Straight Talk From An Underrated Politician

by Matt Price - The Australian

Lindsay Tanner is a favourite in these parts. Regular browsers know the Opposition finance spokesman provides this column with its leitmotif via the perspicacious Tanner dictum: "Remember, in politics everybody exaggerates everything all of the time."

Tanner is that very rare specimen, a thrice-married man who hasn't completely written off the prospect of becoming prime minister. There's only one other bird in the genus and readers with a sense of humour and/or melodrama should cross their fingers and wish for a Tanner v Brendan Nelson election in the next 20 years.

Sadly for Tanner, such glorious ascension is unlikely. The affable Victorian finds himself boxed in as the Jan Brady of Labor's litter; despite being one of the Opposition's better performers these past five years, Tanner rarely receives the attention afforded other ambitious, angling peers. That Tanner emerged from Labor's Left is often and unfairly held against him when it should be treated with roughly the same regard as Piers Akerman's 1970s flirtation with communism: filed under N for No Longer Relevant.

Tanner has seen Mark Latham, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard sail past him in Labor's most-likely queue. If outwardly he seems to treat this ritual scorning with good humour, I suspect there are dark nights of the soul when, having signed the alimony cheques and changed the nappies, Tanner glares at the moon, screeching: "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia."

Tanner made an intriguing speech this week to the Sydney Institute. It had nowt to do with leadership tensions; his appearance had been pencilled in for months. Besides, Tanner is neither reflexive malcontent nor underminer, which puts him in a minority in caucus.

On this page last week, Paul Kelly expressed disdain about Labor's miserable failure to hold the Coalition to account for its lack of investment in education. It's a mystery this column has oft bemoaned, albeit less authoritatively than the Professor. Tanner used his speech to explore the conundrum that sees a 10-year Government slashing spending on universities and training programs, funnelling more funds to rich private schools yet drawing level with the Opposition in opinion polls testing attitudes to education, a traditional Labor stronghold.

Tanner correctly observed the drift to "entertainment" politics made it tougher for oppositions to punch through on policy. "We need cut-through content to succeed," he noted. Perhaps this was a backhander at Beazley, although Tanner praised the detail, if not salesmanship, of Labor education policies.

Bravely, Tanner attacked what he alleges to be Australia's innate anti-intellectualism. "Hostility to learning is deeply ingrained," he thundered. "We need to abandon our lingering culture of mediocrity and ignorance." On the eve of the Ashes, Tanner flirted with treason by deriding the feting in Australia of Shane Warne's honorary doctorate from a British university to be "very sad" and "nonsense ... equivalent to inducting John Howard into the Cricket Hall of Fame".

When Tanner declares the PM has been "exploiting and magnifying this social prejudice that's deeply embedded in our culture" I think he's falling victim to his dictum. Howard has, as usual, outsmarted Labor on the politics of education by responding to deep-seated confusion and concern about slipping standards to hammer the states on values and quality control.

Still, it beggars belief that in prosperous, 21st century Australia we have a Government that's criminally slashed university spending, a PM who's encouraged children to consider leaving school at Year 10 and a minister (Nelson) who's declared education a privilege, not a right. Which makes Labor's failure to land a punch equal parts mind-boggling and disgraceful.

The main theme of Tanner's speech - that commitment to lifetime learning and personal improvement be Labor's new "light on the hill" - is worth considering. While there's a risk of being derided as elitist, there's not much else obvious that Labor stands for (imagine the Opposition directed to education one-fifth of the energy expended on complaining about Work Choices). Even many of the Government's strongest supporters, including some MPs, are embarrassed by its education record. Broadcaster Alan Jones lavished praise on Tanner while reading large chunks of his speech to denizens of Struggle Street.

But the most interesting and courageous aspect of the speech was the shot at parents. Too quick to blame schools and teachers for their own shortcomings, Tanner argued. Too inclined to treat classrooms as glorified child-minding centres, not showing nearly enough interest in what goes on inside.

At one level this is counter-intuitive. Parents are spending more on private education - often to avoid perceived poor quality, under-funded public schools - and little Jack or Jenny is increasingly being laden with interminable extracurricular classes and activities. But I think Tanner is dead right. Spend any time in schools and it's impossible not to admire the dedication, tolerance and tenacity of most teachers. Parents spend more money to provide more options, but we're often too busy or distracted to know what's really happening with our children.

Blaming parents makes for dangerous politics. Tony Abbott does it often with obesity - "no one is in charge of what goes into kids' mouths except their parents" - which makes him widely unpopular, but he's right, too. You can also justifiably blame parents for the sludge on television, the decline in manners, the shocking behaviour at schoolies week, high levels of juvenile crime and a lot more besides.

Unfortunately the iron rule of modern politics is parents must be pampered. Sydney's The Sunday Telegraph carried a front-page story of charities bemoaning debt-laden parents with huge houses, flash cars and plasma TVs lining up for handouts because they're struggling to pay the mortgage. Is it heartless to have absolutely zero sympathy for these people?

Typically, parents are indulged by modern politicians with oceans of platitudes and rivers of middle-class welfare; surprising, really, given Howard's natural inclination to espouse personal responsibility. Quite predictably, Education Minister Julie Bishop accused Tanner of insulting mums and dads, the same charge that's routinely aimed at the Health Minister by the parents of fat children.

Yet Abbott, Tanner and other crazy-brave sods should be encouraged in all this sensible straight talk, even if it ultimately disqualifies them from reaching the top job. Politicians prepared to spout unpopular truths may not make leadership material, but they're precious for their increasing rarity.

Besides - and this will be of small comfort to Tanner - for all her flaws and neuroses, Jan Brady was easily the most interesting of the bunch.