal hearing. Now you say ABC. ABC is inconsistent with XYZ. Therefore everything you say about anything must be suspect, including all the evidence you have given about my client.”
In courtrooms inconsistency leads to discredit. In politics, a lot of journalists think a sustained accusation of inconsistency leads to discredit. “”But you said . . . .” And in Question Time MPs think a sustained accusation of inconsistency has the same effect.
But why is consistency so valued. Surely, it is better to be ultimately right than consistently wrong.
This week, there were more sustained accusations of inconsistency than I can remember. There were two reasons. One was the reversal of the Government’s position on a GST on food. (Incidentally, nearly all Canberra Times journalists are assiduously avoiding the “”backflip” cliché, since one of our readers astutely pointed out that when one does a backflip one ends up facing the same way as when one started. So “”Howard backflip on GST” means he ends up in the same position.)
The other reason the Opposition and journalists have had such fun was the internet. And there is some irony here.
In the past couple of years politicians, especially ministers, have been using the internet to proselytise their views and tell the voters how wonderful they are and how hard they work. They put every media statement, every transcript of every media interview and every speech on their internet site. And nearly all these sites come with search engines.
Howard’s site goes back to 1997. Every public word he has uttered is on the site.
And so it took a matter of seconds to search for “tax” NEAR “”food” to come up with this gem:
“”18 August 1998. Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon John Howard MP. Radio interview with Dave Harrison. Radio 4TO. Townsville (and Dave, this is your 15 seconds of fame outside Townsville):
“”Now the question of food. People say it’s tough on the poor to include a GST on food. I’d say a number of things about that. If you leave food out of the GST there is a solid argument that says that that will advantage the rich as much, if not more, than the poor and the reason for that is that if you leave food out you have to go the full bit. You can’t just say we won’t include fresh food in the GST. What do you do about restaurants? What do you do about McDonald’s? I mean if you say that food is exempt from the GST are we going to exempt McDonald’s or are you going to put it in? If you exempt McDonald’s are you going to exempt other restaurants? If you exempt other restaurants it means that very well-off people who spend a fortune dining out don’t pay any GST. Now is that fair to the poor? Of course it’s not fair to the poor. In Canada you have the ridiculous situation where they’re arguing over whether a pie in a supermarket should be GST free, but a pie heated in a takeaway food shop is free of GST. I mean what’s the equity of the commonsense in that?””
Oh dear. “”If you leave food out of the GST . . . you have to go the full bit”.
And now, nine months later, Howard is defending a GST on chicken wings and not on whole cooked chickens and defending a GST-free pie in the supermarket despite it being hit with tax in a takeaway shop. Pie in sky stuff.
In the old days, Dave’s interview would have disappeared into Townsville’s humidity. Now, the instrument that was to enhance a politician’s reputation is used against him
Besides the politicians’ own sites, we have Hansard and newspaper and radio internet sites, all with searchable text. The databases are building up and some are re-entering paper text from the past. Tasmania’s Hansard goes back to 1992. All the talking heads in Tasmania are now in searchable text.
This week the Coalition and the Democrats were the targets. Next time it will be Labor. The upshot must surely be that the premium on political consistency will be irrelevant, because the electronic databases will result in the frequent puncturing of the facade of consistency that politicians attempt to maintain. Politicians will not bother to defend it. Politicians will be able to sensibly change their minds without their egos being challenged. Good.
Mercifully, no-one bothers to hunt up the past utterances of journalists to point out their inconsistencies.