Pigs and lipstick

As commentators around the world acknowledge Mamdani’s appeal through his authentic interaction with people, Australian politics moves even further towards the politics of think-tanks, this time with Australia’s Nationals. Fearing that they will be seen as country hicks searching for relevance, the Nationals have now constructed a think tank to distance themselves from the political repercussions of their policies, attempting to give those policies a veneer of credibility.

Labelled the Page Research Centre, this front for the National Party boasts a who’s-who of National has-beens, including John Anderson. Anderson was instrumental in dismantling the Wool Board, perhaps Australia’s most successful government-owned and controlled body for ensuring farmers’ livelihoods were protected through price control. Much was made of the stockpile and debt of the Wool Board, but quota constraints, temporary lifting of the floor price, scheduled selloffs, and de-stocking programs that had begun to work were simply abandoned in favour of privatisation. Privatisation benefited shareholders, not farmers. International wool trading groups, European processors, and Asian textile mills were the beneficiaries.

The real solution, as basic economics demonstrates, was diversification. Farmers were too reliant on wool, and little or no incentive was offered for alternatives such as a meat/wool mix or diversified grazing solutions. The risks inherent in single-commodity farming are obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in agriculture. But Anderson and company were driven by the neo-liberal ideology that claims the market will take care of everything. It certainly did. Once a quarter of our agricultural production (by value), wool has now slumped to about 4%. That is the inevitable path of privatisation—the demolition of an industry.

Anderson is joined in his think tank by “researchers,” which here appears to be a euphemism for “people who write things we agree with.” Take Martin Svikis. It seems that “a career in logistics” now qualifies someone to be an expert in energy policy, agriculture, education, and taxation. Except it doesn’t. Exactly how he qualifies to lead “research” into these issues is unclear. Perhaps, as a “screenwriter” and party operative, Gerard Holland is better suited. Or Christine Ferguson, who has “a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Politics from the University of New England, Armidale, and a General Nursing Certificate (Alfred Hospital Melbourne) and Midwifery Certificate (Simpsons Maternity Pavilion Edinburgh).” Evidently this background is considered sufficient to produce informed insight on coal mining and energy policy.

Fortunately, Page Research does have a PhD on board, highly qualified and experienced in animal nutrition and management. A pity she doesn’t appear to have a voice. A search through Page’s publications finds her absent. It seems that if someone has real expertise and is a woman; best not let her near the pen.

But no matter. Page’s publications are, of course, of great intellectual weight. Take The Australia–Indonesia Agricultural Relationship, which lists no authors and contains seven footnotes. Heavy-duty material. It states: “This note reviews the various dimensions of the agricultural relationship and offers some thoughts on where it might be heading. The views expressed are mine and do not pretend to represent official opinion in either Australia or Indonesia.” Or Kristian Jenkins’ remarkable opinion piece, no references, repeating ignorance about Gramsci, conspiracy rhetoric about “cultural Marxism,” straw-man caricatures of schools and universities, unsupported claims about educational performance data, ideological assertions that “time-honoured religious traditions” are inherently neutral and desirable, and a false dichotomy between core skills and critical social understanding, rounded out with vague rhetorical attacks on “the Left.”

Heavy research indeed. Deep scholarship. No, just National Party policy dressed up to look substantial. You know: pigs, and lipstick.