Prime Minister John Howard delivered a bombshell two weeks ago.

It wasn’t his announcement of an election date. That was a given. It wasn’t even his $34 billion tax pledge.

No, the bombshell was Howard’s sudden about-face on indigenous reconciliation.

Speaking to the Sydney Institute, Howard announced that it was time for a symbolic commitment to reconciliation.

He said he wanted Aboriginal Australians to be recognised as the first inhabitants of Australia, and for this to be enshrined in our constitution.

It was an interesting pledge from a man who, for most of his political life, has been one of the staunchest critics against symbolism in indigenous affairs.

However, Howard assured his audience he was a changed man.

"I’m the first to admit that this whole area is one I have struggled with during the entire time that I have been Prime Minister,” he said. “(It) is in part an artefact of who I am and the time in which I grew up.”

It certainly sounded sincere enough. And it’s certainly the right way forward for Australia. But what people need to ask themselves is: was it all just a political stunt?

Howard was first elected to power in 1996. That’s four terms in office.

Yet he’s spent most of the past 11 years campaigning against symbolic reconciliation gestures.

He has rejected all calls for apologies, treaties or commitments to indigenous rights. He has remained one of the leading critics against what he describes as “black armband” history.

In 2000, almost a quarter of a million people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in support of reconciliation, including Howard’s own Treasurer, Peter Costello. But the Prime Minister stayed at home.

Similarly, when the leaders of all other states and territories were making official apologies to the stolen generation, Howard remained silent.

Even in May this year, on the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum that gave Aborigines the vote, Howard declined the opportunity for symbolic reconciliation.

Yet three days before an election is called, Howard gets up in front of an audience in Sydney and says he’s suddenly gained enlightenment on the subject.

It’s all a bit suspicious, isn’t it?

Many media commentators have since given Howard the benefit of the doubt on the issue. They say men are allowed to change their minds. And they should be commended when they do.

Most politicians also emphasise that the pledge cannot be a vote grabbing strategy. There are very few people in Australia who will swing their vote on indigenous issues, they say, let alone swing it toward the Coalition on such a topic.

The common consensus thus seems to be: this was a sincere pledge by a reformed soul.

But, sincerity aside, such a view is complete bollocks. The whole announcement stinks of political expediency.

Howard has been facing an image problem all year. Voters are saying he is too old; that he’s out of touch; a product of an older generation.

Kevin Rudd, on the other hand, has billed himself as “new leadership”. He is a fresh face, with supposedly modern ideas.

How could Howard get himself out of such a pickle? Easy. He decided to use the topic of reconciliation as means of reinventing himself.

In his speech, he admitted his ideas had been stuck in the past. He said he was a product of his generation.

Yet in his very next breath he cast off his 1950s skin once and for all. He said, with enthusiasm, that he stands before us anew – with new policies and new directions. He is ready, in 2007, to take the nation forward on indigenous affairs.

It wasn’t the announcement itself that was aimed at swinging votes. It was the way in which Howard used the announcement to improve his image.

Whether he was sincere or not is largely irrelevant. Howard wouldn’t have made the pledge if it also didn’t hold some kind of political benefit.

That, sadly, is how politics works.