OPINION

PETA Credlin last night used her first substantial public appearance since Tony Abbott’s removal to defend herself, not the prime minister she had served as chief of staff.

No doubt that was the intention of the evening, a night to salute powerful women organised by the Australian Women’s Weekly.

Ms Credlin didn’t miss the opportunity to finger-point at others, the way she claims others have aimed unfriendly digits at her, and many women from all political sides will have cheered her on.

But not all.

“And if you’re a cabinet minister or a journalist and you’re intimidated by the chief of staff of the prime minister then maybe you don’t deserve your job,” she said to applause.

Columnist for The Australian Niki Savva, whom Ms Credlin demanded be sacked for her criticisms of her, might paraphrase that differently.

The evening did not resolve the matter that Peta Credlin’s stories — the one she tells and the one imposed on her — are not universally accepted.

She did not bring down the Abbott administration, and if she had a role it wasn’t because she was a woman who faced gender intolerance or because she was considered bossy, as opposed to strong.

Her contribution to Tony Abbott’s rise and fall was salient incompetence at the worst possible occasions.

For example, as controller of cabinet’s agenda, she allowed through the half-baked proposals to remove citizenship from those linked to terrorism. Deeply concerned senior ministers forced its rewriting.

Mr Abbott’s fondness for knighthoods went from folly to farce — first they were reinstalled to public anger, then a new gong was granted to Prince Philip, who was already stooping from all his unearned chest metal.

Ms Credlin was on duty at both decisions, a party to them.

She was an agent of the gloom that worked so well in Opposition but which in government created a pall of apprehension over business and consumer confidence, and national security fears.

And she was not aware of the plans to challenge for the leadership last week. That was part of her job.

There is a valid argument that Tony Abbott, not Peta Credlin, was responsible for what the government did. He was in charge and it would be unfair to blame an underling. Ms Credlin could do nothing without the authority of her boss — tacit or actual.

But clearly Mr Abbott put her in a position where a direct link back to him was not needed to justify how she ran things.

One problem was Mr Abbott’s promotion of the silly myth that she had won government for the Coalition, and all its MPs were obliged to be grateful and therefore to obey. Ms Credlin didn’t disagree.

“I worked my guts out for six years to go from opposition to government; 5am in the morning, really late nights, huge pressure and it’s relentless,” she said last night.

It was an argument aimed at giving her superior status to all those ministers who might have disagreed with her decisions, not to mention the scores of backbenchers whose individual efforts collectively gained office for Mr Abbott.

Then there was the Crosby/Textor campaign strategy, the Liberal organisation, and the voter antagonism to Labor heated up by the Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd turmoil. They all played a part.

But lavish credit was given to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff over the elected members of the Abbott Government, which did little to create harmony.

Finally, there was Ms Credlin’s defiance last night against what she saw as gender prejudice. If she hadn’t been a woman the men would not have attacked her, some in cowardly fashion.

“Because I think it’s really important for women. No career goes in a straight line and I think it’s really important for women that if you hit a period where resilience and stress is required then we don’t give in,” she said.

The trouble with that is not all her critics were men. They have included Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and women journalists, such as Savva.

And this gender sensitivity wasn’t apparent when the Abbott office sneered at the same argument from Julia Gillard.

Certainly Peta Credlin is a tough and, when she wants, charming figure in Australian politics. She does not deserve being blamed for a prime minister losing office in his first term at the hands of his own party.

But there might be some caution before claiming the opposite. Her actions — the bad ones — were elements in that leadership collapse and she should not be allowed to avoid it.

As she said last night in a different context: “I wanted to be a voice for women that aren’t successful.”