It appears inevitable that the Coalition will win the federal election to be held later this year. What can we expect from it in government?

Modern history tells us that what politicians say during election campaigns is a most unreliable guide to what they will actually do. The days of opposition leaders spelling out a detailed programme – and then trying to implement it – ended with Gough Whitlam in 1974. You can bet your bottom dollar than Tony Abbott will adopt a small target strategy until 14 September with a few key ‘talking points’.

That is why a book such as Future Proofing Australia is extremely valuable. The editors, (Liberal) Senator Brett Mason and Daniel Wood, have collected 18 essays about important socio-political issues affecting Australia. Although they insist that the book ‘is not meant to be a political manifesto or a party policy platform’, it is self-evident that many of the ideas traversed in it represent current long-term thinking within the Coalition. It is a sort of wish list.

The editors disavow any such intention: ‘there is no ideological or partisan thread that links all the contributors’. True, if one stresses the word ‘all’. Yet counting Mason himself and Tony Abbott (who has written the introduction), eight of the essayists are sitting Coalition parliamentarians. Two others (Ian Sinclair and Tim Fischer) are former leaders of the National Party.

There is nothing wrong with the book’s overall ‘liberal-conservative’ bias, as Abbott terms it. But it is puzzling that the editors seem loath to admit the fact.

At any rate, Spectator Australia readers should be pleased – even excited – by many of the policy prescriptions outlined.

Abbott himself promises ‘lower taxes, better services, stronger borders, and modern infrastructure’, though he does not explain how the latter three aims can be achieved concurrently with the first.  His Coalition colleagues provide more detail.  Scott Ryan and Kelly O’Dwyer champion the free market. O’Dwyer bravely admits that she is opposed to any ‘fair competition’ policies that amount to protection of ‘inefficient’ industries. Mason himself goes as far as saying that ‘Main Street’, not ‘Wall Street’, was to blame for the GFC. Presumably he is referring to the mum and dad homebuyers in the US who took out mortgages they were not in a position to service, leaving innocent banks with dud security when the property bubble burst.

The mining industry should be delighted.  Mathias Cormann not only reiterates the Coalition’s official policy to scrap both the mining tax and the carbon tax. He argues that even without these millstones there have been, in the past, ‘too many unnecessary roadblocks impeding [the] progress’ of budding entrepreneurs. Taxation of the mining sector should not proceed on the basis of ‘capacity to pay’, he says, because Australia cannot afford the mining sector to fail and ‘investment decisions are made over extremely long time frames’.

By this reasoning there would never be a correct time to tax mining profits any higher than at present. Indeed, taxes and other ‘excessive government regulation’ should be further reduced. (Anyone interested in a polar-opposite view might read Dirty Money by Matthew Benns.)

The ideas of the other author-parliamentarians should also be welcome to the Coalition’s right-wing base. Fiona Nash is against the indiscriminate sale of Australian agricultural land to foreigners, in the interests of our ‘food security’. Andrew Constance is against bureaucrats interfering in the decision-making of the well-to-do elderly as to where to live. ‘Incentives [should be provided] to home owners in their later middle years to encourage downsizing,’ he suggests.

Mitch Fifield would scrap the Gillard government’s Ministry for Social Inclusion.  He advocates ‘citizen-centred funding models’ in the provision of aged care services, and in the school system.  This translates to so-called ‘vouchers’ – the government gives the citizen money to spend on, say, his child’s education, rather than giving the money directly to schools. Schools must compete for the citizen’s custom and the fittest schools will survive.

I have focused upon the essays by the parliamentarians because their ideas are more likely to become law. That said, General Peter Cosgrove can probably be assured that much more money will be spent on the military. Gary Johns can be confident that an Abbott government will not endorse any amendments to the Constitution which recognise Aboriginal culture. Kevin Donnelly will get his wish (mine too) that school history curriculums be realigned toward Western civilisation and Judeo-Christian values.

(Donnelly will be disappointed, however, if he seriously hopes that a Coalition government will reverse three decades of number-crunching managerialism in education policy. Both sides of politics are to blame, and it may well get worse.)

Other contributors can also expect little joy. Cardinal George Pell’s essay on Christianity and Social Capital is heartfelt and well-written, but, sadly, it will scarcely affect the ‘amoral pragmatism’ of our politicians. Greg Craven and Ian Sinclair write in an accomplished way about the vagaries of federalism and the disgraceful shambles that is the House of Representatives, but (call me a cynic) any meaningful change appears unlikely.

Tim Fischer suggests 12 major new transport projects. Most sounded sensible to me, but there seems little prospect that any would be implemented by a low-tax, low-regulation federal government. (Fischer’s idea for a congestion charge on ‘vehicles in all state capital city CBD zones’ is specifically rejected by Senator Ryan.) Also unlikely to be adopted are the ideas of Roger Kilham about healthcare, Professor John Langford about water conservation, and Professor Peter Doherty (a Nobel-prize winner) about increased investment in science and technology.

The two biggest optimists are Langford and Bernard Salt.

Langford cautions that ‘the spectre of climate change cannot be ignored’. Salt advocates much higher levels of immigration and a generous approach to refugees. Each utilizes essentially conservative arguments, but there seems a snowflake’s chance in Hell that either will be listened to.

Spectator Australia readers will, I expect, have disapproved of my tone. That is by the by. This is a worthwhile and important book as a guide to 2014 and beyond.