Whether you agree with all of his conclusions or not, the questions he raises deserve serious discussion.
From Government to Ideology
At the heart of Sheridan's argument is a simple proposition: governments should administer the country, not use taxpayer funds to persuade citizens to adopt a particular political worldview.
Yet increasingly, billions of dollars are being spent not merely on implementing policy, but on promoting and entrenching a specific set of progressive beliefs.
He argues that Australia is moving towards a model where government agencies, publicly funded institutions, educational bodies, regulatory authorities, and advocacy organisations all reinforce the same ideological perspective. The result is not merely policy disagreement but a narrowing of acceptable public debate.
Climate Policy or Climate Evangelism?
One of examples is climate policy.
Australians can reasonably disagree on the speed, cost, and method of transitioning to lower-emission energy sources. Yet many government-funded bodies present highly contested policy choices as settled facts.
Agencies tasked with implementing climate policy often simultaneously act as advocates for that policy. Alternative approaches—such as expanded gas generation, extended coal generation, or nuclear power—are frequently excluded from consideration before any public debate has even begun.
The issue is not whether climate change is real. The issue is whether taxpayers should be funding one side of a legitimate political debate.
The Expanding Bureaucracy of Belief
There is a growing network of publicly funded bodies that increasingly take positions on contentious social and cultural issues.
These include:
The Climate Change Authority
The Australian Human Rights Commission
The Australian Law Reform Commission
Government-funded environmental advocacy organisations
Publicly funded educational institutions
Curriculum development bodies
Many of these organisations no longer operate as politically neutral institutions but instead actively promote progressive interpretations of social issues.
Again, reasonable people can disagree with that assessment. But it is difficult to deny that these organisations almost invariably speak with one ideological voice.
The Curious Case of "Independent" Authorities
Another example is the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The Commission frequently comments on issues involving race, gender identity, discrimination, and historical grievances. Yet critics argue that it rarely defends competing values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or equal treatment regardless of race.
The result is that taxpayers end up funding advocacy for one side of cultural debates while those holding alternative views must fund their own opposition.
That hardly seems like political neutrality.
Education and Universities
Perhaps nowhere is this trend more visible than in education.
Progressive assumptions increasingly permeate school curricula and university culture. Certain viewpoints are encouraged, while others are treated as beyond the pale.
Universities were once places where ideas competed vigorously. Today many Australians have the impression that some ideas are welcomed while others are quietly excluded.
When institutions funded by all taxpayers become ideologically uniform, genuine intellectual diversity inevitably suffers.
The Union-State Connection
Another concern raised is the continuing flow of public money and influence toward trade unions.
Unions play a legitimate role in representing workers. However, when organisations that are overtly political receive substantial financial advantages from government, questions naturally arise about whether taxpayers are indirectly funding partisan activity.
Those questions deserve answers.
The Bigger Picture
The most important point Sheridan makes is not about any individual agency, program, or policy.
It is about the cumulative effect.
Each initiative may appear modest in isolation. But when government departments, schools, universities, regulators, commissions, unions, environmental groups, and publicly funded advocacy organisations all push in the same ideological direction, the result is a powerful political ecosystem funded by taxpayers.
Citizens who disagree are left in the curious position of financing arguments against their own views.
That should concern Australians of every political persuasion.
Today's progressive orthodoxy may be tomorrow's conservative orthodoxy. The principle remains the same.
Government should govern.
It should not use public money to engineer political conformity.
Freedom Requires Debate
Australia has always benefited from robust public debate. Our democracy is strongest when ideas compete openly and citizens are free to reach their own conclusions.
The danger arises when governments stop trusting voters to think for themselves.
Whether one agrees with Greg Sheridan's conclusions or not, his article raises a question that every taxpayer should ask:
How much of our money is being spent solving problems—and how much is being spent teaching us what to think?
For those interested in the full argument, I recommend reading Greg Sheridan's original article in The Australian. It is a thought-provoking examination of a trend that deserves far more public scrutiny than it currently receives.
