Debate loser in sexist row furor

THE political tactic of using claims of sexism or misogyny in the national discourse is threatening to derail or stifle sensible debate on vital matters of public policy. Labor's attack seems to be working, but it's not benefiting the public debate.

The public discourse yesterday on Labor's move to cut the baby bonus from $5000 to $3000 for second or subsequent children degenerated into a "new row" after Tony Abbott said it would have been better "if the government was a bit more experienced in this area".

Within an hour Julia Gillard said: "I think Mr Abbott can explain what he meant by that line", and Craig Emerson called it a "personal attack".

Labor backbencher Stephen Jones and minister Penny Wong declared that Abbott's "dog whistle" had turned into a "megaphone" and a "foghorn".

The Coalition's dog whistle -- a silent call to people who understand a coded message -- was meant to be a slur on Gillard not having children -- Labor's own dog whistle -- and an extension of Abbott's "misogyny".

Faced with another political campaign in the media that would distract from debate on the mini-budget cuts to families and education, the Opposition Leader apologised to Gillard if she had taken offence.

Abbott appears to be put off balance by the sexist charges and uncertain as to how to respond.

But Abbott's apology only fed the sexist row frenzy and ceded ground to a calculated and orchestrated political campaign aimed at limiting his ability to speak.

As Joe Hockey said in Abbott's defence, it was the Coalition that introduced the baby bonus with a range of policy objectives. "If we're at the point now where we can't refer to the government and families in the same breath, surely the debate has got to an absurd point," he said.