Political Corrections

with Mungo MacCallum

Barking mad over education

It is a sign of the degeneration of political discourse under John Howard's government that more than a week has now passed since the prime minister launched his extraordinary attack on public education and still nobody has the faintest idea what he actually meant.

Indeed, he probably doesn't himself. It was probably just an instinctive reaction honed by years of constant practice: if you see a dog, whistle it; if you come across a wedge, hammer it in; if the fight's getting messy and a dead pig is available, toss it into the ring.

The debate, if one can call it that, emerged when Howard broke his holiday to fly to Darwin for a photo opportunity with the first freight train from Adelaide. The accompanying media wanted to ask him about education, as it had become apparent that many would-be students would be unable to get into universities as a result of previously available places having become full fee paying ones under the Howard "reform" policy; it was also revealed that the federal Government was now spending more on subsidising private schools, which are basically a state responsibility, than on the whole university sector, which is its own bailiwick.

Howard ignored the first bit, but defended the pork barrels of cash to the private schools by saying that there was a positive flood of parents deserting public education and electing to go private instead; the Government was simply acknowledging their right to choose. The reason for this exodus, he mused, was that the public schools had become too politically correct and value free.

And that, pure and simple, was the headline. But it should not have been. For starters, while it is true that there has been a consistent movement from public to private education, it is hardly a flood; indeed, over two thirds of Australian children remain in state schools, and their parents by and large seem happy with the situation. And in any case the trend has been going on for years; it didn't start, or even notably accelerate, when Howard decided to abolish political correctness.

But more intriguingly, just what did he mean by too politically correct? And what were the values from which the public sector was now free? Alas, when the ever-alert media finally got around to asking these questions, Howard was back on holidays; a spokesperson said that he would no doubt make everything clear on his return to work, but that this should not be taken as a core promise.

In the meantime other ministers were invited to elaborate. The more sensible, no doubt noting that some 68 percent of their constituents were still part of the public system, were cautious; everyone, they averred, was doing his or her best, and a jolly good best it probably was, and wasn't the tennis exciting?

The inevitable Tony Abbot sort of agreed with Howard, commenting that he sometimes thought the only value state schools promoted was tolerance - which he obviously didn't rate very highly. He also vaguely recalled that sometime in the past -- he was not sure exactly when - he had heard that a state primary school - though he couldn't remember which one or where it was - had banned a nativity play. Contrarily, John Anderson insisted that far from being value free, state schools were in the grip of a green conspiracy aimed at destroying respect for agriculture.

And of course there was a furious reaction from the public sector itself and its many supporters, proving that the wedge had indeed opened yet another division in Howard's Australia. Television arranged somewhat pompous confrontations between fanatics on both sides. Radio talk back went into meltdown. The letters columns ignited; one private school veteran confessed that he and his classmates had always found the values of the state school down the road, which included raising the flag and reciting a pledge, rather common. A state school parent vowed that if his school ever adopted Howard's values, he would reluctantly move to the private sector.

And so it went - a truly grand distraction from the real issues, acrimonious, bitter, full of sound and fury and ultimately signifying not very much. All in all, a wonderfully appropriate overture for Howard's election year. You have been warned.

And on the Labor side the new compromise policy on asylum seekers (compassion for boat people, ferocity for those who transport them) carries its own contradictions, but seems likely to be acceptable to most party supporters, especially with Labor now a real if still rough chance at the forthcoming polls. Even the party president, Carmen Lawrence, seems prepared to break the habit of a lifetime and in this case at least put her party's welfare ahead of her own agenda.

Howard's attack dogs in parliament and the media are of course barking about Mark Latham being soft on border protection and sending the wrong signals, but there are signs public opinion may be finally moving against them; other libels may be needed. The most rabid of the running dogs, Piers Ackerman, sent his own signal in the weekend press by comparing Latham's blue with a taxi driver with the fatal bashing of cricket hero David Hookes; a vote for Latham, Piers explains, is a vote for thuggery, violence and death.

Yes, it is going to be a dirty campaign.