- by William Briggs
- The Guardian
- Issue #2122
‘Think tanks.’ Why have we got them? What are they for? They’re supposed to be groups that work on research and ideas. Precious few serve any progressive purpose but, most exist to support the work of the ruling class. Some do genuine research, some are just lobby groups trying to look dignified. Some are funded or partly funded by government, some by business groups, some by the arms industry, some by political parties. Most describe themselves as ‘independent’ but none of them are.
So, which of these think tanks are the worst and which have the most clout?
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). This is very much the ‘gold standard’ of right-wing research units. It claims to “produce high quality analysis and in-depth research reports.” Its purpose is to give ‘advice’ to government, primarily on military and ‘strategic’ issues. It receives funding from government, the Department of Defence and the arms industry. The government and arms industry fund ASPI to advise it on security matters. It almost invariably gets the advice it wants; more defence spending. ASPI is vigorously anti-China, pro-war, and very successful in its work. Media outlets like the ABC treat it as an objective source of information.
The Lowy Institute. Repeatedly labelled reactionary, right of centre and conservative, Lowy is funded by government, and the departments of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Home Affairs as well as getting money from Rio Tinto, Rothschild, BHP, and others. Among other things it conducts annual ‘polls’ on international relations issues which tend to show an increased public distrust of China. Some of its leading analysts produce papers that are used by the media and read widely by government to promote an anti-China sentiment, thereby making its polling eternally ‘accurate.’
Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). Founded by Rupert Murdoch’s father, the IPA slogan is “the voice of freedom.” Freedom for whom? The IPA’s chair is the virulently right-wing columnist and journalist Janet Albrechtsen. Gina Rinehart was recently made a life member. Need we say more? Areas of interest are climate change denial, attacks on workers, support for Israel and the tobaco industry. All this is dressed up with right-libertarianism, and pseudo-academic titles, like ‘adjunct fellow.’ Many of the more vicious editorials in The Australian newspaper and in its op-ed columns are effectively IPA press releases.
Centre for Independent Studies (CIS). CIS portrays itself as an advocate of “classical liberalism.” It works closely with the IPA and with a range of similar groups around the world. It put a lot of energy into the ‘No’ case in the Voice referendum, and heavily promoted ‘Advance.’ Advance is the outfit that sought to counteract the progressive Get Up electoral agitational group and raised a lot of money to do just that. Warren Mundine remains a leading figure, while its main ideological voice is Tom Switzer, the conservative writer, journalist, broadcaster and failed Liberal candidate.
The Australia Institute. This is as near to progressive a think tank that you will find in Australia. Its funding is not from the usual vested interests and is not linked to any special political formations. It works on climate, tax reform, and economic issues. Like the rest it claims to be independent. Unlike the rest it is criticised for being ‘left-leaning’ and ‘progressive.’
There are many more; United States Studies Centre, the Liberal Party leaning Menzies Research Centre, the ALP-run Chifley Research Centre, the Grattan Institute, and the formerly socialist Fabian Society (derived from the British Fabians, who have been called the first think tank). All have a degree of bias, all claim ‘independence.’ All have influence, few, with the possible exception of the Australia Institute, promote the best interests of Australia, peace or progress.
