Larvatus Prodeo

I’m reluctant to start this post with a hook about leadership, but I can’t help mentioning that Lindsay Tanner has just demonstrated how to “cut through”. Take a rather wonky but important speech on policy direction (which contains the important admission that a lot of policy work isn’t funky - perhaps that’s why it’s not adequately reported) and throw in a dig at Shane Warne. Add remarks to the mix which could be read as criticising “ordinary Australians and their attitude to education”, as Tim Dunlop puts it.

And you’ve got headlines, and lots of discussion. And it’s not about leadership, but about the Opposition’s ideas and direction for the country.

I’m sure Tanner is sincere in the comments about Warney’s honorary Doctorate, but I’m sure they’re also partly in their to grab people’s attention. But I’m nowhere near as certain as Andrew Norton that some polling evidence really belies Tanner’s diagnosis of Australian anti-intellectualism. I think you can make that broad sociological observation, and you can find evidence all over the place - the “school of hard knocks” attitude, the social position of intellectuals, the idea that education should be about training rather than learning. The way the current education wars play out certainly suggest that Howard and co. think there’s political value in denigrating universities and talking up dropping out after year 10. And a very narrow focus on what constitutes appropriate educational content (all the high minded crud about Shakespeare and the canon notwithstanding). The very fact that people like Gerard Henderson can talk about the production of knowledge as if it’s only a matter of political opinion shows how little understood actual scholarly values are. And no doubt the reaction I’ll get for saying that will only prove the point.

I’m also in disagreement with Tim Dunlop. I don’t think Tanner is taking a potshot at “ordinary Australians”. I suspect he’s actually been talking to people in the education system about the way in which there’s an increasing propensity to load everything onto schools which used to be the province of parents. Whether it’s “values”, behaviour management, being able to email a teacher at 9pm instead of ask a parent about your homework, whatever. The flight to private schools itself reinforces the belief that education is a panacea for instilling things like discipline. Nor do I think Tim is right that Tanner was being “politically naive”. I’m sure he knew exactly what he was doing. I think, rather, what he’s about is showing some actual leadership and asking people in the community to reflect on phenomena that might not cast us in a good light. Rather than pandering to vote catching talking ponts. Perhaps it’s been so long since we’ve seen a pollie challenge public opinion, we can’t see it for what it is.

As to Tanner’s substantive points, I really think there’s little argument that education and knowledge are crucial to all of our futures, and to social mobility and a just future for all (as Andrew Leigh also argues). I’m impressed too with the way that he was able to tie in Labor’s challenges with broader political observation, and personalise the values that he believes Labor should hold.

And I think it’s an indictment on the quality of debate in this country that there’s been such little debate about the substance of the policy Beazley and Macklin have already announced on education, skills and and innovation.

The speech is here [link to pdf].