It is no accident that the Australian “conservative” movement has transformed into an echo of the toxic American Right. Fossil fuel money and a giant international network of junktanks bear much of the blame.

Dr Jeremy Walker’s research into the Atlas Network’s Australian partners brought that American body to prominence over the referendum campaign. The media coverage of his academic study into the influence of “think” tanks such as the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) and the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) carrying Atlas strategies into the Australian civic discourse raised Atlas’s profile.

The latest attack by Atlas partner organisations, including (unofficially) News Corp, is a strategic campaign against offshore wind farms.

The model, as Walker reports, for the supposedly grassroots campaign against offshore wind farms on coastal NSW is derived from a related campaign in the United States. Researchers into climate disinformation at Brown University’s IBES first noticed local groups springing up with high production value visual material and matching talking points. While some figures acting in local Facebook groups seem to be authentic (if misled), others seem suspiciously strategic in their interaction.

Sydney University of Technology hosted an international webinar last week that brought together some of the best research voices challenging the climate disinformation industry which is in large part coordinated by Atlas. This sector continues to block any real action to prevent climate catastrophe – indeed is responsible for causing this crisis – as well as escalating the destruction of democratic projects around the world. There is to be no scope for any nation’s public to obstruct their ultra-free market goals.

Walker led the program hosted by former senator Scott Ludlum. Duke’s Professor Nancy MacLean, author of Democracy in Chains expanded on her investigative history of this movement. Professor Timmons Roberts from Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab and environmental journalist Brendan DeMille, executive director of the crucial DeSmog blog, detailed their work and resources. (Unfortunately Amy Westervelt of the outstanding Drilled site and podcast was called away.)

The two hours of the webinar was filled with densely conveyed information and access to resources such as the collection of fossil fuel industry documents illustrating that they knew carbon would create a climate disaster from the 1950s but decided from the 1980s to destroy the civic debate instead of changing business model to avert the catastrophe. Desmog provides extensive information about the Atlas Network’s functions and its partners around the globe. Roberts gave a link to the CDL site to contradict fossil fuel-funded disinformation about offshore wind energy. (The latest series from Drilled focuses on the criminalisation of climate and environmental protesters, and its crushing of free speech.)

Walker outlined the history of the Atlas phenomenon, pointing out that international oil industry manoeuvring began in the earliest years of the 20th century, even before widespread universal suffrage in democracies. Their goal to override national sentiments and constraints in supranational treaties and trade deals is central to their power and profit.

Walker pointed out that the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) acts as the inner sanctum of the Atlas Network. It was founded in 1947 with oil connections from the outset, and neoliberalism can be dated from its inaugural conference. Atlas founder Anthony Fisher’s daughter Linda Whetstone was a director of his prototype “think” tank the British Institute of Economic Affairs, president of the MPS in 2020 and chairman of the Atlas Network from 2016.

As of the last leaked membership list of the secretive MPS in 2013, former Prime Minister John Howard was a member. John Roskam (Executive Director until 2022, now Senior Fellow, at the IPA) and News Corp’s Janet Albrechtsen were listed. Director and Founder of the CIS, Greg Lindsay, was a former president of the MPS. Ron Manners, founder of Atlas connected “think” tank the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation is a current director of the MPS. Maurice Newman, around the time he was chair of the ABC, was also listed. He helped found the CIS and was a seminal backer of Advance Australia which led the campaign against the Voice to Parliament.

The notorious Charles Koch took over orchestrating Atlas’s success after Fisher’s 1987 death, not to mention being a member of the MPS. Koch Industries was identified to be a “kingpin of climate science denial.” Without the Kochs and Rupert Murdoch, the Tea Party which morphed into Trump’s MAGA movement would have been stillborn. In 1980, when his brother and partner David ran as a Libertarian Party candidate, father of American conservatism William F Buckley described their politics as “Anarcho Totalitarianism.”

MacLean’s presentation highlighted the fact that the figures who held these “public choice” theories, devised by James Buchanan and largely funded by Koch (and peers), knew their ultra free market ideas would not win majority votes and so set out secretly to cripple democracy by any “technology” they could devise. MacLean drew attention to global attacks on democracy and surging autocracy, featuring the Atlas-connected money and “think” tanks that drove the Brexit vote as well as promoting far-right and neofascist politics in Europe. Both movements are tied to climate denial.

The Atlas Network’s main goal, as Demille summarised it, has been to spot and train global talent in the ultra free-market libertarian field and connect it to the free-flowing money that the alliance functions to assist. They now have at least 515 partner organisations in over 100 nations. The contributions of donors and even the fact of bodies functioning as Atlas partners, have been hidden as part of making any account such as this look like a conspiracy theory. They know that the impacts of complete deregulation – tainted water, air, dangerous workplaces – will be unpalatable even to the people inculcated to believe deregulation is desirable. The secession of the rich from civil society, particularly in paying tax, has meant ever fewer services and deteriorating infrastructure for the electorate. Secrecy is key for the corporations and plutocrats funding this model, structuring replicating “think” tanks and funding academics and spin doctors to sell what the backers can’t say.

George Monbiot, environmental and political journalist, describes these “think” tanks as “junktanks.” Included are those like the CIS that prefer to remain in the background targeting “high” strategies at politicians, CEOs and journalists. Also included are bodies such as the IPA which play to the “low” strategies at least in their public facade. The IPA fosters every idiot ball distraction that fuels the grievances and resentment in the culture war ignition of an enraged base. Those idiot balls are framed by their colleagues in America and imported lightly tinkered for the Australian market. Much of this is channelled through News Corp mastheads and Sky News, now funnelled free-to-air into the regions. Many idiot balls, such as the tantrums about EVs ruining the weekend or the threat to gas stoves, serve fossil fuel interests.

We must work out how to demarcate junktanks from think tanks doing genuine research. We must remove tax free status and ensure that their donor lists are made public. Every journalist or politician that emerges from or remains allied to such a junktank, every interviewee representing them, should be identified as such whenever they make a pronouncement. These disingenuous actors will, of course, feign outrage, pretending that bodies with integrity such as The Australia Institute are their mirror image “on the left.”

We must draw attention, constantly, to the asymmetric warfare at work. While one part of our civic space functions according to old (flawed) rules, the new Right respects no rules, traditions or norms. One of their strategies is projection: every political actor, researcher or “enemy” media body is as belligerent as they are. They also act to nobble the referees. Pretending that factcheckers, media bodies or public servants are as politically-driven as themselves is one of their weapons.

Our politicians and independent media figures need to speak about this architecture of influence and its anti-majoritarian goals.

This is no minor skirmish. The divisions in society that they are working to create can lead to authoritarian regulation and civic violence.

For some of the oligarchs behind and strategists working for the Atlas Network and interrelated bodies there is a genuine reactionary yearning for an older white society governed by strict “biblical morality.” Christian Libertarianism is a description of America’s perverted libertarianism that desires statist control of bodies. For other cynics in the network, religious Right factions provide a voter bloc and cover for the free market and climate-denial activities. For these reasons, the forces work in concert with and fund Christian Nationalists.

The autocracies promoted by these forces around the globe promote fossil fuel production and consumption. Ultra free-market concepts are matched with repression of individuals and the end of rights and freedom of conscience. Citizens who are content to earn and consume may not notice the difference until climate disasters make their food unaffordable or unavailable. Those who aim to protest the breakdown of our societies under the manifold pressures of the climate catastrophe and economic injustice, combined with the brutal treatment of climate refugees, will be branded extremists or terrorists and will suffer.

The irony is that the people targeted by the strategists into becoming part of the climate denial and delay movement – such as the conspiracists who join the NIMBYs to fight renewables like offshore wind farms – are almost right. But this conspiracy is tracked and piled high with peer-reviewed academic study.

Atlas’s credo is: “We believe that all individuals have the right to pursue opportunities, enjoy success, and live a life of freedom without coercion or persecution. And so we tirelessly aid in the unshackling of individual liberty, free enterprise, and voluntary cooperation to prevent future poverty.” This pablum is actually intended to disguise the impoverishment of the vast majority of humanity, indeed its destruction in the climate catastrophe, while the 0.1% enjoy the liberty that statement celebrates.

Atlas and partners like the CIS hate attention. We must not let them hide.

A shorter version of this essay was published at Pearls and Irritations as Secrecy and the climate disinformation industry

In the final two months of 2023, the Australian political landscape was plagued by negative bias campaigning tactics similar to those of Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. It is unsurprising, considering that negativity is a core element of their political philosophy. They appear incapable of recognising any positive aspect of their opponents’ policies whatsoever.

Regrettably, political negativity can be a highly effective tool. If enough mud is thrown, some of it will eventually stick. Today’s hard right does not settle for merely a handful of mudslinging; they go for bucketfuls.

For example, the government was targeted by conservative mudslinging when they failed to anticipate the High Court’s ruling on refugees. This failure was shamelessly exploited by Peter Dutton et al, who placed politics above proper political conduct. They prioritised the politics of damaging their opponents over helping to solve an exacting problem.

As night follows day, the Australian right-wing press decided on some good old leader bashing, with the Prime Minister being the target of their excrement. The conversation became about refugees, and Dutton became the superhero of far-right politics.

That the problem demanded some very considered legislation mattered not to an opposition out for the kill. Dutton got what he wanted. A bill well short of considered thought. A bill that wouldn’t survive a High Court challenge.

Dutton was offered a viewing of the legal advice he had received on the subject on Sunday, 3 December, and to this day, they have yet to bother to set their eyes upon it.

Following his inglorious defeat of The Voice referendum using negativity bias, Dutton applied the same tactics to the High Court decision.

Negativity bias is now permanently engrained in what once was an adversarial but fair democracy where lies were said, but consequences risked. Now, lying is tolerated within the endless bounds of ‘Trumpism‘, where truth has negligible importance because negativity and ignorance prevail.

You believe whatever you want. It is unimportant because conservatives and their media tarts reinforce their bullshit all the time.

The Prime Minister and his Ministers must weave into their answers to questions (any question) something that refers to the LNP’s incompetence while in government. Goodness knows there is a mountain of dreadful instances to choose from. Reinforcing the LNP’s failure in office should be an automatic response within any answer.

It is well-known how negative Tony Abbott was in opposition. So much so that it was responsible for him becoming Prime Minister. They called him the best Opposition leader ever. Subsequently, he was a failure in the top job.

We know negative bias works, but how?

Research shows that we react more strongly to negative stimuli. We think about negative things more frequently than positive ones and respond more strongly to adverse events than equally positive ones.

“Research has also shown that people tend to focus more on the negative across a wide array of psychological events as they try to make sense of the world.”

We also tend “to pay more attention to adverse events than positive ones” and learn more from negative outcomes and experiences. We also make decisions based on negative information more than positive data.

The “bad things” grab our attention, stick to our memories, and often influence our decisions. Additionally, studies have shown that:

“… negative news is more likely to be perceived as truthful. Since negative information draws greater attention, it also has greater validity. This is why bad news garners more attention.”

Politics

“Differences in negativity bias have also been linked to political ideology. Some research suggests that conservatives may have more robust psychological responses to negative information than social democrats.

Some evidence, for example, has found that people who consider themselves politically conservative are more likely to rate ambiguous stimuli as threatening.”

Such differences in the negativity bias might explain why some people are more likely to value things such as tradition and security. In contrast, others are more open to embracing ambiguity and change.

If you go to the link provided, you will find a more comprehensive explanation of negative bias. However, I have given you something to think about. Moreover, we must all adjust to the fact that negativity plays a vital part in the election of a government. The reality is that a large cohort of folk thrive on scandals. They prosper on negativity. They believe they are always told the truth even when it is demonstrably not the case.

Our only recourse is to tell the truth; sometimes, more is needed. We must remind everyone of how dreadful the Coalition really was.

It was a policy that was bound to send a shiver through the policymaking community. The issue of nuclear energy in Australia has always been a contentious one. Currently, the country hosts a modest nuclear industry, centred on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), nuclear medicine and laboratory products. But even this has created headaches in terms of long-term storage of waste, plagued by successful legal challenges from communities and First Nation groups. The advent of AUKUS, with its inane yet provocative promise of nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy, adds yet another, complicating dimension to this fact. Without a clear idea of a site, a vital part of the nuclear dilemma remains unresolved.

Broadly speaking, the nuclear issue, in manifold manifestations, has never entirely disappeared from the periphery of Australian policy. The fact that Australia became a primary testing ground for Britain’s nuclear weapons program was hardly something that would have left Canberra uninterested in acquiring some nuclear option. Options were considered, be they in the realm of a future weapons capability, or energy generation.

In a June 29, 1961 letter from Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies to his counterpart in the UK, Harold Macmillan, concerns over the impediments imposed by a potential treaty that would impose limitations on countries the subject of nuclear testing were candidly expressed. Were that treaty to go ahead, it “could prove a serious limitation on the range of decisions open to a future Australian Government in that it could effectively preclude or at least impose a very substantial handicap on Australia’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”

Menzies put forth a suggestion that was ultimately never pursued – at least officially. An arrangement deemed “more practical,” suggested the Australian PM, might involve “the supply of ready-made weapons” at the conclusion of such a treaty.

A sore point here were efforts by the Soviets to insist that countries such as Australia be banned from pursuing their own nuclear program. Menzies therefore wished Macmillan “to accord full recognition of the potentially serious security situation in which Australia could find herself placed as a result of having accommodated United Kingdom testing.”

Australia eventually abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions with the ratification of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in February 1970, preferring, instead, the nuclear umbrella of extended deterrence offered by the United States. (The nature of that deterrence has always seemed spectacularly hollow.) Domestically, nuclear technology would be sparingly embraced. Nuclear power stations, however, were banned in every state and territory, a policy left unchallenged by a number of parliamentary inquiries.

The quest of meeting emissions reduction targets during the transition to the goal of net zero was bound to refocus interest on the nuclear power issue. The Liberal-National opposition is keen to put the issue of nuclear power back on the books. It is a dream that may never see the light of day, given, according to the chief government scientific body, the CSIRO, its uncompetitive nature and the absence of “the relevant frameworks in place for its consideration and operation within the timeframe required.”

Australian politicians have often faced, even when flirting with the proposition of adopting nuclear power, firm rebuke. South Australian Premier Malinauskas gave us one example in initially expressing the view late last year that “the ideological opposition that exists in some quarters to nuclear power is ill-founded.” It did not take him long to tell the ABC’s 7.30 program that he did not wish “to suggest that nuclear should be part of the mix in our nation.” Australia had to “acknowledge that nuclear power would make energy more expensive in our nation & [we should] put it to one side, rather than having a culture war about nuclear power.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been by far the boldest, pitching for a gentler exit from the fossil-fuel powered nirvana Australia has occupied for decades. Australia, he is adamant, should join “the international nuclear energy renaissance.” Of particular interest to him is the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which might be purposefully built on coal generator cites as part of the general energy package alongside renewables. SMRs, as Joanne Liou of the International Atomic Energy Agency explains, “are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 Mw(e) per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors.”

The heralded advantages of such devices, at least as advertised by its misguided proponents, lie in their size – being small and modular, ease of manufacture, shipping and installation. They also offer, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, “savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.”

For all these benefits, the cold reality of SMR designs is how far they have yet to go before becoming viable. Four SMRs are currently in operation, though these, according to Friends of the Earth Australia’s lead national nuclear campaigner, Jim Green, hardly meet the “modular definition” in terms of serial factory production of components relevant to such devices.

Russia and China, despite hosting such microreactors, have faced considerable problems with cost blowouts and delays, the very things that SMRs are meant to avoid. Oregon-based NuScale has tried to convince and gull potential patrons that its small reactor projects will take off, though the audience for its chief executive John Hopkins is primarily limited to the Coalition and NewsCorp stable. The company’s own cost estimates for energy generation, despite heavy government subsidies, have not made SMR adoption in the United States, let alone Australia, viable.

In his second budget reply speech in May, Dutton showed little sign of being briefed on these problems, stating that “any sensible government [in the 21^st century] must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix.” Labor’s policies on climate change had resulted in placing Australia “on the wrong energy path.”

Such views have not impressed the Albanese Government. Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists that counterfeit claims are being peddled on the issue of the role played by nuclear energy in Canada along with false distinctions between the costs of nuclear power and renewable energy.

“If they are serious about proposing a nuclear solution for Australia, the simplistic bumper stickers and populist echo chamber has to come to an end. Show the Australian people your verified nuclear costings and your detailed plans about where the nuclear power plants will go.”

Such verification will be a tall order indeed. As the CSIRO concedes, “Without more real-world data for SMRs demonstrating that nuclear can be economically viable, the debate will likely continue to be dominated by opinion and conflicting social values rather than a discussion on the underlying assumptions.”

By Denis Bright

Leadership change in Queensland has occurred with lightning speed after the unexpected announcement by Anastacia Palaszczuk that it was time for her to leave the leadership stage.

As Premier of Queensland since 2015, Premier Palaszczuk presided over the transition from a one term para-military LNP state government, restored collegiate conventions in policy decision-making and effectively managed the COVID-19 crisis. Perhaps the greatest policy gift of the Palaszczuk Government was the increases in royalties for coal, gas and mineral exports which were delivered last financial year when export prices were at a temporarily optimum level.

This recent era of windfall increases in receipts from royalty payments has now ended. Export prices have stabilized. Queenslanders must accept the realities of sustainable energy transitions and their financial costs in projections from the state budget papers.

This is also a transitional period for the wider Australian economy. Projections from Trading Economics for Australian Private Capital Expenditure carries implications for future private sector investment which largely determines the fate of Australian living standards:

Percentage Changes in Australian Quarterly Private Capital Expenditure

Attempts to isolate China’s potential contribution to global investment are a big negative for the global economy and for the countries of our region, in particular. Due to security concerns, Australia’s foreign investment is being diverted back to the US and Britain until alternative investment ties with the QUAD countries of India, Japan, Australia and the US are fully consolidated. Higher interest rate regimes in these QUAD countries place pressure on the Australian dollar which maintains our own higher interest rate regime. Trading Economics notes the favourable trends in Chinese interest rates during the past decade.

As in every household in these challenging times, the incoming leadership team will review all discretionary spending. Meg Bolton and Gemma Ferguson of ABC News (9 December 2023) covered the constant grind of cost-of-living pressures on both family households and small businesses.

The cost-of-living problems also extend to sustainable strategies for the delivery of government services at all levels. The Mid-Year Financial Outlook (MYOFO) will be released on New Year’s Eve by federal Treasurer, Jim Chalmers with its implications for financial management in Queensland. Almost half the revenue for the Queensland Government is derived from federal grants and GST revenue. Federal commitments to Stage 3 Tax Cuts need modifications to offer legitimate tax reform while asking comfortably off families to pay their fair share of progressive taxation regimes.

The Queensland Government has anticipated the local, national and global trendlines. Every household has benefited from cost-of-living relief made possible by the temporary revenues from increased coal and gas royalties in the previous financial year.

Using the resources of QBuild and commercial associations with housing development firms like Nileport, the Queensland Government has taken big initiatives in social housing.

The extent of social housing interventions has been explained by (Q Housing Minister Meaghan Scanlan 21 June 2023):

• Record commitment of $5 billion for social and affordable housing, the largest concentrated investment in Queensland’s history, to help deliver 13,500 homes.
• In Redbank Plains, the Palaszczuk Government has contracted Queensland-based Nileport Projects to build a $5.8 million complex of eighteen one-bedroom apartments, including two fully accessible homes suitable for wheelchair users.
• A complex of five one-bedroom apartments at Booval in Ipswich is expected to be completed in December 2023.

In sections of adjacent Riverview former public sector detached houses are fetching rentals of $400 per week through private rental agencies. Here, streetscapes have deteriorated through generations of neglect for public housing in a riverside suburb on the boundaries between the federal electorates of Blair and Ryan Innovative housing styles are revitalizing styles of living are transforming old suburbs.

Nileport Showing New Streetscapes for Redbank near Ipswich

Co-investment between government and commercial providers in infrastructure and community development is helping to spread the outreach of key sectors of government. More conventional financial partnerships may have avoided the recent controversies with the Brisbane City Council and sporting associations over the funding of a redeveloped RNA Showground Stadium. This precinct is a prime location for more all-round use as a convention centre and housing venue near a proposed Cross-River Rail Station that will also serve the Royal Hospital. Redevelopment of the RNA stadium might have been strategically merged with other projects in housing and community development for this important inner-city precinct.

The new RNA showgrounds will feature a new rail station. All major sporting bodies are set to say ‘no’ to the state government’s request to split $91 million between them, Brisbane City Council and the RNA (Image Cross-River Rail Authority)

Queensland’s commitment to social housing and to the revitalization of disadvantaged suburbs brings out the positives in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), co-investment and the future roles for the Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC) in mobilizing alternative ways and means for the delivery of quite essential outcomes. Many projects would not be completed in the near future if they were totally reliant on direct government funding.

Inner-city precincts at Woolloongabba, Roma Street and Fortitude Valley are being transformed by innovative inner-city planning strategies delivered through PPP initiatives. Extending these Transport Oriented Developments (TODs) to Outer Metro Areas like Springfield, Beenleigh and Ipswich will always attract much longer-term policy commitments to reshape Metro Skylines by 2050 if Queensland retains its discerning style of political leadership.

In Fortitude Valley, investment by LaSalle Investment Management has restored this inner-city station precinct. The Woolworth’s Metro store has added to the attractive power of the refurbished complex which attracts 24,000 commuters and shoppers each day. There are at least thirty retailers close to a vibrant food court. La Salle claims to have invested $500 million in the refurbishment of both the Valley Metro and adjacent Transport House.

A continued black spot in this redevelopment is the continued presence of the Walkway Complex across Wickham Street with its disused escalators to street level from a side exit from the Valley Metro.

Housing affordability is a real asset for the McWhirters complex. Good local government planning with support from the state government might help to extend this refurbishment of a vital inner city with advantages for the delivery of affordable housing.

Realestate.com.au notes that the median rent in Fortitude Valley is $550 per week for a one-bedroom unit. Two-bedroom units have a median price of $635. The latter involves a shared housing cost of $160 per week which is very affordable for inner-city Brisbane.

Spreading the Christmas cheer into 2024 is an imperative for all from the corridors of power to homeless residents on the streets and in tents around parks and riverbanks.

These times justify more public advertising to explain the processes of government at all levels. The alternative is to allow family dynasties in control of mainstream media networks to turn future elections into populist auctions as in 2012-3 when Labor lost control of every level of government affecting Queenslanders. Premier Campbell Newman expected a better funding deal for Cross-River Rail from the Abbott Government but received nothing in the end. This essential project became a big financial burden on the Palaszczuk Government.

So, let’s join the hostesses to make the Christmas cheer last longer as new leaders take over in Queensland with a freshly tuned media messages to explain our complex emergent social realities.

BCC-Christmas 2023 in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane

By Denis Hay

Neoliberalism is the commodification of everyone and everything for profit regardless of the negative social or environmental costs.

Neoliberalism, often characterized by its emphasis on free-market capitalism, deregulation, and minimal government intervention in the economy, has been a dominant economic and political ideology globally. However, its impact on society, the environment, and democratic systems has sparked significant debate and concern. This article explores these impacts and argues for the necessity of reassessing and changing neoliberal policies for the greater good of society and the environment.

The Social and Environmental Impact of Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism has been linked to increasing inequality, poverty, crime, violence against women, and environmental deterioration (Antrobus, 2018) (Long, Stretesky, Lynch, Hall, 2019). Its rejection of governmental regulation in favour of free markets has often led to negative consequences for the environment and exposed communities to disproportionate health and safety hazards from corporate polluters (Bell, 2015). For example, in Australia, neoliberalism has fragmented environmental justice struggles and eroded civil society formations advocating for environmental justice (Lukacs, 2017) (State of the Environment, 2021).

The Case for Public Ownership of Essential Services

Public ownership of all essential services is crucial for ensuring that these services are accessible to all, regardless of income. The neoliberal approach often leads to the privatization of these services, prioritizing profit over public good and accessibility. The marginalization of policies informed by social justice and equity in neoliberal educational systems is a stark example of this issue (Grimaldi, 2012).

The Case for Public Ownership of Essential Services: Emphasizing Free Public Education and Healthcare

In the context of public ownership of essential services, a critical focus must be placed on fully funded free public education at all levels and a comprehensive healthcare system that includes dental care. These services are not just commodities but fundamental rights that ensure the well-being and development of a society.

Importance of Fully Funded Free Public Education: Fully funded free public education is a pivotal tool in shaping a fair and equitable society, as it ensures that every individual, irrespective of their financial background, has the opportunity to achieve their full potential and contribute meaningfully to the community, effectively countering the commodification of education seen in neoliberal frameworks and fostering a more informed, capable citizenry, thus strengthening the very fabric of our society.

The book “Resisting Neoliberalism in Education” (ISBN: 9781447350071) offers a critical examination of the pervasive influence of neoliberalism in the education sector and highlights the importance of resistance to its detrimental impacts. Neoliberalism in education has led to increased commodification, competition, and a narrowing of curricular focus, often at the expense of democratic principles, critique, and equality.

The book emphasizes the significance of teachers, headteachers, and educators adopting strategies of resistance to challenge and transform these neoliberal directives in education. This resistance is not only about safeguarding the quality of education but also about preserving the very essence of democratic, inclusive, and socially just educational practices.

The inclusion of such perspectives in the discourse on public ownership of essential services underlines the urgent need to protect and enhance our educational systems from the encroachment of neoliberal ideologies, ensuring they still are accessible, fair, and oriented towards the public good.

Creating a Unified Healthcare System: Merging Private and Public for Better Health for All

In today’s world, the importance of a comprehensive healthcare system, including dental care, cannot be overstated. A fully funded, free healthcare system is crucial for the health and productivity of any society. Healthcare should be a fundamental right, accessible to all, regardless of economic status. Unfortunately, under neoliberal policies, healthcare often becomes a market commodity, leading to unequal access and a financial burden on those less affluent.

However, there is a growing need to rethink this approach. Integrating private healthcare services into a public system can be a game-changer. This integration would mean that the efficiency and innovation often found in private healthcare are combined with the accessibility and equity of a public system. It is about taking the best of both worlds to ensure that every citizen has prompt access to necessary medical services, including dental care.

This approach not only improves public health outcomes but also promotes social equity. It is a direct challenge to the negative impacts of neoliberalism on essential services. By bringing private healthcare under public ownership, we align with the principles of social justice and equity. It is a significant step towards building a society where all citizens, regardless of their financial background, can thrive and have access to quality healthcare.

The Need for an Economy Benefiting All Citizens

Neoliberalism promotes a model of economic growth that often neglects its adverse social and political repercussions, leading to growing inequalities (Jessop, 2018). An economy working for the benefit of all citizens requires a shift from this model, focusing on a fair distribution of resources and opportunities.

The evidence shows that the neoliberal approach, while successful in some respects, has significant drawbacks, especially concerning social justice, environmental sustainability, and democratic integrity. There is a growing need to reassess and reorient policies to prioritize public welfare and sustainable development.

Question for Readers: “How can we, as individuals and communities, contribute to shaping an economy and society that is more inclusive, sustainable, and just?”

Call to Action: Each of us must stay informed, engage in community dialogues, and take part actively in democratic processes to advocate for policies that promote social justice, environmental sustainability, and fair economic practices.

#RethinkNeoliberalism #SocialJusticeForAll #SustainableFuture #DemocraticIntegrity

References

Australian Labor led centre-left parties into neoliberalism, The Guardian.

How the Myths of “Progressive Neoliberalism” Hollowed Out Australia’s Left, Jacobin.

The debate we’re yet to have about private health insurance, The Conversation.

Articles on Private health insurance in Australia, The Conversation.

An Economy for the 99%: It’s time to build a human economy that benefits everyone, not just the privileged few, Oxfam.

Climate Equality: A planet for the 99%, Oxfam.

Radical Pathway Beyond GDP: Why and how we need to pursue feminist and decolonial alternatives urgently, Oxfam.

If you walk into a business that retails new cars, find a salesperson and have a discussion on what your specific wants and needs they will always be able to recommend something from the range of vehicles in the dealership. If you’re talking to a Toyota salesperson, they are most unlikely to suggest that a Hyundai or a Subaru would provide a closer fit with the requirements that you set out. Of course, the Toyota wouldn’t have everything you described as needing or wanting, to which the salesperson would go into great detail on why you didn’t need the missing feature or lead you towards a similar ‘better’ feature in the range of vehicles they sold.

It’s the process of making a sale. You can also observe similar practices if you were to wander into an Apple or Samsung store or one of the stores run by the big telcos. The Telcos are even more reliant on making a sale as the products they offer are almost identical. They all offer NBN services, mobile phones and fixed wireless internet. In the case of the NBN, they all resell the same service but claim a point of difference with the price, the quality of their call centre or the inclusion of ‘added extras’.

Everyone does it, Woolworths and Coles have access to the manufacturers of packaged goods, commercial arrangements with primary producers and contracts with logistics companies to get the goods from the paddock or warehouse to the plate as fast as possible with only minimal damage to the quality at worst. Woolworths prices are kept ‘down’ using similar practices to Coles who in turn sell equally ‘fresh’ food as Woolworths. The proof is Aldi who are in the same business, but rarely advertise the freshness or cost of items bought from their shops – but promote their ‘difference’.

It’s not hard to sell something. As we’ve seen business does it relentlessly and well. Bank staff ‘sell’ home loans, electronics manufacturers convince people to throw out perfectly good equipment because it doesn’t have the latest gadget with a multi-letter acronym that ‘guarantees’ a better experience. There are people employed to convince you to change your brand of shampoo as your current one doesn’t leave enough shine or bounce in your hair! So what is Prime Minister Albanese’s excuse for not selling his governments achievements?

In the chaotic last week of Parliament for the year, Albanese’s government managed to cement a deal with the states to ensure the NDIS is used for supporting those that need the support, which meant the states have to tip some additional money into the pot. A report on the NDIS was released that identified where considerable waste (hint: a lot of it is to do with the process the previous Government put in to manage the scheme). Albanese steered the original NDIS legislation through the Parliament when a minister in Gillard’s minority government. He should be shouting from the rooftops that they have fixed the problems with the system imposed by the government where the current Opposition Leader was a key Minister.

In the same week, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek landed a deal to increase the flows in the Murray-Darling river system that landowners, the Greens and the government could agree to. No, the deal isn’t perfect and each party to the agreement would be able to suggest ‘improvements’ but some improvement is better than the status quo. There was also movement on the long overdue ‘same work, same pay’ legislation.

So, a bit of competence all round eh? Maybe in an alternative universe there was some acknowledgement of a job well done that actually supports those who need some assistance to live in our society or comment on how the additional flows will assist in returning the environment in and around the Murray-Darling basin to something remotely resembling health. It certainly didn’t happen in this universe. Most of the media were reporting Coalition concerns that some refugees that the government had been forced to released from detention after they had completed sentences for criminal offences had been re-arrested, using the Coalitions talking point that it was all a government foul up. Katherine Murphy in The Guardian was one of the few exceptions.

The ‘refugee crisis’ always was a beat up by the Coalition. Apart from the tradition suggesting that once you have done the time associated with the crime, you are rehabilitated and free to go, the policy around permanent detention was written and implemented predominately by the Coalition when in government. In short, the Coalition was arguing that its own lawmaking process was incompetent or badly managed. Albanese folded and brought in rushed and ill-considered legislation before he even tried to make the argument. Maybe the Home Affairs and Immigration Ministers should have been out prior to the Court’s decision suggesting there was a chance that the refugees would have to be released and if that occurred, it was the Coalition’s poor legislation drafting that would cause it. Alternately having the discussion around the ethics and morals of keeping one group of people in detention indefinitely while others who had behaved in a similar way were free of restrictions would have made Australia a slightly fairer and more equal society could have been worth it.

The problem with generally competent governments is the media loses influence if it’s not seen to be driving the agenda and hammering home what you should believe. While some will have a genuine concern with some of the actions of a government, a lot of the output is aligned to the media owner’s individual political preferences. Nature abhors a vacuum and tries to fill it, so if you don’t get your positive message out to fill the available space, others will have no hesitation in filling the space with negativity.

In the 1970s, both the Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council had regular five-minute TV broadcasts that gave their version on the benefits of the programs they were implementing. Rightly or wrongly, both the Premier (Joh Bjelke-Petersen) and Lord Mayor (Clem Jones) stayed in their roles through multiple elections. They both knew that if they drove the agenda it was harder for opposition to catch up, regardless of the issue of the day.

For the Government to succeed, they have to suck the venom out of the Opposition’s opposition to everything. A comprehensive demolition across the Dispatch Box won’t do it as most of us might see the 30 second version on the TV and decide it’s just politicians being politicians again. The media won’t help the government as there is a commercial imperative to sell the conflict. The government telling us to wait a little while until the release something clearly doesn’t work as it allows the vacuum to be filled by others to set the agendas in a competition where coming from behind is always difficult.

If the government doesn’t change how it markets itself – Dutton will be Prime Minister in 2025 and a textbook case of how to win government in one term.

By Denis Hay

Introduction

In the mid-20th century, Australia was a society where full-time, secure employment was the norm, and the government supplied excellent training in trades and other professions for school leavers. However, over the past four decades, neoliberal ideology has transformed Australian society, leading to high unemployment, insecure jobs, homelessness, poverty, and elevated levels of inequality.

The Rise of Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism, a political and economic philosophy that combines governments and markets, entered the Australian political mainstream in the 1980s. It advocates for the creation and maintenance of functioning markets by an interventionist state. The Hawke-Keating government implemented key reforms using neoliberal logic, such as replacing the universal pension with a market-oriented system of private savings. This trend intensified under the Coalition government of John Howard, a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, which is considered the origin of neoliberalism.

The Impact of Neoliberalism

Neoliberal policies have led to a shift in the Australian welfare state policy agenda favouring the free market, small government, and reduced social expenditure. These policies have resulted in the retrenchment of the welfare state, with the introduction of forms of conditional welfare that require participants to conform to behavioural or attitudinal tests to keep eligibility for certain payments. Consequently, even individuals with a university degree now struggle to secure full-time employment.

The Current State of Society

Today, many young Australians face the prospect of part-time, casual work with no conditions and no security. The youth of today have been left with an expensive, broken system that is based on greed and jobs for corporations that support neoliberal politicians.

Strategies for a Fair Society

To put Australia on the path to a fair society for all citizens, several strategies can be implemented:

1. Promote Full-Time Employment: Governments should actively pursue policies that promote full-time employment for anyone who wants it.
2. Legislate Minimum Wages and Conditions: A set of minimum wages and conditions should be legislated to sustain a decent standard of living in line with rising prosperity.
3. Balance of Bargaining Power in the Workplace: Policies should be implemented to ensure a balance of bargaining power in the workplace.
4. Establish a Dignified Social Transfer Safety Net: A means-tested, community-based, and dignified social transfer safety net should be set up to cover short-term contingencies.
5. Address Discrimination: Acknowledge the gravity of the problem of discrimination and implement strategies to build a more inclusive country with tolerance and respect for all Australians.

By implementing these strategies, Australia can move towards a fairer society where every citizen can thrive.

References:

How neoliberalism became an insult in Australian politics, The University of Sydney.

Ideology before evidence: How neoliberals have responded to recent Australian welfare reform measures, Monash University.

Equality of Opportunity in Australia Myth and Reality, The Australia Institute.

Strategies to address discrimination to build a more inclusive country, Australian Human Rights Commission.

How the Myths of “Progressive Neoliberalism” Hollowed Out Australia’s Left, Jacobin.

Neoliberalism and Changing Regional Policy in Australia, Dr Matthew Tonts and Dr Fiona Haslam-McKenzie.

Social Cohesion Insights 06: Inequality and the ‘Fair Go’ in Australia, Scanlon Foundation Research Institute.

Inequality and the ‘fair go’ in Australia, Scanlon Institute.

In most instances, the justice system of a liberal democracy presumes absence of arbitrary and cruel treatment by the State. Punishment, when levelled, is finite. It might see out the term of a convict’s natural life, but that would only be for the most extreme cases. Even then, the whiff of parole, while far off, might still be possible.

On being released, the usual assumptions apply. Time served is time done. Past punishment will not be revisited upon you; the State will not send its hounds and officers of the thin blue line after you. This would only happen in instances of re-offending – recidivism remains a risky feature of the post-release citizen. But in Australia, a current hysteria, fed like a hungry gargoyle by politicians on both sides of the aisle, has come to roost over the federal Parliament.

The High Court of Australia, having had the good, just sense of finding the indefinite administrative detention of refugees an unwarranted excess of executive power, was always going to make matters challenging for the government. For one thing, few expected it. That same body had previously held in Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) that such forms of indefinite confinement were perfectly legal, even if those refugees could never have a reasonable prospect of either settling in Australia or a third country. But in November, it all changed.

In the NZYQ case, the High Court affirmed the constitutional principle that detention is a form of punishment and is a judicial power exercisable once a person is found guilty of a crime. Laws authorising the administrative detention of non-citizens by the executive arm of government could only be constitutionally valid if reasonably necessary for a legitimate non-punitive purpose. The law authorising the detention of NZYQ, a stateless Rohingya man, was not appropriately adapted to the purpose of his removal, given that he had “no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in a reasonably foreseeable future.”

Of particular concern to the Albanese government was the issue of what to do with those administrative detainees with convictions, but had, as such, done the time. On paper, it should not have been controversial. With their sentence served, they would surely be permitted their liberty subject to the usual caveats of forfeiture. But those in immigration detention were seen as exceptional, the undesirable, unconventional sort who had come by boat. Rather than being permitted to disappear into Australia’s own version of legal purgatory, they were let out instead, posing an unacceptable risk. How that risk was unacceptable relative to that posed by other convicts was never explained.

Instead of finding a sober, mature approach to dealing with the matter, a quarry for hysterical rhetoric was opened. Heavy digging commenced with reports of a growing though small number of reoffenders, including an Afghan refugee who was charged with two counts of indecent assault in Adelaide.

The Liberal-National Coalition, led by the icy Peter Dutton, histrionically claimed that the released detainees posed exceptional risk. A media release from the Liberal Party wondered “why the Government panicked and urgently released in excess of 140 detainees when the [High Court] decision clearly applies to the single detainee NZYQ.” The insinuation was clear: irrespective of the High Court’s ruling, most of the detainees could still be confined, as long as the reason was sufficiently cooked.

Labor, historically vulnerable to the anti-refugee hysterics of the LNP, could only come up with a pale version of the same. It has attacked Dutton as a “protector of paedophiles” for opposing draft proposals for paedophile school ban zones. “They came here,” raged Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil, “and instead of supporting Labor’s attempts to criminalise paedophiles, who loiter near daycare centres and schools, the leader of the opposition came in here and played politics instead.”

Immigration Minister Andrew Giles also lamented before his fellow parliamentarians that, “The government did not choose to be in this position. The situation was imposed on this parliament by the High Court.” Both sides of politics meet at a dubious apex: that refugees with convictions must be treated as a monstrous category. The important thing was identifying a suitable preventative regime to achieve that purpose.

The laws just rushed through parliament permit the immigration minister to seek a court order to detain individuals released from immigration detention. Two conditions must be met: that the person be convicted for a crime, be it in Australia or overseas, carrying a sentence of at least seven years’ imprisonment; and the court’s agreement that the person poses “an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violent or sexual offence” with “no less restrictive measure available” to maintain community safety.

Other impediments are also imposed upon those released into the community as part of what is known as the Bridging Visa R subclass. Many of these are repurposed from anti-terrorist legislation, with a focus on monitoring devices, regular reporting, curfews and restrictions on work and financial matters.

While the government has included the judiciary in the process of seeking re-detention, the process has a distinctly punitive flavour, constituting a form of secondary punishment. It is also especially discriminatory, applying to non-Australian citizens. Yet again, the non-citizen is being treated as a non-person. As Michelle Peterie and Amy Nethery pertinently observe, “Australians with the same criminal histories and risk profiles will not be subject to the preventative detention regime under this legislation.” A potential legal challenge, for precisely that reason, may be in the offing.

The hideous spectacle leaves us a desperate, disturbing conclusion. Even after time is served behind bars, refugees will be subject to the very discriminatory and punitive regimes that the UN Refugee Convention guards against. The agenda here is to perpetrate a regime of permanent punishment and surveillance, using an actuarial model of justice. Released refugees are to be treated no less as potential terrorists, permanently menacing. And it is a conflation the government and the main opposition parties are willing to entertain.

By Steve Davies

The normalisation and globalisation of moral disengagement

Earlier this year I created The Moral Disengagement Handbook. The handbook focusses on the Australian Government and the Australian Public Service.

Why did I focus on them? Because over the past decade Australians have lived through and witnessed an appalling decline in the behaviour and practices of politicians along with that of the government agencies whose decisions and actions effect the lives of every single Australian.

In 2023 people are very attuned to the fact that all is not well with politics and government. The trouble is that the major parties are not really listening to them. Let alone acknowledging that the problem is them – behaviours and practice – and its systemic.

The persistent sentiments that runs through people’s disquiet is that politicians and government will never change, they are out of touch, they don’t care about people, and they don’t listen. Numerous real-life examples have created and reinforced that sentiment.

These sentiments have not changed with the election of the Albanese Government. If anything those sentiments are stronger than ever. Hence, for example, the rise and rise of the Teal independents.

It may be argued that the Albanese Government inherited the situations that have given rise to these sentiments. While there is no doubt that the extremes of the Morrison Government (along with those of previous LNP Governments), plunged the decline in behaviours and practices to new depths that does not absolve the Albanese Government of responsibility.

Why do I say that? Because … As I pointed out in the handbook:

“Tragically, within the Australian Government the moral compasses of public servants and politicians have been switched off and, indeed, are expected to be switched off. As a result, great harm is done to people, society and the land we live on. To all of our institutions and democracy itself.

Here we are in 2023 and, even with the election of the Albanese Government, we see a government that is fearful of dealing with the fact that moral disengagement has been normalised in government and, to varying degrees, all of our institutions.”

Here we are in December 2023 and what are seeing from the Albanese Government just over halfway through its term of office? A continuing failure to directly address the moral disengagement that has been normalised in government and its institutions. The statement I made in the handbook still holds true today. Moreso.

“Despite the fact that Professor Bandura’s work offers practical solutions to deal with the problem the Albanese Government and the Australian Public Service persists with a tried and failed focus – Culture change and leadership. Over decades millions of dollars has been wasted on culture change programmes and leadership development in the Australian Public Service. They have failed dismally. It is the wrong solution for what is the actual problem – the normalisation of moral disengagement.

2023. The Albanese Government and the Australian Public Service continues to waste taxpayers’ money on tried, failed and wrong approaches despite the very real threats moral disengagement poses to the lives and future of the Australian people. To the health of the public service, government, society and democracy.”

The situation is even more urgent due to the dire need to ensure the behaviours, practices, policies and actions of government actually ensure the well-being of people, households and the community in the face of:

• Social inequality
• Climate change and catastrophe
• The continuing destructive impacts of the policies and actions of the Morrison Government
• Homelessness
• The loss of opportunity to younger generations now and into the future
• The severe distortion of our economy courtesy of the military industrial complex
• The continuing demise of democracy
• Especially our participation in the war and genocide being inflicted on the Palestinian people.

What we are seeing within individual Western nations, is a slide into a 21^st century dark age driven by the normalisation of moral disengagement.

The war and genocide being sponsored and inflicted on the Palestinian people by those nations is clear indication of the globalisation of moral disengagement in action.

If the governments of Western nations dealt with moral disengagement from within would they be participating in the globalisation of moral disengagement? Would they be sponsoring, directly enabling and sanitising the industrial scale slaughter of the Palestinian people?

Would they be going down the path of a Dark Age Within. A Dark Age Without?

And what can we all do, individually and together, to put a stop to the moral disengagement that is driving this comprehensive descent into darkness?

Restoring Moral Engagement in the Australian Government – Ending the silence that feeds bad government and harms people

We all know it. We all feel its the impact. Government is a big, complicated beast. Politicians seemingly never change. Many have lost sight of their real reason for being there – that is to represent their constituents and govern for all Australians.

The only time, it seems, they are interested in us is when elections come around and then many do whatever it takes to persuade us to vote for them. Increasingly, these persuasive tactics have taken on a dark and sinister form with the Liberal party now deploying Trumpian lies, and propaganda imported from the USA to scare and confuse people halting any progress to better future – think the No campaign.

Then there is the Australian Public Service. From the outside, they seem to blindly follow orders and are more concerned about protecting their own careers and political masters than serving the people. If people dare to complain they get stuck on a bureaucratic treadmill.

It’s always the same. The majority of politicians and bureaucrats at the top are in it for themselves. Despite all the money government has (our money), and all the technology it’s got worse.

The treatment of whistle blowers such as David McBride and Richard Boyle and The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry illustrate how bad things have got.

The Robodebt Royal Commission showed us all just how bad things are inside ‘the system’. People died.

Time after time the media ‘reports’ on the goings on in the Australian Government and the Australian Public Service. However are we really getting the true picture? For several years now the mainstream Australian media have not been pulling their weight when it comes to delivering independent journalism.

The major commercial media outlets and, sadly, the ABC have lost their moral compass resorting to presenting False Balance Reporting often spruiking lies and propaganda in the form of news. And it’s very obvious the Murdoch media is running a protection racket for Liberal Party and their vested interests. When the Fourth Estate has fallen prey to vested interests we know that democracy is in trouble.

The persecution of whistleblowers, the stifling freedom of information, rampant secrecy, the win at all costs misuse of the legal system along with rampant spin and denial. The Australian Government has it all. To this day.

No wonder things are a mess, and no wonder most public servants quickly learn to shut up. The threshold for being seen as a troublemaker is nigh on paranoid.

We could go on and on. Despite the good work of many, many good people an awful lot of ‘bad’ things continue to happen. The real question is what drives all the bad things. The answer is the insidious normalisation of moral disengagement. That’s the conversation The Australian Government is afraid to have.

We can have that conversation and, at the same time, hold politicians to account in a very specific way that cuts through all the clutter and denials.

Let’s gets down to it.

What is the status of the work on moral disengagement? Where did in come from?

Professor Albert Bandura (1925 – 2021). Albert “Al” Bandura, the David Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in Psychology, Emeritus, in the School of Humanities and Sciences Internationally recognised as the most influential psychologist of the twentieth century.

For his extraordinary contributions Professor Bandura was presented with the National Medal of Science at the White House by President Obama on May 19, 2016.

Without Albert Bandura the understanding of the importance of social learning, social modelling, observational learning and how people come to accept and repeat behaviours would be a shadow of what it is today.

Fast track to 2016. The publication of Albert Bandura’s book “Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves” is a powerful legacy. A practical tool to empower people in Australia and elsewhere to remove and prevent moral disengagement. To restore the health of government, all our institutions and our democracy.

“… people in all walks of life behave harmfully and still maintain positive self-regard and live in peace with themselves. They do so by disengaging moral self-sanctions from their harmful practices. These psychosocial mechanisms of moral disengagement operate at both the individual and social system levels” (Albert Bandura).

The research that underpins moral disengagement is work renowned and rock solid. The specific mechanisms of moral disengagement identified by Professor Bandura are of immense practical use.

Using the mechanisms of moral disengagement?

As Professor Bandura states the “… mechanisms of moral disengagement operate at both the individual and social system levels”. The Australian Government, the Parliament, political parties and the Australian Public Service are intense social systems.

The mechanisms can be used to judge and provide feedback on the behaviours and practices of politicians and officials within government (individual level).

The mechanisms also provide a reliable means of identifying the behaviours and practices that drive every harmful, corrupt, abusive, inhuman statement, decision, policy, process or action imaginable (social system level).

Consequently, we can all use the mechanisms to judge the moral health of the Australian Government in a precise and cohesive way. This is important as it prevents politicians and official from portraying complaints as isolated instances.

The mechanisms of moral disengagement

Advantageous comparison

Making something appear better or less harmful than it is by pointing to something far worse.

Attribution of blame

Blaming the victims or targets that have been harmed by immoral behaviours and practices for bringing it on themselves.

Dehumanization

Portraying people who will be harmed by behaviours and practices as less than human. As case numbers in a system or process.

Diffusion of responsibility

Minimising personal responsibility for any harm caused to people by claiming they are only responsible for a small part of the process.

Displacement of responsibility

Superficially acknowledging the harm caused to people by behaviours and practices, while claiming it’s the result of decisions made at a higher level.

Disregard, distortion, and denial of consequences

Ignoring, minimising and denying the harm (including evidence of harm), caused to people.

Euphemistic language

Using sanitised language and jargon to mask the hurt and harm caused to people.

Moral justification

Claiming behaviours and practices that cause harm to people serve a higher social and moral purpose.

Tips

Start by briefly describing the issue you are concerned about. Is it an individual or system level issue? Or both.

Is your issue about:

• A particular public service agency
• A number of public service agencies
• The Australian Public Service as a whole
• A government minister
• A particular policy or programme
• A particular administrative process
• The behaviours and practices of public servants
• The behaviours and practices of politicians
• The management of staff within a public service agency

Highlight the mechanisms of moral disengagement you have experienced or observed.

It is likely that you have experienced or observed a large number of or all of the mechanisms/behaviours. Consider the intensity with which you have experienced them.

If you have experienced one or very few of the mechanisms/behaviours also consider the intensity with which you have experienced them.

End by pointing out the harm being done, and deaths being caused.