LOGIN
Politics

The IPA has captured the Liberal Party

By | | comments
Tony Abbott at the 70th anniversary IPA celebration (image via YouTube).

The power and influence that the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) has may not be obvious to the naked eye.

What were the 75 ideas about?

But I came across a couple of quotes put forward by them, "Be like Gough", and "75 ideas", which seemed to me to be associated with both the IPA and Tony Abbott. After a little research, I discovered that three members of the IPA had written a "manifesto" or wish list, which they had addressed to Tony Abbott, on the eve of his elevation to Prime Minister. It was "delivered" online, in 2012. 

It invoked Gough Whitlam as the most transformative leader the country had seen, but not in an admiring sense. Its message was that, for Abbott to be remembered well, he needed to be the antidote to the "poison" that Whitlam had injected into Australia's political system. He needed to emulate Whitlam, by acting with speed, and with a rigid political programme.

What was Abbott's response?

One would expect that the leader of one of Australia's major political parties, the Liberal Party, would have thanked them politely for their advice and then proceeded to do exactly as his Party wanted. That presumably included governing for all Australians, and sticking to his, and the Party's, policies and the expectations of the populace. Australians often vote for the "sensible centre" and they were certainly not voting for any sort of "radical" party.

Abbott's response was both shocking and surprisingly open. He responded during a speech, delivered at the IPA’s 70th Anniversary Dinner at the National Gallery of Victoria.

It included the notable line:

“So, ladies and gentlemen, that is a big fat yes to many of the 75 specific policies you urged upon me.”

Of course, he became Australia's Prime Minister the next year.

Abbott appears to have taken their "manifesto" more seriously than the writers had. They had presented it as a wish list, and the tone suggests their expectations were not high. They even outlined the "softer" option. That was included in the paper, should he find their suggestions too radical.

Why did he accept their plan?

Many commentators, and most of the public, were dubious about Abbott's abilities in the area of formulating policy. He was more of an attack dog, very able in the area of creating slogans and engendering fear in the community. But policy, not so much.

It is difficult to explain why Abbott was so accepting of such a radical makeover of Australia's political paradigm. I have always thought of Tony Abbott as something of a time-server, a careerist, and being on the right side was enough for him. He was never a reformist, or really a zealot, except when his religion clashed with his political duties.

The best guess I can come up with is that he woke up one day, and discovered that he was the Leader of the Opposition. Remember the ridicule and the outrage when he won that particular vote? It was a typically shambolic move: he ascended by tricking Joe Hockey into believing that he would not run and then he did. 

Part of the outrage was that he had defeated Malcolm Turnbull, who was seen as a gentleman, an urbane and distinguished lawyer. So Abbott had climbed the greasy pole, almost by accident and then we saw him at his instinctive best: a wrecker, by three-word slogans.

So, watching the Labor Party self-destruct, Abbott, over time, firmed as favourite to succeed to the top job.

Notwithstanding his quiver full of degrees from Sydney, and even Oxford, he was given very little respect, or credibility, for his abilities, other than as a political brawler. The only work qualification he had was as an unremarkable journalist and then enjoyed a long term as a parliamentarian.  

My answer to the question is that he may be really lazy. He had a stellar education, but all he had really achieved was to be, at the time, known as the world's worst health minister, called out by Julia Gillard for his misogyny, a series of really embarrassing public gaffes and a penchant for punishing physical exercise.

He had a reputation as a Catholic warrior and he was a climate science denier. Why not go along with a ready-made basket of policies, something put together by boffins, from a respectable conservative outfit? He could claim them as his own and proceed into power.

How did that go?

It was disastrous. The list, translated into an actual budget, caused chaos. It was never anything but a fantasy', put together by three young men whose work histories consisted mainly of working for think tanks, or politicians.

James Paterson was 24 years old in 2012, which suggests that he was a little inexperienced to be writing a grown-up country's political plan. Chris Berg is an academic, I think, who is an "expert" in BlockChain innovation. He is also a think tank veteran. John Roskam was 44 years of age when the plan was written and he has worked for several politicians, and two think tanks. He also did PR for a mining company.

He has tried for Liberal Party pre-selection, but he has failed to win. One wonders why he would bother, considering he has an entire Government at his disposal.

What are some of the things they succeeded in?

Many of the items can be ticked off, as having been completed, or at least attempted. Most, if not all of them, as reactionary, elitist and nasty:

  • Repeal the carbon tax, and don't replace it;
  • Abolish the Department of Climate Change;
  • Cease subsidising the car industry;
  • Repeal the mining tax;
  • Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states;
  • Cease funding the Australia Network; and
  • Privatise Medibank.

It seems like the sort of list that very young, privileged brats would produce before they actually encountered some real life. Let us just say it is a work of stupendous lightness and the Liberal Party has been captured by it for nearly eight years now. 

There isn't one thing that would materially improve the life of a single citizen. It is all self-aggrandisement writ large, with not a thought for the weak or the helpless. We have been blaming Abbott, Hockey, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton for a long time, but they are just dupes of three would-be intellectuals, who wouldn't know what the words mutual obligation meant.

The IPA gave Abbott a plan for Australia and he bought it. 

Mark Buckley is a Melbourne based writer with an interest in politics, history and ethics in public life.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.

 
Recent articles by Mark Buckley
Scott Morrison's repent: A letter of apology to Australians

I dreamed that Scott Morrison woke up one day and was filled with regret. He was so ...  
The ABC is on the IPA's hit list

The Institute of Public Affairs is determined to go against public wishes and needs ...  
The IPA has captured the Liberal Party

The power and influence that the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) has may not be ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus

Support IAIndependent Australia

IA is dedicated to providing fearless, independent journalism, free for all, with no barriers. But we need your help. To keep us speaking truth to power, please consider donating to IA today - even a dollar will make a huge difference - or subscribe and receive all the benefits of membership. Keep ‘em honest. Support IA.

Close Subscribe Donate