RICHARD DENNISS Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us. Reviewed by Braham Dabscheck

Richard Denniss provides a chilling analysis of the ploys our politicians use to govern in the interests of everyone but the public.

Public choice theory employs basic economic analysis to posit that public officials, such as politicians, are self-interested. There is a market for their services, such as the passing (or not) of legislation, and the enabling of different programs. A second major tenet of public choice theory is that powerful interest groups have a clearer focus on what they want from governments than the general public. It is not as if the general public speaks with one voice, whereas interest groups have specific, clearly defined objects. Through constant lobbying, the provision of financial support, and the offer of jobs to politicians once they retire, these groups hold sway over the decisions governments make. The skill of politicians is to conceal this reality from voters and create the impression that they are governing on their behalf.

While Richard Denniss does not refer to public choice theory, his Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us is an excellent study of its insights into contemporary Australian politics. His focus is on politicians at the federal level, and his message is that they are not prepared to take on powerful interest groups, even when they know it is in the best interests of the nation to do so.

Denniss often refers to climate change in illustrating his argument. He maintains that there is clear evidence climate change is having detrimental effects on Australia and the world. Governments adopt a centrist approach to deflect criticism of their inclination not to take serious action to tackle and mitigate climate change. A staple of centrism, in the case of the Albanese government, is saying that its policies on climate change are stronger than those of the Coalition, and weaker than those of the Greens; hence, it must be doing the right thing. This ‘hiding’ in the centre is used as an excuse for not pursuing more evidence-based programs that will therefore have a more beneficial impact. Denniss ruefully observes, ‘that evidence only matters when groups with political power aren’t threatened by it’.

In terms of actual policy, the government refuses to take on fossil fuel, energy and mining corporations. It isn’t inclined to impose a carbon tax to help reduce the costs of pollution and environmental degradation. In fact, it provides subsidies and lightly taxes such corporations and allows the opening of more mines and gas fields that will exacerbate the problems of climate change. As a sop to those concerned with climate change, it provides subsidies for the adoption of renewable sources such as solar and wind power.

Is it cynical to think that governments would use a small step in one policy domain (such as solar) to conceal much larger steps in others (such as approving the North West Shelf gas extension)? And is it centrist to focus on the good news while ignoring the economic waste and inefficiency of a government that is simultaneously subsidising both fossil fuels and renewable energy?

Denniss identifies different tricks politicians employ to distract us from their real function of enhancing the interests of the powerful. The first is to make promises and take no action to realise them. Second, to say that you would like to introduce a reform but cannot because there is a lack of bipartisan support. The best way to kill off a proposal is to say that the government will enter into negotiations with the opposition, safe in the knowledge that the opposition will reject it. Well, at least we tried.

Third, there is a ‘bluff bill’, which Denniss refers to as:

the secret weapon of Australian politics … Used well, such strategically drafted legislation … can convince the whole country that a government is desperate to do something that it would rather leave undone.

Denniss gives the example of when he was working for the Democrats during the years of the Howard government. A minister handed him a copy of a ‘bluff bill’ and a raft of amendments the minister had designed to significantly water down his own legislation. The bill would never pass the Senate. The purpose of this ruse was that it ‘gave both parties something to keep their party rooms, and their voters, focused on and agitated by’.

This leads to the fourth trick: to devote time to endless discussion of minor issues and as little time as possible to major ones that may challenge the interests of powerful groups.

[W]hen most people don’t care about most of the laws debated in parliament, the main task of the government of the day is to attract as much attention as they can to fights they want people to see and as little attention as possible for the things they, and often the opposition, are happy to slip quietly through … [the object is] to create the appearance of activity and determination necessary to manipulate their backbench, stakeholders and voters alike into thinking they are fighting the good fight while promising powerful groups that they have no need to fear any change.

Richard Denniss’s Dead Centre provides a clear and concise examination of the timidity of Australian politicians to tackle major issues central to Australia’s long-term needs. They are loathe to take action that will interfere with the wealth and standing of powerful interest groups. His analysis is consistent with the broader insights of public choice theory and casts a damning light on the operation of Australian politics.

Richard Denniss Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us Australia Institute Press 2025 PB 128pp $19.99

Braham Dabscheck is a Senior Fellow at the Melbourne Law School at the University of Melbourne who writes on industrial relations, sport and other things.

You can buy Dead Centre from Abbey’s at a 10% discount by quoting the promotion code NEWTOWNREVIEW.

You can also check if it is available from Newtown Library.

Tags: Albanese government, Australian politics, bluff bills, centrism, climate change, current affairs, Howard government, interest groups, political pragmatism, politics, public choice theory, Richard | Denniss