The Centre for Independent Studies in Australia has claimed that its mission is “simply to build a better society.”[1] It attempts to achieve this laudable aim through “critical recommendations to public policy and encouraging debate among leading academics, politicians, and journalists.”[2]

While The Centre doesn’t publicise or even reveal its funders, it has been described as a key player “in the right-wing fringe.”[3] Among the publications the thinktank has produced is one that draws an analogy between the study of climate science and a belief in ghosts,[4] another argues that welfare benefits should be “substantially tightened”[5] which makes reference, in demotic Australian English, to “dole bludgers”, and there is a further piece calling for the privatisation of public services, including medicare.”[6]

Somewhat weirdly, it was originally set up decades ago by a former maths teacher, Greg Lindsay, and the intent was reportedly to create an Australian version of the UK’s Institute of Economic Affairs.

Lest you’re unaware of the Institute of Economic Affairs, it has been described by George Monbiot in the Guardian as being an “extreme neo-liberal thinktank,”[7] the Institute of Economic Affairs was linked to the economic ideas of Liz Truss, who Monbiot describes as having subverted “what remains of our democracy on behalf of undemocratic interests”[8] though they deny this. Economists, following the fall of Truss, have referred to the Institute of Economic Affairs as “mad, mad people,”[9] and one commentator, a David Brice, writes of them that they are a “charitable organization [whose intentions are] purely to save tax that instead of doing good, is set out to do considerable harm.”[10] It’s quite an outfit to want to emulate.

The funders of the Centre for Independent Studies have included BHP Billton, one of the world’s largest mining companies, specialising in the extraction of metals, oil and gas; and Shell Oil, the second largest oil and gas company in the world. Individual donors have included Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of Rupert; Neville Kennard, a former board member of the CIS as well as being a member of the shadowy conflagration of Liberal MPs and the mining industry in Western Australia called ‘Crossroads’; and Robert Champion de Crespigny, the multi-millionaire founder of Normandy Mining, who remains a board member. Former funders of the CIS include Phillip Morris tobacco company and McDonalds Australia.[11] You might have cause to think that the Centre for Independent Studies isn’t actually that independent after all and that, furthermore, it seems as if it might be really quite closely linked to the fossil fuel and mining industries.

One might wonder what, given such funders and acknowledging the CIS’s arguably disingenuous statement that their work is not influenced by who it is that funds them, what their view of climate change is. You don’t have to wonder for very long. The first article/podcast related to the subject on their website is titled ‘Rooftop Solar: Paradise Lost’[12] Another is titled ‘Counting the Cost: Subsidies for Renewable Energy.’[13]

Their approach to equalities issues is interesting too. The article ‘Liberalism’s Universal Vision Better than a Race-Based Voice’, which was a direct response to David Albanese consenting for a referendum for indigenous Australians and Torres Islanders to have greater formalised representation in Australian politics, starts with a call for recognition that humans are born equal which then goes onto to assert that “the proposal for a constitutionally guaranteed, elected, policy advisory chamber to be known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, is a direct repudiation of the central tenet of political liberalism - equality.” After receiving over 60% support in polls at the time the referendum was announced, by the time it was carried out, the numbers had swapped and the call for greater representation for these communities was rejected by nearly 60% of those who voted.[14]

So, what is a thinktank? A thinktank is basically a lobbying organisation that will often try to conceal whose agenda it is playing to. However, it’s not impossible to find this stuff out, and anyone with eyes to see might be tempted to characterise the Centre for Independent Studies to be a right-wing pressure group with links to the oil and mining industries that campaigns for smaller government and against the claims of climate science.

Two well-known educationalists from the United Kingdom and Ireland have been involved with the Centre for Independent Studies over the last few years. Tom Bennett was interviewed for an on-line event, ‘Reclaiming our Classrooms from Disruption’ that came with the subtitle, ‘Progressive Educators are Kryptonite for Children’s Education.[15] He also wrote a lengthy paper, ‘Conduct Becoming: The Importance of the Behaviour Curriculum’[16] that was published on their website in October 2023, and he was interviewed there in Sydney in person by Glenn Fahey in May 2024.[17]

Tom’s friend, Carl Hendrick, was invited for a breakfast discussion at the Centre for Independent Studies in June 2025 under the title, ‘The Science of Learning Revolution: Reflecting on Australian Classrooms’ that comes with the introductory spiel that, “Australian classrooms and education have been shaped by untested theories and ideological fashions for far too long. Thankfully, a growing body of robust evidence from cognitive science is challenging outdated approaches.”[18] Isn’t it both interesting and dull how evidence is always claimed to be “robust”?

Without wanting to malign either party and, acknowledging that both sides of the debate are often guilty of stereotyping the arguments of the other, I’d venture a trepidatious summation of what Tom and Carl are best known for. Tom, an advisor on behaviour to the UK government, stresses the importance of systems and consequences as he is of the quite reasonable belief that without order in schools there can be little learning. Carl, former head of research at the private Wellington College, is perhaps best known now, and I’d ask forgiveness if I’ve got this wrong as I’ve read both of Tom’s latest books but not much of Carl’s work, for putting together extravagantly well written and adroitly argued defences (if this is not too strong a word) or rationalisations for the use of cognitive science in informing teaching strategies.

Share

One might wonder why a thinktank that has been termed hard right would be interested in Tom and Carl’s respective takes on behaviour and learning. Let’s assume that the aforementioned hard right thinktank with links to the fossil fuel industry is sincere in the claim that it wants a better society and is not chiefly interested in the maintenance of a status quo that keeps the coffers of their funders nicely upholstered. In this case, the superficially seductive appeal of ‘evidence-led’ education might be taken as a decent conduit to move Australian education in the direction that the United Kingdom has taken over the last decade.

On the surface, and the coherence of that surface relies on people not knowing much about, nor having worked in either system (I’ve taught in both and know intimately how they differ – one of the two is far healthier for human children) it is perfectly laudable that Australian schools should aspire to creating ordered environments in which the focus is on what is proven to work in terms of knowledge retention. Who’d argue with that?

Perhaps only someone who has seen the effect of these ideas close up. Carl left state education in 2013 to join the private sector. Tom’s final teaching position ended in 2015. Neither of them has taught in the sector that at least one of them has so heavily influenced for over a decade. As such, neither of them has ever taught in the climates that have been transformed by the (sometimes botched) implementations of these seemingly rational ideas and may not be aware of what happens in them on any experiential level.

The Astrea Academies Multi Academy Trust, for instance, which cites Tom as being a key influence behind their management of student behaviour. The Trust, which hands out corrections for “negative virtues”[19] and in which teachers have reported feeling “exhausted, pressured and fearful”[20] has been subject to a great deal of coverage and controversy in the UK. Children at the schools have been described as “deeply unhappy”.[21] Nine out of ten parents in one the Trust’s schools would not recommend them to other parents;[22] 57% of parents at one school reported that they had concerns about their child’s mental health;[23] half of the school’s teachers said it has got worse since the last ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted inspection. Yet the notionally independent inspectorate still contrived to assess it as ‘good’.[24] Tom has written in defence of the trust in the past.

If we were less likely to believe the claims of lobbying organisations, we might wonder what the agenda might be behind a right-wing thinktank with links to the fossil fuel industry aligning themselves to such ideas. We might form a theory. What does the fossil fuel industry want? The continuation of the fossil fuel industry. How might it secure this? By affecting public opinion. Why might it be interested in what, to some, are abusive systems of hierarchical behaviour? Put simply, the establishment wants obedience. It wants people who are habituated into to doing what they’re told by higher authorities. This one isn’t too difficult.

More interesting is why it might align itself with the ‘science of learning’ movement. This is more complex but, ultimately, I would venture that it’s also about obedience. What does power fear? Dissent. Where does dissent come from? Articulate members of the oppressed class: poets, critics, artists, writers, freethinkers, practised rhetoricians, people skilled in the art of dialogue and argumentation. How might we supress the creation of more of these? With science, with ‘evidence’.

The pedagogic method in schools influenced by these ideas is transmission oriented. Silence is valorised, and only a performative version of talk in which children repeat factual information is encouraged. It is, by nature, an anti-democratic pedagogy and locates little value in exploratory discussion and the oral practice of the expression of ideas. I’m unsure as to whether the CIS knows this and, certainly, neither Tom nor Carl would agree with it as a perspective but, again, they have not taught in the climates these theories have created and may not have seen the damage they do to human expression close-up. As Primo Levi once wrote, “in countries and epochs [and one might add schools] in which communication is impeded, all other liberties soon wither; discussion dies by inanition, ignorance of the opinions of others becomes rampant, imposed opinion triumphs.”[25] My experience of the kind of schools that Tom speaks in defence of chimes with this.

British children are among the unhappiest in Europe.[26] Much of this will be related to the economic situation and to rising inequality, but we cannot entirely discount the effect of the culture of schools and many, many British schools have become high control environments in which discursive approaches to teaching and learning are almost completely absent. Careful what you wish for, Australia and, before you shrug, think things innocent and start mouthing the glib mantra of ‘evidence informed’, check out who’s pulling the strings of the people pulling the strings of the people pulling yours.

Hail Hydra.

[1] https://onthinktanks.org/think-tank/centre-for-independent-studies/

[2] https://onthinktanks.org/think-tank/centre-for-independent-studies/

[3] https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/economic-fairness-30a37751-ec16-4026-a076-e283f3b4092f/reserve-bank-think-tanks/no-public-funds-for-right-wing-think-tanks

[4] The ghosts of global warming, Centre for Independent Studies, 30 October 2009.

[5] Welfare reform beyond decades of dependence, ‘dole bludgers’ and ‘double dipping’, Centre for Independent Studies, 31 May 2017.

[6] Towards a more competitive Medicare: The case for deregulating medical fees and co-payments in Australia, Centre for Independent Studies, 3 May 2015.

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/23/liz-truss-power-extreme-neoliberal-thinktanks

[8] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/23/liz-truss-power-extreme-neoliberal-thinktanks

[9] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/think-tanks-institute-economic-affairs-liz-truss-economy-crash/

[10] https://iea.org.uk/has-real-trussonomics-never-been-tried-a-postmortem-of-the-truss-kwarteng-project/

[11] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Centre_for_Independent_Studies

[12] https://www.cis.org.au/publication/rooftop-solar-paradise-lost/

[13] https://www.cis.org.au/publication/counting-the-cost-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament

[15] https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/video/reclaiming-our-classrooms-from-disruption-2/

[16] https://www.cis.org.au/publication/conduct-becoming-the-importance-of-the-behaviour-curriculum/

[17] https://www.cis.org.au/event/an-evening-with-tom-bennett/

[18] https://www.cis.org.au/event/the-science-of-learning-revolution-reflecting-on-australian-classrooms/

[19] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gqq3zle2go

[20] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gqq3zle2go

[21] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gqq3zle2go

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25] Primo Levi, The Drowned and the Saved (Abacus: London 1989) p113.

[26] https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/Good%20Childhood%20Report-2024-Summary-Report_v2.pdf