What do you think?
Rate this book
Political Troglodytes and Economic Lunatics: The Hard Right in Australia
Political history at its best. This is the story of the hard right in Australia - of how Ray Evans and his boss at Western Mining Corporation, Hugh Morgan, became the pioneers of a new form of right-wing activism whose forceful reshaping of public debates transformed Australian politics. With a calm gaze, forensic detail and a dry wit, Dominic Kelly shows how they did it. Starting in the mid-1980s, Evans set up four small but potent organisations: the H.R. Nicholls Society (industrial relations), the Samuel Griffith Society (constitutional issues), the Lavoisier Group (climate change) and the Bennelong Society (Indigenous affairs). Their aim was to transform public debate on key issues. Morgan and Evans had an energy that bordered on fanaticism. They lobbied politicians and wrote op-eds. They were born intriguers and colourful rhetoricians, with a wide influence that famously included treasurer-to-be Peter Costello. It was Bob Hawke who called the H.R. Nicholls Society 'political troglodytes and economic lunatics'; yet in their dogged pursuit of influence, the hard right made an impact. From successive backdowns on emissions targets to the rejection of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the efforts of hard right conservatives continues to be felt today - not only on the right but across mainstream public policy. Political Troglodytes and Economic Lunatics is a compelling case study in how some very determined people can change a political culture.
384 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 5, 2019
12 people are currently reading
122 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 18, 2019
As books by left-wingers about right-wingers go, Dominic Kelly’s Political Troglodytes and Economic Lunatics is better than usual. It is not up there with the best intellectual and political history, which puts deep understanding of what its protagonists believe and why ahead of critique, but nor is it close to being down there with the worst, which put condemnation above explanation. The insults in the book’s title might suggest that that it falls into the latter category, but they are not the author’s own words, coming instead from an irresistibly colourful Bob Hawke quote.
The author’s words are based on his PhD thesis. The documentary evidence Kelly collected for his thesis, along with interviews, give the book a much firmer historical basis than most other books on right-wing politics in Australia (he interviewed me in 2012; I am briefly mentioned a few times).
After an introductory chapter on ideas and institutions on the Australian political right, most of the book is about four advocacy groups and three men who were key players in those groups.
The groups are the HR Nicholls Society, which supports a market approach to industrial relations; the Samuel Griffith Society, which takes a conservative and pro-federalist approach to the Constitution; the Lavoisier Group, which is sceptical of climate change and policies to reduce carbon emissions, and the Bennelong Society, which generally opposed Indigenous self-determination policies.
The three men are the late Ray Evans, former Western Mining CEO Hugh Morgan, and former Treasury Secretary and Senator John Stone. In Kelly’s account, Evans in his enthusiasm, energy and talent for attracting attention to his causes is the most important figure in single-issue right-wing advocacy groups in late 20th and early 21st century Australia. Without downplaying the important roles of other people, on the evidence in the book and from my observation I think that is a reasonable judgment.
Apart from the involvement of these men, what do the four groups have in common? Kelly describes them as representing ‘reactionary conservatism’, because he thinks they were largely defined by what they opposed. I was not persuaded that this works as a collective characterisation.
The HR Nicholls Society, of which I was once a member, promoted a positive agenda for more pro-market industrial relations policies. Unlike the other societies, its agenda clearly differed significantly not just from the right’s traditional opponents in the union movement, but from other right-wingers on the employer side of the long-standing tension between business and unions. Kelly quotes the criticisms employer groups made of the HR Nicholls Society in its early years. While many HR Nicholls members had conservative views on other topics, using the textbook ideologies many of the Society’s core policy positions were more liberal than conservative.
The Samuel Griffith Society is the most conservative of the groups in the dictionary sense of small-c conservative, of generally being cautious about Constitutional change and wary of expanding Commonwealth power but also, so far as I can recall from occasional event attendance and reading of its conference proceedings, producing few radical calls for constitutional reform to unwind the centralisation of political power in Australia.
Of the four groups, Samuel Griffith is closest to mainstream debate in contemporary Australia. Its conferences have been addressed by leading experts in their fields, including people who are not otherwise regarded as being on the political right.
I lack first-hand knowledge of the Bennelong Society or the Lavoisier Group, but they seem to most easily fit Kelly’s characterisation of pushing back against the ideological and political trends in their areas of interest. Their major argument was to stop and go back, rather than to maintain something like the status quo, as Samuel Griffith generally did, or something else entirely different, as HR Nicholls proposed.
Pejorative + ideology labels like ‘reactionary conservative’ are not very useful in understanding the four groups. On Kelly’s evidence, what they had in common was less a fixed relationship to the status quo or a consistent ideological inspiration than overlapping personnel and similar organisational tactics. They were all run cheaply, using volunteer labour to run conferences, place op-eds in newspapers, and lobby politicians.
Did these groups get a high return on their modest political investment? Although Ray Evans was rarely happy with the compromises of politics, arguably HR Nicholls contributed to some employer and legislative victories over unions. Constitutional ideas like becoming a republic, Indigenous recognition or creating a bill of rights have been stalled, although there was always going to be conservative resistance on these topics whether the Samuel Griffith or Bennelong societies had ever existed or not. People from Lavoisier probably contributed to Liberal Party chaos on climate change policy. It’s rarely possible to draw direct lines between the ideas of activists and policy, but the three men and their four groups had some impact from the 1980s to the early 2010s.
In Kelly’s introduction, he reports on several events of the last couple of years meant to demonstrate the lasting influence of his subjects. Ideas and policies can survive long after their most passionate advocates have departed the political scene. But at this point Kelly’s work is largely a history rather than a guide to the right-of-centre activism to come. The book points to reasons for thinking that the era it describes is over.
Several key figures from the four groups have already died, and others are now elderly, without an obvious successor generation of the same calibre or commitment. The Bennelong Society no longer has its own website, with its papers imperfectly archived on Quadrant’s website. At the time of writing this review, the Samuel Griffith Society website was ‘down for repairs’. The Lavoisier Group website seem not to have been updated since early 2017. The HR Nicholls website does not report any events since late 2017.
Perhaps the websites are just out of date and other things are happening, but I would take the lack of recent material as a symptom of significantly diminished activity. It highlights the vulnerability of small voluntary organisations that rely heavily on the time and energy of their founders.
Kelly’s book is the third Australian left-wing book on right-wing politics I have bought this year, and the only one I thought was worth a cover-to-cover read. His PhD must have been unusually well written or substantially reworked since, as it is easy to read. His book would be a worthwhile addition to the libraries of people interested in Australia’s intellectual and political history.
(Due to the Uberisation of ratings on this site I have given it four stars, but otherwise I’d give it 7/10 for its historical research and clear writing.)
The author’s words are based on his PhD thesis. The documentary evidence Kelly collected for his thesis, along with interviews, give the book a much firmer historical basis than most other books on right-wing politics in Australia (he interviewed me in 2012; I am briefly mentioned a few times).
After an introductory chapter on ideas and institutions on the Australian political right, most of the book is about four advocacy groups and three men who were key players in those groups.
The groups are the HR Nicholls Society, which supports a market approach to industrial relations; the Samuel Griffith Society, which takes a conservative and pro-federalist approach to the Constitution; the Lavoisier Group, which is sceptical of climate change and policies to reduce carbon emissions, and the Bennelong Society, which generally opposed Indigenous self-determination policies.
The three men are the late Ray Evans, former Western Mining CEO Hugh Morgan, and former Treasury Secretary and Senator John Stone. In Kelly’s account, Evans in his enthusiasm, energy and talent for attracting attention to his causes is the most important figure in single-issue right-wing advocacy groups in late 20th and early 21st century Australia. Without downplaying the important roles of other people, on the evidence in the book and from my observation I think that is a reasonable judgment.
Apart from the involvement of these men, what do the four groups have in common? Kelly describes them as representing ‘reactionary conservatism’, because he thinks they were largely defined by what they opposed. I was not persuaded that this works as a collective characterisation.
The HR Nicholls Society, of which I was once a member, promoted a positive agenda for more pro-market industrial relations policies. Unlike the other societies, its agenda clearly differed significantly not just from the right’s traditional opponents in the union movement, but from other right-wingers on the employer side of the long-standing tension between business and unions. Kelly quotes the criticisms employer groups made of the HR Nicholls Society in its early years. While many HR Nicholls members had conservative views on other topics, using the textbook ideologies many of the Society’s core policy positions were more liberal than conservative.
The Samuel Griffith Society is the most conservative of the groups in the dictionary sense of small-c conservative, of generally being cautious about Constitutional change and wary of expanding Commonwealth power but also, so far as I can recall from occasional event attendance and reading of its conference proceedings, producing few radical calls for constitutional reform to unwind the centralisation of political power in Australia.
Of the four groups, Samuel Griffith is closest to mainstream debate in contemporary Australia. Its conferences have been addressed by leading experts in their fields, including people who are not otherwise regarded as being on the political right.
I lack first-hand knowledge of the Bennelong Society or the Lavoisier Group, but they seem to most easily fit Kelly’s characterisation of pushing back against the ideological and political trends in their areas of interest. Their major argument was to stop and go back, rather than to maintain something like the status quo, as Samuel Griffith generally did, or something else entirely different, as HR Nicholls proposed.
Pejorative + ideology labels like ‘reactionary conservative’ are not very useful in understanding the four groups. On Kelly’s evidence, what they had in common was less a fixed relationship to the status quo or a consistent ideological inspiration than overlapping personnel and similar organisational tactics. They were all run cheaply, using volunteer labour to run conferences, place op-eds in newspapers, and lobby politicians.
Did these groups get a high return on their modest political investment? Although Ray Evans was rarely happy with the compromises of politics, arguably HR Nicholls contributed to some employer and legislative victories over unions. Constitutional ideas like becoming a republic, Indigenous recognition or creating a bill of rights have been stalled, although there was always going to be conservative resistance on these topics whether the Samuel Griffith or Bennelong societies had ever existed or not. People from Lavoisier probably contributed to Liberal Party chaos on climate change policy. It’s rarely possible to draw direct lines between the ideas of activists and policy, but the three men and their four groups had some impact from the 1980s to the early 2010s.
In Kelly’s introduction, he reports on several events of the last couple of years meant to demonstrate the lasting influence of his subjects. Ideas and policies can survive long after their most passionate advocates have departed the political scene. But at this point Kelly’s work is largely a history rather than a guide to the right-of-centre activism to come. The book points to reasons for thinking that the era it describes is over.
Several key figures from the four groups have already died, and others are now elderly, without an obvious successor generation of the same calibre or commitment. The Bennelong Society no longer has its own website, with its papers imperfectly archived on Quadrant’s website. At the time of writing this review, the Samuel Griffith Society website was ‘down for repairs’. The Lavoisier Group website seem not to have been updated since early 2017. The HR Nicholls website does not report any events since late 2017.
Perhaps the websites are just out of date and other things are happening, but I would take the lack of recent material as a symptom of significantly diminished activity. It highlights the vulnerability of small voluntary organisations that rely heavily on the time and energy of their founders.
Kelly’s book is the third Australian left-wing book on right-wing politics I have bought this year, and the only one I thought was worth a cover-to-cover read. His PhD must have been unusually well written or substantially reworked since, as it is easy to read. His book would be a worthwhile addition to the libraries of people interested in Australia’s intellectual and political history.
(Due to the Uberisation of ratings on this site I have given it four stars, but otherwise I’d give it 7/10 for its historical research and clear writing.)
July 17, 2020
As I read this, I was convinced it was someone's PhD thesis. Lo and behold: it is. This book is dry, and repetitive in structure. It is also surprisingly neutral, which is rather impressive given some of the people and issues involved. I can easily imagine the PhD was called 'A Chronicle of Four Single-Issue Political Organizations That Have Been Important For Australian Politics Recently,' and the publisher suggested a more inflammatory title. That said, this is important work for understanding how right wing opinions, which aren't really native to Australian politics, have become so influential. Congratulations to the Liberal party for riding that horse all the way to the line, it's an impressive feat. Depressing, but impressive.
January 2, 2023
Great book, but only for Australian political junkies. Kelly outlines how mining interests led by Hugh Morgan and Ray Evans influenced Australian political debate in 4 areas: industrial relations, constitutional reform, Indigenous affairs and climate change. Clearly the impact has been greatest in changing policies to lessen climate change on the political right. If you want to know how the public debate on these policies got to where it is today, this is a valuable read.
August 8, 2021
The structure was a bit repetitive but it was a deeply sobering read, and illuminating in showing the connections between conservative single-issue interest groups and how a small subset of reactionary conservatives with particular business interests pushed fringe views into the mainstream of Australian politics.
January 31, 2021
An informed and, considering the content, very reasoned exploration of the formation and actions of the four single-issue advocacy groups which Kelly credits with shifting the general Australian political discourse to the right since the 1980's.
March 13, 2020
An important history. Another reminder of how democracy and public policy are disproportionately influenced by old, white, wealthy, conservative men. A sobering tale. A dry read.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews