Scattergun approach may shoot Abbott in the foot

THIS week's launch of the My School website encapsulates the way the government likes to do business: be popular with voters, remain disciplined within ranks and be prepared (sometimes for appearances only, but not on this occasion) to take on vested interest groups.

The opposition's response to the site is also a reflection of the way it is shaping up under Tony Abbott's leadership: opposition for opposition's sake, unprepared to praise successes and always focused on what the government should have done rather than the merits of what it has done. More on that later.

The most significant fact in the start up of the My School website is not the information it contains, its accuracy (or otherwise) or even its long-term value. It is the fact that Julia Gillard was able to make it happen at all.

To do so she had to take on the Australian Education Union, the second largest union in the country, the home of the previous two presidents of the ACTU (Sharan Burrow and Jennie George), as well as a range of fearful lobby groups from within the private schools sector.

Showing that you don't need to be a parent to know what parents want, Gillard ignored the naysayers and pushed ahead. The 4.5 million hits to the site by 2pm on its first day of operation show that she knew what she was doing.

John Howard wanted to be able to compare schools - part of his "giving parents choice" mantra - but never managed to make it happen, probably because he feared the backlash that doing so might cause from within sections of the education industry. It took a Labor government to give Australians the chance to see how schools compare, and for that Gillard deserves credit.

The next test will be how the site evolves and whether the government has the stomach for the reforms that are needed if the term "education revolution" is to be more than over-the-top rhetoric.

Gillard pushed ahead with her My School website plans despite nearly half of her parliamentary colleagues being opposed to her doing so. The discipline shown from within Labor's parliamentary ranks in not coming out one by one and condemning the move is just one example of wider discipline in a Labor government now more than two years old, something that will stand it in good stead in an election year.

When you stop and consider the level of discipline in the Labor parliamentary team, it really is unprecedented.

Only one ministerial departure in ignominy (another by choice); few (if any) public criticisms by the caucus of policy direction, and little (or no) colour as to what happens in the cabinet decision making process.

The last time Labor was elected into office federally in 1983 the cabinet leaked on an almost daily basis and MPs lined up to condemn ministerial decision-making by factional opponents.

The Howard government enjoyed similar discipline after it was elected in 1996. .Cabinet did not leak and MPs stayed in line. But , Howard lost a brace of ministers in his first term because of travel entitlements scandals.

Critics of the government don't always see the discipline it displays as a good thing: it can stifle debate. But we shouldn't confuse the media's desire for stories emanating from leaks with a lack of debate going on within the government.

Ministers I have spoken to feel that they are given a free hand by the Prime Minister to pursue their agendas within the portfolios they have been allocated.

For a Prime Minister accused of micro-managing his team, that's a point worth noting.

Rudd micro-manages media relations more than he does the business of policy development. There's discipline, but with diversity in decision-making.

Backbenchers within Labor's ranks do feel more left out of the decision-making processes, but that isn't uncommon (just look at what ignoring the backbench did to Malcolm Turnbull's leadership). The trick for a political leader is placating the backbench and occasionally giving in to its desires. Rightly or wrongly, Rudd did that with the issue of overseas imports of books.

Turnbull needed to do it with the emissions trading scheme policy but he failed to read his parliamentary colleagues accurately.

In contrast to the tight discipline the government has enjoyed for more than two years now, the opposition remains ill-disciplined under the leadership of Abbott.

In fact the Leader of the Opposition is himself ill-disciplined when he falls for journalistic questions aimed at getting a headline. It is hard to see how the Coalition is going to hold the team together in an election year where the political temperature is set to quickly rise when parliament resumes next week.

First-term oppositions find it difficult to get the balance right between attacking the government and not buying into certain debates. Poor discipline often results when they don't get it right.

Robert Menzies once said that the chief objective of an opposition should be to make voters feel that it is very different to the government, in personnel and ideas. His rationale was that in time government's decay and voters need a clear choice if they are going to shift their votes.

Abbott strongly agrees with the Menzies view of opposition, but he needs to be careful he doesn't misunderstand what Menzies was alluding to.

It was not a call for opposition across the board. It was a call for strategic opposition, defining the key issues and using those to attack the government.

It was the same tactic Rudd adopted when he defeated Howard in 2007.

He picked climate change, education and industrial relations as the issues he wanted to fight the Coalition on. In most other respects he mirrored the Howard government. Rudd's critics condemned him as a pale imitation of Howard, but in the eyes of voters he was different where it counted.

At the moment almost without exception when the government offers a policy script it wants to pursue, the Coalition challenges the merits of doing so. It is a scattergun approach that opens the opposition up to the charge that it is just playing politics.

Liberals and Nationals need to remember that two years ago voters took the unprecedented step of throwing out a government in good economic times.

Having made the decision to do so, voters don't want to be told the new administration is incapable of doing anything right, particularly when polling shows voters remain broadly satisfied with the job being done at present.

When parliament resumes the key issues that will differentiate the government and the opposition will be how to respond to climate change and the economy. Rudd will rely on his team staying disciplined, which it surely will. Abbott will need to stay focused on the key debates lest he be painted as someone who engages in opposition for opposition's sake.