National Interest

Are think tanks just another way to buy space in the media? Are we well served by these contributors to public policy debate in Australia, or are they simply powerful vested interests wearing a light veneer of independence and confusingly similar names? We talk to two established players and one man who has been instrumental in setting up a new think tank.

Transcript

This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

Peter Mares: Last week in The National Interest, Telstra's Phil Burgess argued that Australian democracy would be well served by more robust debate. He says government is disproportionately influential in Australia and he'd like business leaders to be more outspoken, like he is.

Mr Burgess also thinks more think tanks would be good, but not if they're funded by government.

Phil Burgess: Look, we had some people come in to Telstra the other day and they want to start a new think tank in this country. And I think that's a good thing; I think the more public policy research organisations there are the better. But half-way into the conversation I find out that half of the board members are government and they already have $24-million from the government. So how can you have an independent think-tank when your board is punctuated with government officials and you've got a large amount of government money?

Peter Mares: Now Phil Burgess wouldn't name names, but we suspect he might have been talking about the new think-tank planned for Melbourne: the Australian Institute of Public Policy, described as a kind of Brookings Institution on the Yarra, only it will actually be in Carlton, at Melbourne University. And this institute has received generous support from both the Victorian and Federal governments.

On the phone is Allan Myers, QC, a key mover and shaker behind the new Melbourne think-tank. Allan Myers, welcome to The National Interest.

Allan Myers: Hello, Peter.

Peter Mares: and also joining me to discuss the think-tank phenomenon, is in the right corner, John Roskam, from the Institute of Public Affairs, and in the left corner, Susan Harris Rimmer from the Australia Institute. Welcome, John.

John Roskam: Hello Peter.

Peter Mares: And welcome Susan.

Susan Harris Rimmer: Hello, Peter.

Peter Mares: Now Allan Myers, does she who pays the piper call the tune? Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard had some kind words to say at the announcement of your new think-tank.

Allan Myers: What the government has done is to provide a permanent endowment fund. Government will have no control over how the funds are used. Once the cheque's written and we have the money, then we decide how it is to be spent. And Phil Burgess' remarks, if he was referring to the new institute in Melbourne, are wide of the mark, because the board hasn't been selected and it's certainly not going to be populated by government representatives. And the money that's provided by government is absolutely without any strings attached and it's simply a contribution to a permanent endowment.

Peter Mares: Will there be any government representatives on the board?

Allan Myers: It's not decided yet who the board will be, but there certainly won't be government representatives and we certainly wouldn't have on the board, serving politicians.

Allan Myers: The esteemed Brookings Institution in the US has been set up as a kind of model for this new institute, the AIPP, the Australian Institute of Public Policy, which I'm avoiding calling AIPP, using its acronym! What is it about the Brookings Institution that you admire?

Allan Myers: I'll come to that in a second, but the name that you use is not the chosen name for the institute, it's a generic description of what it will do. Somehow or another that description has become in some of the reports, it's name. The Brookings Institution, well it's been going for 90 years, I think it's regarded as being the model of a good independent fact-based research body that contributes to ideas in important social fields in the United States, and it's certainly a good model for us.

Peter Mares: John Roskam are you happy to see another think-tank on the block in Melbourne?

John Roskam: Oh look Peter, I think the more think-tanks the better. I think Phil Burgess is right, we should have more active debate in Australia. It shouldn't be dominated by government. And I certainly think that the new institute can make a good contribution, but I think it would be wrong to claim or believe that think-tanks are not based on evidence, are not based on facts. I mean the challenge for any new think-tank is to identify the ideology that it brings to the research questions, and I think certainly every research question, every research program has a point of view, whether it's progressive, or liberal or conservative or something else, and I think the concept of an independent think-tank is really problematic, and I'm not sure whether you can have an independent think-tank. The Brookings Institution does tremendous work but in most regards it's believed to be left-liberal, and on the other side in America you have Heritage or Cato or American Enterprise Institute, and they certainly come right of centre. So whether you can actually have an independent think tank I think is a really problematic question.

Peter Mares: Susan Harris Rimmer, do you regard the Australia Institute as an independent think-tank?

Susan Harris Rimmer: We certainly are, very, very independent. We're very excited by the announcement.

Peter Mares: Let me just pick you up on the word 'independent' though, because John Roskam is saying that everyone comes from a point of view. They have a philosophical standpoint if you like, and his institute calls itself a leading free market institute. I mean what's the philosophical standpoint for The Australia Institute?

Susan Harris Rimmer: We are determinedly and very publicly a progressive think-tank, and we've been around for a long time.

Peter Mares: Is that another word for 'left-wing'?

Susan Harris Rimmer: Yes, I suppose so. It's a word for creative, independent, forward-thinking, future-oriented, progressive, yes. It covers a wide range. I mean politics has changed so much in the last 20 years, some of the old tags don't necessarily mean what they used to, but I'm very happy to be called 'left-wing'.

Peter Mares: OK, fair enough, but where does the money come from?

Susan Harris Rimmer: We are the very happy beneficiaries of philanthropic funding from the Poola Foundation, and one of the things I think is good about this new Melbourne thing is that it is being funded by philanthropic funding by people like Allan Myers, the Lowy Institute as well, by Frank Lowy; philanthropic funding of think-tanks is probably what is different to the US and the UK. It might have been what Phil Burgess was reacting to, I think. And I think more philanthropic funding for the ideas sector should be really welcome and congratulated.

Peter Mares: Allan Myers if I can come back to you to get your response to John Roskam's point that every think-tank does have a kind of philosophical bent, and he makes the point the Brookings Institution in the US is seen as on the liberal side of politics there.

Allan Myers: Well certainly we'd be setting out to have no particular ideological commitment, or no commitment to any particular ideological position, and certainly no affiliations with any particular interest group or political party. That's what I mean by independent. Of course we all have our own experience and our own opinions, but that's not to say that the body will have these affiliations or associations. In fact, we won't. And we'll be aiming to do independent, fact-based research, and disseminate the results of that.

Peter Mares: And why is the new think-tank like that necessary? I mean we've got John Roskam's IPA, we've got the Australia Institute, we've got the Lowy Institute, we've got a bunch of others. We've also got universities with centres for public policy. I'm associated with one myself, at Swinburne, I should declare, and we've got the Public Service, which is also meant to generate policy ideas for government. Why do we need another one?

Allan Myers: Well you used the word 'necessary'. It's a pretty tough word, isn't it? I guess food and drink is necessary and it may be said that think-tanks aren't. But I believe it's important that there should be a well-endowed institute of the kind that we're establishing to contribute to public debate in Australia. I believe whether one says it's necessary or not, it will certainly contribute in an important way to that public debate, and therefore it's good for the society. It's certainly good to have a strong independent basis for contribution to public debate outside government, and I do agree with Phil Burgess about what he says on that more general subject.

Peter Mares: Susan Harris Rimmer, you made the point you welcome a new think-tank in Melbourne, but sometimes I wonder whether this contending of opinions is actually adding to public debate, or just raising the noise level?

Susan Harris Rimmer: Well I suppose it depends on what sort of debate it is. I mean it sounds like what they envisage for this new think-tank will mean lots more evidence-based research, but want will be different I suppose, your question Peter, What is different about a think-tank is that they're very future-oriented and they can be agile and sort of stand apart from the actual carrying out of the work in a way that not even academics or public servants can be. So I suppose that's part of the attraction of the think-tank.

Peter Mares: Do you agree, John Roskam, agility, is that the benefit of a think-tank?

John Roskam: Oh, if you're doing a good job Peter at a think-tank, agility should be part of it, but it's a question of the more diversity, the more argument the better. But one of the issues in Australia is so much of that argument is predicated on government funding, or government favours or asking government to do something, or not do something. And really what we want to be encouraging is a strong civil society that argues out all of these different questions, so I think it's not a question of think-tanks crowding out debate. I'm firmly of the view that supply creates its own demand. I mean in the segment before you were talking about the Per Capita report on the jobs program; that's an important report, Per Capita is a new, progressive think-tank, so it's quite different from the IPA, but I think it's already added a lot to Australia, so it's a question about generating lots of debate and the challenge for the new think-tank here in Melbourne will be can it be independent enough, and the other thing about agility is you also have to take risks. Sometimes to be blunt, you need to piss off people. And that's going to be a challenge if you've got a big endowment from government.

Peter Mares: Allan Myers, are you confident that your research centre will be willing to piss off the odd politician?

Allan Myers: Well that's not exactly the words I would use, but -

Peter Mares: I'm sure it isn't.

Allan Myers: I'm confident that we're not going to be unduly influenced by any political position, and it's really important to understand that the funds that are being provided by government are absolutely without strings; they're an endowment, and once they're in the bank account of the new institute, they belong to the new institute and are subject to the constitution of that institute, and there's no possibility of government influence by reason of making that endowment. And just taking up what you said before Peter, I certainly hope that we don't just add to the noise level. What we're intending to do is to contribute to debate, the sort of debate that should go on in a pluralistic society or liberal democracy.

Peter Mares: And will that government endowment be the only source of funds, or will there be other sources of funds as well?

Allan Myers: Certainly other sources of funds, philanthropic funds, as Susan was mentioning, the University of Melbourne is contributing $10-million in kind; and we have been talking to business leaders and some of them I believe will be generous to support this endowment.

Peter Mares: So there could be corporate donations as well?

Allan Myers: Certainly.

Peter Mares: Because John Roskam whenever we have you on the program I have to say, we have listeners who write in and say your views on global warming, for example, are the views of the coal lobby, your views on -

John Roskam: Uranium mining are the views of uranium miners, we've had views on transport or water, and certainly for any think-tank, I mean let's put things into perspective, I mean we're talking about the new institute here in Melbourne that's got $30-million or $40-million. The IPA annual budget is less than $2-million, and I think we make a major contribution for that. But certainly you raise a key point Peter, which is you always have to be balancing out interests, you have to be aware of conflicts of interest, and certainly whether you're right-wing or left-wing or progressive or a free market think-tank, you have to make sure that your research is not compromised by your supporters. And we always say to our supporters, You are supporting us because we are free market, and you know that we will come from a free market position. But you don't determine what we say, how we say it, and we take total responsibility. And certainly in Australia with a relatively under-developed think-tank market, regardless of your political position, you have to be aware that you want to keep your supporters but also maintain your integrity, because ultimately integrity is the only thing you can communicate to the public, and that's the basis of the quality of your research.

Peter Mares: Susan Harris Rimmer, what's the annual budget for the Australia Institute?

Susan Harris Rimmer: Considerably less than $2-million. However I think that that's one of the points I would make. The money won't guarantee good ideas for this Melbourne think-tank, but security and the guarantee of independence probably will. But yes, I think small ideas or timely ideas can have an enormous impact and even with five staff over 14 years, we've been able to lead the debate on climate change, introduce the word 'affluenza' to the Australian vernacular, really make a solid contribution I suppose, to the quality of Australian debate.

Peter Mares: And how do you determine which issues you take up?

Susan Harris Rimmer: Well that's the fun part, isn't it? That's where the creativity comes in, and that's what really ultimately this Melbourne think-tank will be judged on as well. Can you judge the zeitgeist, can you come up with the idea that Australians will really relate to? Can you come up with the idea that the government will take and make into reality? I mean every day is 2020 summit day when you work in a think-tank. It's enormously stimulating and fun but it is a huge responsibility.

John Roskam: Hopefully there's a bit more diversity than the 2020 summit.

Peter Mares: I take it you weren't invited?

John Roskam: No, for whatever reason Peter. Strange that.

Peter Mares: Allan Myers, did you go to the 2020 summit?

Allan Myers: No, I didn't.

Peter Mares: And Susan Harris Rimmer?

Susan Harris Rimmer: I did, but I was with Gerard Henderson, if that makes you feel better John.

John Roskam: Yes, that's right. There were four conservatives and 996 other sorts.

Peter Mares: Well we'll leave the debate about the 2020 summit for another time. But Allan Myers, I suppose I'm wondering why a think-tank when we have universities. I don't think this point's really been addressed. Melbourne University has itself already a centre for public policy. Now I'm sure that centre would have been more than happy to take another $10-million in funding; why the need for another separate think-tank?

Allan Myers: But a university is primarily a research and teaching institution. It's not primarily concerned with the dissemination of ideas, and that's what we'll be attempting to do.

Peter Mares: So does success mean getting your ideas out in the media?

Allan Myers: Certainly.

Peter Mares: Because I mean there is I suppose a kind of suspicion that think-tanks are another way of buying media time, that you get good quality editorial time rather than having to pay for advertising.

Allan Myers: Well we want to influence the public debate on important issues in this country.

Peter Mares: John Roskam, do you measure impact by how many media hits you get?

John Roskam: Absolutely we do, Peter. And we measure impact every time I'm lucky enough to appear ion this program, but it's an interesting question about disseminating ideas, we certainly do our very best to do that, but then you're engaging in the political process as well, and ultimately there might be one party that might accept your ideas, and another party that might not accept your ideas. And so this is another challenge for any independent think-tank with government funding: How do you avoid becoming political? What happens if one party adopts your policy, and the other party says No, we don't. If your aim is then to disseminate the policy, as you should, as a good think-tank does, then inevitably you will be influencing the political process in favour of one party or another party. That is certainly a challenge, and in the United States that's the challenge of Brookings. And so again, most people say Brookings more often influences the debate in favour of the Democratic party than the Republican party, and certainly from the claim about the IPA is that we more often favour the Liberal party, well yes we do, because sometimes the Liberal party will adopt free market ideas, sadly doesn't adopt free market ideas often enough, but this is a challenge.

Peter Mares: Allan Myers, a brief response from you?

Allan Myers: Well I agree with most of what John says, but there's a difference between consciously associating yourself with a particular ideological position, or a particular interest group or a particular political party, and consciously attempting to be independent, and we will attempt to be independent. That is, not associated with any particular group of that kind, and we're proposing to undertake evidence-based research.

Peter Mares: Allan Myers, thank you we have to leave it there, I'm sorry we're coming up to the News. Allan Myers, thank you very much for your time.

Allan Myers: It's a pleasure.

Peter Mares: And thanks to you John Roskam and to Susan Harris Rimmer.

John Roskam: Thank you, Peter.

Susan Harris Rimmer: Thank you, Peter.

Peter Mares: Our three think-tankers were John Roskam, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Affairs; Allan Myers, QC, a driving force behind the creation of a new think tank in Melbourne; and Susan Harris Rimmer, Acting Executive Director of the Australia Institute in Canberra.

Guests

Allan Myers, QC
Australian Institute for Public Policy

John Roskam
Executive Director Institute for Public Affairs

Susan Harris Rimmer
Acting Executive Director The Australia Institute

Presenter

Peter Mares

Producer

John Standish

Radio National often provides links to external websites to complement program information. While producers have taken care with all selections, we can neither endorse nor take final responsibility for the content of those sites.