The Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, John Howard, said yesterday that he was puzzled and at a complete loss at Opposition Leader John Hewson’s attack on him over immigration.
“”I’m just at a complete loss to understand why the immigration thing should be dragged up in such a gratuitous way,” he said.
He was responding to comments made by Dr Hewson in an interview in The Canberra Times published yesterday.
In the interview, Dr Hewson attacked Mr Howard’s 1988 questioning of the level and mix of immigration; rejected his proposals to tax the family as one unit as “”too late”; and attacked the Howard-supporter-dominated Lyons Forum’s position on the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
Dr Hewson said, “”We had the Asian immigration debate in the late 1980s. That was a fundamental mistake . . . and very, very bad politics, and morally and intellectually wrong.”
Mr Howard was removed as leader in 1989, within months of the immigration debate.
He said yesterday, “”I haven’t said anything about immigration for several years. . . . I’m puzzled as to why a five-year-old issue should out of the blue be raised in language virtually identical to that used by the Labor Party. . . .
“”I have been endeavouring to reach Dr Hewson but I haven’t been successful. I can only repeat that I am puzzled as to why the immigration debate should have been dragged up. There’s certainly no evidence in polls done by the party after the last election that immigration was even an issue.”
Asked what he would be saying to Dr Hewson he said, “”I don’t think the airing of internal differences outside the party room is particularly helpful particularly just before four by-elections.”
He hoped that party debate on social issues could be conducted in a way in which “” we don’t fling labels around which aren’t accurate.”
Mr Howard also described as “”baloney” a suggestion by Dr Hewson that he, Dr Hewson, might have been set up by not being given the opportunity to sign a petition objecting to the Sunday mid-evening screening of the Mardi Gras on the ABC.
The differences between Dr Hewson and Mr Howard comes as the position of another figure thought of as a potential Liberal leader, former Senator Bronwyn Bishop, has been weakened by allegations in the Senate that the payment of redundancy packages to her Senate staff was a rort because they would most likely rejoin her staff if she enters the House of Representatives after a by-election in the safe Liberal seat of Mackellar (subs all lower case with a) later this month. Mrs Bishop says if they do, they have agreed to repay the money.
On treating the family as one unit for taxation, Dr Hewson said, “I don’t back it. I think it’s too late now.”
The tax system was becoming less relevant as a way of targeting help to families compared to direct help to carers.
Mr Howard said, “”I notice from the interview that John agrees with me that the present tax system contains a bias against single-income families. And that’s my major beef. I just want families to have freedom of choice whether pay for their children’s child care or provide themselves by having one parent at home with the children.”
That could be achieved through substantially increasing direct grants. It did not necessarily require income splitting.
“So I’m not really at odds with Hewson on that,” he said.
His proposal was one of choice.
“”I have no desire to send women back into the home against their will,”” he said. “”All I want to do is give men and women, parents, a freedom of choice. . . . It is not a women’s rights issue; we have gone beyond that … I want parents to be able to decide not the Government. Government policies are loaded against single-income families.”
At present a family income of $40,000 earned by one person attracted $3,500 more in tax than the same amount split by tow income earners. That made a big difference in deciding whether a mother or father could stay at home to look after young children. Those families who wanted one parent to stay at home should not be discriminated against by the tax system.
On the Mardi Gras, Dr Hewson gave a message of public support to it, prompting a rebuke from the socially conservative Lyons Forum group of Liberal MPs. Last week when MPs from both sides signed the petition organised by Liberal MP Chris Miles, Dr Hewson did not get a chance to sign it. This caused Dr Hewson to suggest it might be a put up job, because he would have signed it, weakening his opponents’ argument.
Dr Hewson said it was necessary to recognise diversity and it was not politically astute to discriminate against particular groups.
Mr Howard he had no idea why Dr Hewson did not get a chance to sign it.
“”I have no idea who they approached,” he said. “”I didn’t think about it.
“”I suggested to Chris Miles that the wording be softened to make it clear that petition wasn’t saying that the program should never be broadcast, but that it should be broadcast at a different time . . . so it would attract more signatures and have more effect.””
He was not sure whether he would sign a petition objecting to the screening altogether.
COMMENT:
Since the election, Dr Hewson’s conundrum has been how to make himself more acceptable to the electorate at large while retaining enough support in the party to keep his leadership.
Initially, he was helped by an absence of a strong new contender. This enabled him to learn from the election loss and change his stand in several areas: to abandon the GST, to say the republic is inevitable, to accept a greater government role in arts funding, to embrace multi-culturalism and the acceptance of diverse lifestyles with more conviction, and so on.
However, this has made him less popular among the conservative wing of the party, so he did not express his views unambiguously. Last week seemed a good time from his point of view to do so and to assert his own leadership. His party had runs on the whiteboard with the Kelly affair and his main leadership contender in opinion-poll land, Bronwyn Bishop, was under a cloud over her staff pay-outs.
However, it is not an assertion of strong leadership to label opponents politically, morally and intellectually wrong. It is not strong leadership to rake over five-year-old coals. It will only cause anger in Howard and his supporters, and that anger can only be directed back at Hewson. There is also the question of loyalty. It is a two-way street. If Hewson does not give it, he cannot expect it. Howard will have some justification in feeling belittled and insulted by his leader’s conduct. If he throws insults it invites retaliation. That is not very smart from a leader who has been on shaky ground at the best of times since March 13, last year.