Imposing their own prejudices

Why I never accept biased political analysis from academia

Why do I feel an occasional urge to attack prominent Australian academics who continue to offer biased analysis through a tendency to bag the Coalition, praise Labor, and downplay the complexity of policy issues in their attempt to please like-minded readers?

After all, biased commentary has created ample opportunities for me to get published in Quadrant (2006-08), On Line Opinion and major Australian academic journals by opposing the many simplistic attacks on the Howard government.

Well I argue that such bias, including the opportunities it has created for me, is hardly in the national interest because it dumbs down political debate.

While I have been fortunate to get work at the Australian National University and Australian Catholic University after leaving my work as a labourer in 2008, and have worked with a number of competent professors, I cannot forget some of the obstacles I have faced from so-called social democrats.

In Melbourne, during the 1990s, albeit after a bit of niggling from myself given I never accepted stupid terms like social democracy, I was once asked by an overrated academic (now a professor) why I wanted to do a PhD, and was it a wog thing (obviously referring to my southern European background). At another Melbourne university, at a job interview, I was virtually forced to indicate Left-wing political leaning.

Given my experience, and the knowledge I obtained from studying a variety of perspectives (including by scholars frowned upon by my university lecturers), I remain amused at biased academic political commentary.

Take Professor Robert Manne, of Latrobe University, who continues to favour Labor and allows his obvious bias to get in the way of reasoned argument. On January 24, 2012, Manne statesthat only Rudd's leadership of Labor could forestall "the arrival of a regime of unthinking and unscrupulous populist conservatism under the prime ministership of Tony Abbott".

During September 2011, Manne, again describing Labor as "the progressive side of politics", calledfor a number of reforms that would reignite Labor's legacy in line with past Labor efforts which established universal health care (Medibank and Medicare), addressed the dispossession of the Indigenous people, and promoted multiculturalism.

Amongst his ideas, Manne suggested that Labor "increase the price of carbon substantially during the coming decades"; "foster investments in renewable energy"; fully implement "the national broadband network"; introduce a disability insurance along the lines suggested by the Productivity Commission and a dental treatment for those on low incomes; review the federal intervention into Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory; increase the asylum seeker intake to 20,000 and end mandatory detention; defend the ideals of multiculturalism against hostility to Muslim citizens; reduce "upper-middle-class" welfare, like subsidies on the medical insurance for the wealthy and state expenditure on the elite private schools'; and break-up of the Murdoch stranglehold on newspapers.

Now I have much sympathy with many of Manne's policy positions. Like many Australian academics, I am also interested in a better world, particularly to help those most in need. I have always supported all Australians having access to decent public education and health services.

But does such biased commentary, as demonstrated by Manne, really adequately represent the Australian experience in real terms? Is it any better than a biased newspaper industry?

Does Manne really have to insult the Australian electorate by challenging Labor not to "scramble to win back some of the "centre ground" of politics by imitating the populist conservative attitudes and policies of the Howard era?

In truth, most policy outcomes are shaped by the ongoing interaction that takes place between political and policy leadership, interest groups and public opinion. In other words, the resulting policy mix often depends very much on the quality of its players to make their arguments and influence the public through various mediums, including newspapers, radio, television and, more recently, the Internet.

We saw the result of this complex interaction via the implementation of the GST when the Howard government was forced to exempt food and other services through a compromise with the Australian Democrats. Further, the Coalition had no choice but to back down prior to the 2007 federal election in regards to its controversial industrial relations reforms, although polls at the time suggest its fate was already sealed.

To now, and notwithstanding that Australia too has major policy difficulties, despite its fortune of having vast mineral and energy wealth in the ground, the general evidence indicates that Australia remains a relatively progressive society under both Labor and Coalition governments. Even under Howard, Australia took a high level of immigrants from all areas of the world, including an increasing share from Asia. Australia still spent a significant proportion of its GDP on public social welfare assistance, reaching 17.3 per cent of GDP in 2000. And environment spending increased from 1996, reaching a record $4.3 billion for the 2007-08 financial year.

There is also significant information out there that indicates that Tony Abbott has a passionate interest in the environment, multiculturalism and social welfare issues. Abbott, and other Coalition members, have also been influenced by positive social developments in recent decades.

As I have argued before, Australia remains light years away from a US-style society with a policy mix that has failed to remove unnecessary social cleavages. While I too have some concerns about recent policy trends, my recent move to Albury-Wodonga has demonstrated little difference from Canberra in terms of the services and facilities available to my family. As an Australian, I am proud of this.

But Australia has never been immune from the competitive economic pressures caused by an increasingly competitive and inter-dependent international economy. Therefore, many Australian voters, perhaps more aligned to the Coalition, may view a progressive government as one that makes greater effort to spend public outlays in line with its means rather than simply acquire more and more debt. While Australia was relatively unscathed by the global financial crisis given stimulus measures by the Rudd Labor Government, it was the Howard government which largely reduced Australia's net public debt from 26.3 per cent in 1995 to a surplus of 7.2 per cent in 2007.

Many voters also view a progressive government as one that can manage important and expensive public programs. Thus, many voters, including myself, were angered by the waste that resulted from the Home Insulation Program (HIP) and the Building the Education Program. I even wrote an article attacking the HIP, published in the journal Public Policy, although one academic previously told me to send my proposal to Quadrant on the basis it was polemic rubbish.

Many may also be put off by the havoc caused by an abrupt end to programs such as the poorly designed HIP scheme, and more recently the premature end of solar hot water system rebate scheme, which can leave companies struggling after investing in stock, parts and production.

Many may be put off by the poor standard of recent Labor government, as demonstrated by numerous scandals associated with NSW Labor government ministers, which suggest that corruption and self-interest can and does infiltrate all sides of politics. I also once worked for a Labor politician who went to jail for corruption, despite writing many books on social justice.

Others may view a progressive government as one that encourages individual responsibility, although Labor governments too have accepted such a rationale in recent decades. Contrary to Manne's past views, mutual obligation for social security recipients is unanimously supported by the Australian public because most believe that we cannot afford to give people a free ride, although most would support some assistance being provided. I probably would not have become a university researcher without this carrot-and-stick approach given my many previous years lacking purpose.

While policy solutions are difficult, and outcomes can be harsh to some players, government often must act on policy issues, even in the face of moral certainty. Take asylum seekers. At a time when many Australians perceive themselves to be struggling, many do not want refugees rocking up on our shores. Hence, it would take a game government to defy such sentiment, although arguments for a higher humanitarian intake within Australia's immigration program does have merit.

Truth is that one's view of progressive policies is not irrefutable. While I too would like to see global greenhouse gas emissions reduced, I strongly disagree that a carbon tax will make any substantive difference given Australia's growing reliance on mineral and fuel exports.

As Dr Gideon Polya points out, Australia's 2009 domestic greenhouse gas pollution (including land use) was 600 million tonnes in terms of CO2 equivalent, yet the level increases to 1,415 million tonnes when the full impact of fossil fuel exports was included.

In the end, what is and what is not progressive is subjective and cannot be determined by commentary more in tune with partisan politics. With Labor currently on the nose, and the Coalition likely to win government at the next federal election, political analysis can be a whole lot better when scholars stick to the facts as much as possible.

My view, even after nearly 20 years of political study, is that public opinion remains the ultimate player to support good ideas from each and to counter their silly excesses, at least until this day in Australia. I, for one, do not fear a Coalition victory.