Honestly, Kernot could make Prime Minister yet

This sensitivity must have been increased by Simon Crean’s gaffe when he mused that compulsory superannuation contributions might need to be increased from their current level of 8% to 15%. But Crean broke the rules. In the first place there is no unanimity that compulsory super is a good thing. Business resented its original implementation, and workers might well prefer to have another 7% in their pocket than have it locked away in superannuation until they retire, especially those who are having trouble making ends meet. He also bought into a larger economic argument as to whether the country currently needs more saving or more spending.

In the second place Crean is being honest about policy in a way that might impact on the next federal election. It is a truism that governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them. Despite the Government’s trying to pry out details of ALP policy with the accusation that it is "policy lazy", Labor needs to keep its policies close to its chest. If it doesn’t, then the government will make Labor the issue, and Labor could lose the next election. This is not to suggest that politicians should be dishonest about their policies, but another rule in being politically honest is that it is not dishonest to hold back details if people aren’t asking for them. In this case there was no public debate about compulsory super, let alone a demand for more details.

Kernot is not the only exponent of political honesty in the ALP. Peter Beattie just won an election in Queensland on the basis of his honesty. Not only does this illustrate another of the rules – if you are caught out, own up – but it shows that a reputation for honesty can be heightened by a history of opposing your own party. When Beattie said he knew nothing of the rorting uncovered by Shepherdson, even cynical journalists believed him because he had a history of being at odds with his party if he believed they were wrong.

Kernot should keep this in mind. Her public reason for leaving the Democrats was that she wanted to be able to make policy as part of a government, not merely to moderate it as part of a balance of power party. She wanted to be part of a ministry, and anyone who is ambitious enough to want to be a minister must also, at the back of their mind, entertain the possibility that they might one day become Prime Minister. If Kernot wants that higher prize, then she will have to brush aside the comments of her new comrades and stick to her guns.

Upsetting the Labor Party will elevate her status in the public mind. When Kim Beazley goes there is no clear line of succession. Despite the fact that Kernot is not an outstanding parliamentary performer, how the public perceives politicians is more important than how their peers do. It’s just possible that the Labor Party will one day wake up and look around and find that there’s just no alternative to Cheryl.

Even if Kernot never becomes PM one thing is certain. If the major political parties are to continue to dominate, they will have to find more ways to encourage honesty while not endangering the aims of government. It is easier for balance-of-power parties to be perceived as honest than the major parties. They do not need to speak to the whole electorate, but a more defined subset. That subset will have a narrower range of belief to which politicians can appeal, so they can be blunter, and bluntness is often interpreted as honesty.. The growth in the vote of those parties, and the decline in that of the major parties, can partly be explained as a result of a perception by their constituencies that they are more honest than the major parties.

But any politician embarking on a career in honesty should take note of Richard Whately’s aphorism – "Honesty is the best policy; but he who is governed by that maxim is not an honest man."