The politically shrewd US novelist Norman Mailer once suggested that “the natural disease” of conservatism, “since it does hold so many fixed positions”, is oedema (a swelling caused by too much fluid retention in body tissue). Against this ever present mortal danger, Mailer continued, “the mark of a good conservative is that they’re bold”. He nominated Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle as examples of “good conservatives”. Whatever you might make of his choice of metaphor, Mailer’s assessment of right wing politics is quite astute.
Conservatism’s fundamental mission, after all, is to preserve the status quo and hold the line against perilous progressive change. It claims that any and all modifications to society (whether ill or well intended) inevitably lead to terrible harm and potentially even disaster. Which means that the only appropriate course of action is to maintain the current state of affairs (whatever they may be), and do everything feasible to protect the traditional, archaic institutions of the system.
Capitalist society is permanently in a state of flux. To comprehend it properly at any moment – and be a relevant political actor within it – requires a certain amount of intellectual nimbleness, suppleness and freshness.
The conservative style of political thought is always susceptible to laziness and rigidity, in which the philosophical outlook is always pessimistic and the political arguments employed are always framed in the negative. Unless this illness can be diagnosed in time and properly treated – with what Mailer calls “boldness”, i.e. an injection of intellectual vitality and energy, fresh critical insights and novel policy ideas – conservatism is at risk of dying from entropic decay.
This brings us to the subject at hand: the escalating identity crisis and uncertain future of modern Australian conservatism. Over the past decade or so, this movement has been undergoing an entangled, confrontational and taxing political scrimmage, containing no shortage of bitter feuds, wild misadventures, self-destructive behaviour and opaque philosophical contemplation.
Its present troubles and uncertainties are in remarkable contrast to its immense triumphs from the recent past. The previous generation of the movement – which peaked roughly from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s – was able to reign mightily as a dominant political current across the country. As a bulwark defending “traditional” Australian values, as a backlash against the momentous changes that had taken place in the country since the end of the Second World War and as an obstruction to many campaigns for progressive change, it was undoubtedly incredibly successful.
But that era of Australian history came to an end around 2007 to 2008, politically with the end of the Howard government and economically with the start of the global financial crisis. From this point onwards, Australia has been undergoing a significant transformation, in its economy, state, civil society and national culture, both inside its borders and in relation to the rest of the world.
Conservatism hasn’t been left ignorant of these changes. Especially over the past three or four years, there has emerged an awareness among many right wing politicians and journalists – sometimes on an explicit and conscious level, other times as a gut feeling – that as Australia evolves, modernises itself and shifts direction globally, conservatism must renew itself, reform itself and adapt to the new historical circumstances. Things can’t keep going the way they have been: there needs be a significant (excuse the cliché) paradigm shift in Australian conservatism in order for it to remain a relevant political force.
This has resulted in the sudden sprouting of alternative right wing parties, each one trying to occupy that same political geography to the right of the Liberals: the return of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, the resurgence of Fred Nile’s Christian Democrats, Cory Bernardi’s breakaway Australian Conservatives, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, the libertarian Liberal Democratic Party, the Democratic Labour Party, Bob Katter’s Australia Party, the Nick Xenophon Team and the Jacqui Lambie Network.
But, thus far, this conservative burgeoning has produced zero significant results at a political-intellectual-policy level. The new right wing politicians who have thrust themselves onto the national scene are a most uninspiring, talentless and simple-minded bunch.
They are very good at creating and holding onto a small, passionate voter base through the use of piercing, strident ultra-conservative rhetoric. But in terms of being the guardians for a new generation of conservatism, they have been completely inadequate for the mission.
Across all the policies from all the aforementioned parties, a significant majority are dry, vanilla right wing: having business-friendly taxes and regulations to promote “free enterprise”; having a “tough” criminal justice system to “punish” criminals and keep society “safe”; reducing immigration and refugee intake to “sustainable” levels; ending Aboriginal “privileges”; promoting Australia’s Western values and the traditional family; and putting an end to the divisiveness of multiculturalism, green ideology and political correctness. It’s almost as though they’ve done a cut-and-paste job from the conservatism of the 1980s and 1990s – without any attempt at renewal or updating, or any rethink of the issues.
But it goes far deeper than that. Their entire way of viewing and understanding the world, the language they use to describe what’s right and wrong with present-day Australia, the arguments they make to assert their opinions – everything they do and say and think is simply taken from the previous generation of conservatism. Rather than bringing forth a new era of right wing politics, they seem to be trying to rehash, remarket and remodel the old.
So while conservatives in Australia might yearn for the emergence of their own Churchill or de Gaulle, they must for now make do with such political lightweights as Cory Bernardi and David Leyonhjelm.

Justen Bellingham

Australian conservatism’s intellectual impasse

The struggle between administrators and players is a re-emerging theme in Australian cricket. Cricket boards typically seek to monopolise power, unilaterally issue directives and manage the game singlehandedly. Players have responded by demanding greater opportunity to participate in cricket’s governing structures, access to information about how the game is being managed, and better means to communicate their concerns directly to the board.
These struggles have again resurfaced in the current standoff between Cricket Australia (CA) and the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA). In many ways, it is a direct resumption of hostilities from the last major pay dispute, which was resolved in the 1990s with an agreement that players would share in the game’s revenue.
One major difference is that in the 20 years since the revenue-sharing model was accepted, Cricket Australia has become a more bureaucratic corporate body.
In 2012, the CA board underwent a major restructure, abandoning its long-held process of electing board members from their state level equivalents. Instead, the governing board was transformed into a small board of independent directors. Without doubt, the former system was bureaucratic, with administrators electing other administrators. But the election process meant that there was a mechanism to place constraints on the board’s activities.
Of the nine-person board, seven directors have backgrounds in corporate business affairs and two are former players (Mark Taylor and Michael Kasprowicz). Chair of the board is David Peever (Rio Tinto). The other members are Bob Every (Wesfarmers), Tony Harrison (Council of the Australian Institute of Company Directors), Jacquie Hey (Qantas), Michelle Tredenick (Bank of Queensland), John Harnden (Australian Grand Prix), and Earl Eddings (Riskcom Group).
During his career in the private sector, Peever philosophised that industrial relations should be a “direct engagement” between a company and employees, without unions. He has long been a vocal critic of the Fair Work Act because it doesn’t restrict collective bargaining as much as John Howard’s widely-hated WorkChoices laws. At Rio Tinto, he introduced a range of anti-union measures, including offering non-union members preferential entitlements.
Since coming to Cricket Australia, Peever has made it clear that he would like to see the disappearance of the ACA. Throughout pay negotiations, he has attempted to sidestep the ACA and negotiate directly with the players. Cricket Australia’s proposed deal would substantially constrain ACA activities and finances.
This dispute is not primarily about wage levels or payment models, but the organisational structures behind professional cricket.
The Big Six Dispute, 1912
Australia was scheduled to tour England in the winter of 1912. The Australian Cricket Board of Control decided to select the manager to tour with the team, scrapping the long-standing convention that the players choose their manager.
Angry at the Board’s power grab, the players aggressively lobbied for a reversal. Public meetings were held and funds raised to send a team independent of the Board.
The Board refused to back down. In protest, six leading players, including Warwick Armstrong, Victor Trumper and Australian captain Clem Hill, refused to join the tour party and stayed home.
Though Clem Hill emerged victorious when the dispute boiled over into a fist fight between player and administrator, the Board ultimately came out on top and Australian cricket players didn’t claw back any degree of power until the 1970s.
The sacking of Bill Lawry, 1971
Australia toured India and South Africa in the summer of 1969-70.
In India, there were problems with off-field conditions relating to accommodation, travel, food, hygiene and security.
The South African leg of the tour was long and laborious, leaving players physically and mentally exhausted. It ended in a standoff between players and the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) over payments for the tour.
As captain of the team, Bill Lawry tried to bring to the Board’s attention his players’ grievances. He wrote two reports to the ACB, detailing the player concerns he was hearing in the dressing room, and offering a list of recommendations for improving future tours.
From that moment, the ACB wanted to remove Lawry, but it waited nine months until he was in a vulnerable position then communicated his sacking not to him directly but to the media.
World Series Cricket, 1977-9
Despite cricket in Australia being very popular and profitable, international level players have been paid so little that many have been forced to retire early.
Throughout the 1970s, the players made many approaches to the ACB including with proposals for revenue-sharing arrangements, all of which were stonewalled.
Media tycoon Kerry Packer took advantage of the situation by forming a rebel tournament, World Series Cricket, and lured all the country’s best cricketers to play in it.
After two years of sustained losses, financially and on-field, the ACB caved in and signed a deal which paid players as full time professionals.
Creating the Australian Cricketers’ Association, 1997-98
Thanks to World Series Cricket, international players were now being paid well, but state level players were still struggling on low wages. After years of underground networking, the ACA was founded in February 1997.
As the players’ union, the ACA claimed that it represented all Australian first class cricketers under federal industrial relations law.
A 10 month campaign of fierce public debate and behind-the-scenes manoeuvring ensued, as the ACB sought to refuse recognition to the players’ association. Players seriously considered taking strike action if the ACB wouldn’t negotiate with the ACA over new contracts.
In July 1998, the two bodies signed a memorandum of understanding, establishing new standard contracts for all state level players, and solidifying the ACA as a legitimate organisation in Australian cricket.

Australian conservatism’s intellectual impasse

The nasty business of cricket

Other Media

Shop

Manage Your Subscription

Contact Us