The weekend Fin (subscription required) has a profile of the eminence grise of right-wing Melbourne poltiics, Ray Evans. It includes a comment from this blog on the various Astroturf organisations Evans set up when he was working for Hugh Morgan at Western Mining (not greatly to the benefit of WMC shareholders as far as I can see). Here’s the quote used by the Fin
Australia has a string of such [Astroturf] setups, all apparently created by Ray Evans of the Western Mining Corporation. The most egregious is the Lavoisier Group, an organisation for climate change contrarians (about as plausible as creationists calling themselves the Mendel society) . If you move along to the (anti-Aboriginal rights) Bennelong Society you’ll find an almost identical website with the same postal address, shared with the (anti-union) HR Nicholls Society . The (monarchist) Samuel Griffiths society is from the same production line, though not quite as brazenly so.
So what is it about names like these that screams “Astroturf�? Most named institutes are either named in honour of the founder, or are explicitly partisan institutions whose name indicates their affiliation, as with the Evatt Chifley (Labor) and Menzies (Liberal) foundations. It’s not clear that those named would always agree with what is published in their names, but there’s some reasonable basis for presuming that this might be the case.
John Quiggin 
I question the use of the term “Astroturf” to describe the groups listed. The term “Astroturf” refers to front groups purporting to represent grassroots sentiment (the fake grassroots element inviting the term “Astroturf”), such as the “A Plus Team” of forestry workers set up by the forest industry with help from the ACTU (shame!) to mobilise in support of a pulp mill in eastern Victoria in the 1990s, or the Mothers Opposing Pollution group which promotes liquid cardboard cartons to homemakers/consumers on “environmental” grounds.
Whilst the groups listed in the article share with Astroturf groups the use of misleading names, they all appear to be aimed at recruiting, networking and campaign at elite levels.
John, I must perforce remind you that, while the Menzies Foundation is formally affiliated with the Liberal Party, the Evatt Foundation is not likewise attached to the ALP, and never has been. The Chifley Foundation is Labor’s affiliated equivalent to the Menzies Foundation.
John I know you have an ideological interest in these issues but you could try harder to give a straight feed. The Bennelong Group is not opposed to Aborigines having the same rights as everyone else. The Lavoisier Group is challenging the scientific validity of certain dire predictions regaring ecological matters. This would appear to be a thorougly desirable thing to do provided that the discussion is evidence based and illuminates the issues rather than confusing them. The H R Nichols Society is not anti-trade union, it is concerned about the misuses and abuses of trade union power which is a very different thing. Would you like to quote a couple of statements (in context) to support the notion that they are anti-trade union tout court?
Paul has a point. They’re more thinly veiled lobbying bodies brandishing junk science and proclaiming their independence, often even before the question arises, than they are classic astroturf operations.
And a friend of mine, who worked for a big interior design firm which got the job of remodelling WMC’s Melbourne office back in the mid-90s, said the taps and other fixtures in Hugh Morgan’s private bathroom were really gold-plated, another point the shareholders may not have been aware of.
I mention this only to say that sometimes these guys are beyond parody.
Quoth Quiggers “A visit to Astroturf website suppliers Fergco reveals a new operation under construction at Nationbuild” .
Fergco’s IP address is the same as contractworld.com.au the web site of Independent Contractors of Australia associated with the HR Nicholls society so I think it would be reasonable to conclude that Fergco itself is a front operation.
Rafe, a quick search reveals this piece, arguing that unions are rent seeking monopolies and that strikes should be illegal.
Of course, you can find places where Evans says unions should be allowed, provided that they can’t strike, picket or do any of the other things that unions normally do. It’s about the same as a socialist saying that they don’t object to private enterprise, only to profits.
I agree that attempts by Evans to present his front groups as having some sort of spontaneous grassroots character are pretty threadbare. But it was enough to fool quite a few journos in the 1980s. And if you look at the profile of the Lavoisier group linked here it’s still going on.
While I’m talking about Lavoisier, Rafe, what do you object to in my characterisation? The Lavioiser group questions the validity of climate science in exactly the same way as creationists question the validity of evolution. In the US the overlap between creationism and climate science contrarianism is very high and in Australia it’s growing (Quadrant, for example, has pushed creationism on a few occasions).
“Of course, you can find places where Evans says unions should be allowed, provided that they can’t strike, picket or do any of the other things that unions normally do.”
The nub of the question is the right to strike, that is, to walk off the job and then use violence or the threat of violence to prevent other people from doing the work. The use of the “strike threat system” as Bill Hutt called it, has had disastrous consequences for most people and the common good, while it has paid well for the members of the most powerful and unprincipled unions like the waterside workers and the commercial building unions (coincidentally the unions that remained under communist leadership the longest).
It is helpful to consult Bill Hutt on The Strike Threat System and cognate works to understand the damage that has been inflicted by the strike threat system. The trade unions did not need to take that path, they could have done much more good for the workers at large if they chosen a different modus operandi.
Rafe
Unfortunately I don’t have time to read Hutt’s book right at this moment. Could you possibly set out out the bare bones of his proof that, through industrial action, workers can only increase wages by reducing the wages of other workers?
Gold plated taps represent a saving in the log run, from enduring the steamy conditions better.
But that’s nothing compared to the saving putting gold leaf rather than paint on cathedrals and temples, because of the labour costs involved in working in those conditions. I recently came across something by an Indian enquiring into the practicality of using gold-titanium alloy for a temple, precisely because of such considerations.
While gold plated taps may appear to be mere vanity, and indeed often are, it really does need a deeper enquiry. The Indian temples show this.
I’m sure that Hugh doesn’t really like gold. (qv Napoleon on milk and apples in ‘Animal Farm’).
On the topic of the cost effectiveness of gold taps, Jacques Barzun had a rejoinder to people who disparaged “ivory tower scholars” – the usual reason for climbing a tower is to survey the surrounds (rather than to retreat from them) and why speak harshly of a building material that is at once durable, aesthetically pleasing and low maintanance?
Will get back in due course with a reply to James on the structure of Hutt’s argument.
Get off the astroturf,rafe.
I am a worker and I have a very long memory.The antics of your gang have been disgraceful,you tell us a lot about yourself with your defence of these goons.