Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
Liberal Party treats members with contempt
Joe Cambria
I am not at all surprised that Liberal Party membership is shrinking. What can one expect when many of its functionaries and parliamentarians treat party members with the kind of patronizing disdain that spills over into open contempt.
I recently funded the publication and distribution of Labour Market Wars, a collection of articles demolishing the case against labour market reform. I did this in the naïve belief, despite warnings from business associates, that the Liberal Party hierarchy was not genuinely concerned with ideas and reform.
I had the book sent to a large number of people, including Liberal Party luminaries, MPs and Senators. Well, I cannot say I was not warned. Among those who dismissed the book out of hand were Julian Sheezel, State Director of the Victorian Liberal Party, Michael Kroger, Helen Kroger, Hugh Morgan and John Calvert-Jones. The response from the vast majority of MPs and Senators was just as dismal.
What made the situation particularly offensive is that this mob appears to think that because the book was written by an ordinary party member rather than one of their cronies it could not possibly be of any value. Now I was prepared to let the matter rest –– until the oh so clever Mr Julian Sheezel decided to inadvertently rub my nose in it.
The author, Gerard Jackson, had an exchange with Julian Sheezel regarding the LSG (Liberal Speakers’ Group), which is apparently organised by Michael Kroger. Now Mr Jackson is of the sensible opinion that such a group should include any party members who are able to make a valuable contribution the group, irrespective of their social status, influence or wealth.
Mr Sheezel begs to differ. According to him only “important and influential figures” (he obviously does not realise how patronising and pompous this sounds) are qualified to join the LSG, making it very clear that members of the hoi polloi are not welcome. The sheer arrogance of this attitude is not only staggering it is deeply offensive. Nevertheless, Mr Sheezel admits to being quite “comfortable” with the current set-up. His attitude reminds me of country club Republicans who treated the party’s grass roots with the same contempt in which the Democratic Party still holds its black supporters.
In his response (I have read all the correspondence) Mr Jackson made the very important observation that the “Party’s important and influential figures” had utterly failed to halt the coordinated assault against the Government’s labour market reforms. What Mr Jackson said is indisputably true. Furthermore, as examples of appalling negligence on the part of these “important and influential figures” he referred to their failure to tackle the Impact of Safety Net Adjustments on Wages and Jobs, (an ACTU paper, December 2004) and Capital Shallowness: A Problem for New Zealand? (Julia Hall and Grant Scobie, New Zealand Treasury Working Paper, June 2005).
This is not a matter of idle theorising. Labour politicians, union activists and journalists are using arguments from these papers to undermine the Government’s proposed reforms. The irony is that Mr Jackson demolished both papers.* Confronted by these facts this hardened debater and fearless defender of labour market reforms had Mari Dunic, his personal assistant, sent Mr Jackson, an obvious nobody, a terse two-sentence letter stating:
“Thank you for you email to the State Director today. He [Sheezel] has read and acknowledges your correspondence, but does not necessarily agree with the points you have raised”.
Perhaps it is understandable that Mr Sheezel should disagree. To do otherwise would be to admit that Mr Jackson’s criticisms are spot on. Mr Jackson pressed the point with the comment that
“Surely you cannot be ‘comfortable’ with the fact that while an ordinary member of the Party has no trouble in exposing the fallacies and contradictions in these papers the Party’s “important and influential figures” find themselves without a clue”.
Unfortunately, for labour market reform Mr Sheezel is evidently very “comfortable” with the failure of his “important and influential figures” to defend labour reforms. Let us take a look at a couple of these important and influential figures. John Calvert-Jones, for example, has used the Cormack Foundation to bankroll the dreadful economic fallacy that it is the number of firms that put a floor under wages rates. Hugh Morgan has done the same.
Now I ask you, how can Mr Sheezel dispute the fact that this pair are genuine economic illiterates? One only has to spend several minutes listening to Morgan prattle on about the minimum wage to realise how bad he is. Calvert-Jones is no better, being utterly at sea on the subject of economics.
Now I mentioned these two because I know from conversations I have had with party members in the CBD that there is considerable disquiet about Morgan and Calvert-Jones’ intellectual abilities and the quality of the people they have been funding. If the recipients of their generosity are that good why haven’t they been out there demolishing the unions’ arguments? If Gerry Jackson can do it without receiving a cent from this snooty pair of bluebloods why can’t they? Come to think of it, why can’t Sheezel do it?
Mr Jackson has spent years trying to educate the public about the benefits of free markets and the vital need for economic literacy. (Incidentally, Brookes has a readership of about 9,000. Repeat: actual readership and not hits). It was Mr Jackson and not Mr Sheezel and his very important and influential figures who confronted and exposed the unions’ lies and fallacies about labour markets.
Because of the likes of Sheezel, Kroger, Calvert-Jones and Morgan every Liberal Party branch in the country has been left defenceless against the enemies of labour market reforms. They ought to be bloody ashamed of themselves. This kind of arrogant incompetence would get you instantly fired on Wall Street.
Someone needs to remind Mr Sheezel –– who, according to my sources, has a reputation for being a factional player –– that in the 1940s the Liberal Party had a membership of 340,000. It is now a derisory 63,000. Does Mr Sheezel, along with his very important and influential figures, believe that treating party members with undisguised contempt is going to encourage them to stay in the Liberal Party let alone make donations?
After spending 18 years on Wall Street I returned to Melbourne. Thinking that the Liberal Party had become more like the Republican Party with regard to the respect that the GOP accords its ordinary members, I made a modest contribution with the intention of making more substantial ones at another time. Meeting the likes of Mr Sheezel and his friends persuaded me that I would do better to spend my money on a more worthy cause.
What more can I say, except thank you, Mr Sheezel.
*Liberal Party, labour market reform and the unions’ minimum wage myth
Liberal Government and labour market reform: more fallacious attacks
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 17 October 2005