Rudd demonstrates Hayek-ian knowledge problem

In searching for some material on Hayek I turned up this speech by Kevin Rudd on the Hayek's philosophy. One of the core claims of the speech is that Hayek argues that (and this is a claim upon which most of Rudd's argument rests):

"Hayek argues that human beings’ altruism is a hangover from their primitive tribal experience, reinforced by religion, and must be purged if we are to optimise our individual liberty through rational self-centred participation in the market."

Anyone passingly familiar with Hayek's work could tell you that this assertion was a patent mis-representation of Hayek's thought. Rudd is either willfully ignorant or willfully misrepresented of Hayek's thought. Rudd's entire argument collapses like a house of cards if we were to consider, for instance, this quotes from Hayek's book, "The Fatal Conceit":

"…we must constantly adjust our lives, our thoughts and our emotions, in order to live simultaneously within different kinds of orders according to different rules. If we were to apply the unmodified, uncurbed rules of the…small band or troop, or…our families…to the (extended order of cooperation through markets), as our instincts and sentimental yearnings often make us wish to do, we would destroy it. Yet if we were to always apply the (competitive) rules of the extended order to our more intimate groupings, we would crush them."
(Hayek, 1988, p 18)

Hayek argues that extended orders of cooperation are impossible to maintain if the rules of small scale interactions (like those within the family) are applied to the macro scale. Not, as Rudd represents Hayek's thought as being, that applying the rules of these small scale interactions is always a mistakes.

It is one of Hayek's most famous quotes so it is difficult to maintain that someone who had actually done any research on Hayek and his thought could possibly be ignorant of it. It is incumbent on Rudd to either maintain intellectual honesty and either not give a speech about a topic about which he quite obviously has no understanding or alternatively be honest about Hayek's philosophy and engage it for what it is rather than the straw-man version Rudd presents.

UPDATE: I just noticed The Economist's Free Exchange blog has a post making almost exactly the same point except that it was written some time ago. Nice to know that I'm in good company.