Political Futures: Will Conservative Global Middle Powers Go…

By Denis Bright National elections in Germany and Australia in 2025 will test…

Does the Treasurer have a god complex or…

By Dale Webster THE Senate inquiry into regional bank closures, which delivered its…

Educating Australian Voters for True Democracy

By Denis Hay Description Explore how educating Australian voters can reform the two-party system…

Zionism, Imperialism and conflict in the Middle East

As we are constantly bombarded by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and…

Sado-populism

Every time a fascist-flirting regime is defeated in an election, more column…

A nation on the move: New tool tracks…

Media Release: The Climate Council Millions of Australian homes and businesses are driving…

Thank You for Emitting: The Hypocrisies of COP29

COP29 was always going to be memorable, for no other reason than…

ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences

By Denis Hay Title ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences, and Policy Impacts on…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Neoliberalism

What are the 4 Principles of Social Justice in Australia?

By Denis Hay

Description

Discover the 4 principles of social justice in Australia – equity, access, participation, and rights – and how Australia can achieve a fairer society.

Introduction: The Diminishing Foundations of Social Justice in Australia

Social justice is a cornerstone of any society striving for fairness and equality. In Australia, the four key principles of social justice – equity, access, participation, and rights – have long been championed as pathways to a more compassionate and ethical society. However, the rise of neoliberal economic policies has steadily eroded these principles, favouring corporate profits over public welfare.

As Australia owns monetary sovereignty, it has the unique ability to use its financial resources to create a just society. Yet, the country continues to face growing inequality, limited access to essential services, and a political system increasingly dominated by corporate interests.

In this article, we will explore each of these four principles, examine how neoliberalism undermines them, and suggest pathways for reclaiming these values to promote a just and inclusive Australia.

Understanding the 4 Principles of Social Justice

Australia’s commitment to social justice rests on four core principles: equity, access, participation, and rights. Each of these principles plays a critical role in creating a society where every individual could thrive, regardless of their background or socioeconomic status.

Equity refers to providing individuals with the resources they need to reach comparable outcomes. It acknowledges that some people require more support than others to achieve fairness.

Access ensures that everyone can obtain essential services, such as healthcare, education, and housing, regardless of their income or social standing.

Participation
advocates for the involvement of all citizens in political and social decision-making processes.

Rights
guarantees that all individuals can claim their fundamental human entitlements, from freedom of speech to access to shelter and safety.

The Principle of Equity in Australia

What is Equity in Social Justice?

Equity is often confused with equality, but the two concepts are fundamentally different. While equality assumes everyone should receive the same resources, equity recognizes that people have unique needs. To achieve fairness, resources must be distributed in ways that help bridge disparities, such as the gaps between wealthy and low-income citizens.

In Australia, the principle of equity faces significant challenges due to economic policies that favour the wealthy. Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and reduced government intervention, has widened the gap between the rich and the poor. As of 2024, the top 20% of Australians hold over 60% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 20% struggle to make ends meet .

How Neoliberalism Undermines Equity

Neoliberal policies have made equity difficult to achieve in Australia. The emphasis on tax cuts for high-income earners and corporations has limited public revenue, reducing the government’s ability to invest in social programs that could help level the playing field. For example, recent cuts in welfare support and the privatization of essential services have disproportionately affected low-income Australians. Neoliberalism, by prioritizing market efficiency over social outcomes, reinforces a system that rewards wealth accumulation over collective well-being.

Restoring Equity through Australia’s Monetary Sovereignty

Australia, as a currency sovereign nation, can fund programs that support equity. The government can issue its own currency, allowing it to fund universal public services, welfare programs, and infrastructure that bridge economic gaps without the constraint of “balancing the budget.” Progressive taxation and increased public spending on social services such as healthcare, education, and affordable housing are essential to restoring equity.

The Principle of Access

What Does Access Mean in Social Justice?

Access refers to the ability of all individuals to obtain vital resources, such as healthcare, education, and housing. It ensures that services are available to everyone, not just to those who can afford them. In Australia, access is critical for supporting a cohesive society where all citizens could lead fulfilling lives.

How Neoliberalism Limits Access to Essential Services

Neoliberal policies have led to the increasing privatization of services that were once publicly funded and accessible to all. As services like healthcare and education become privatized, access is increasingly decided by income. Australians with lower incomes often find themselves unable to afford the rising costs of private education and healthcare. In 2023, out-of-pocket healthcare costs reached a record high, with many Australians forgoing necessary medical treatments due to financial constraints .

Education has also suffered under neoliberal policies, with public schools receiving less funding compared to private institutions. This shift has created a two-tiered system where those who can afford private education receive higher-quality services, while others are left with underfunded public alternatives.

Ensuring Universal Access to Public Services

To reverse this trend, Australia must re-invest in public services and ensure that access is based on need, not income. This can be achieved by increasing public funding for healthcare, education, and housing and regulating the private sector to prevent exploitative practices. Australia’s monetary sovereignty enables it to fund these initiatives without financial constraints. By redirecting resources towards public welfare, the government can guarantee that all citizens have access to the services they need to thrive.

The Principle of Participation

Why Participation Matters in Social Justice

Participation is the ability for all citizens to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. It is a fundamental democratic principle that ensures every voice is heard, regardless of economic or social status. Genuine participation empowers individuals and communities to contribute to societal progress.

Corporate Interests Eroding Public Participation

Unfortunately, participation is under threat in Australia. Neoliberalism, by fostering corporate dominance over political processes, has marginalized ordinary citizens. Political lobbying and donations from large corporations have distorted policymaking, often prioritizing corporate interests over public welfare. This has resulted in political decisions that help the wealthy elite while disenfranchising the broader population.

A 2023 report by the Australia Institute found that corporate donations to major political parties exceeded $100 million, raising concerns about the influence of money on public policy. As a result, the voices of ordinary Australians are often drowned out by those with significant financial power.

Revitalizing Democratic Participation in Australia

To ensure meaningful participation, political reform is essential. Australia must impose stricter regulations on political donations and lobbying to reduce corporate influence. Additionally, more participatory mechanisms, such as citizen assemblies and direct democracy initiatives, can be introduced to ensure that all Australians have a say in the decisions that shape their lives. Public engagement in policymaking must be prioritized to restore trust in the democratic process.

The Principle of Rights

Understanding Rights in Social Justice

Rights refer to the basic human entitlements that all individuals should have access to, including the right to life, freedom, and security. In Australia, rights encompass various aspects such as freedom of speech, access to housing, and the protection of Indigenous land rights.

How Australia’s Policies Fail to Protect Rights

Despite international commitments to uphold human rights, many of Australia’s policies fall short, particularly in housing and Indigenous land rights. The ongoing housing crisis has left thousands of Australians homeless, with inadequate government intervention to address the issue. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation reported that in 2023, over 116,000 Australians were experiencing homelessness .

Indigenous Australians have seen their land rights ignored or overridden in favour of corporate interests. The mining industry, often supported by government policies, continues to encroach on Indigenous land without proper consultation or compensation, violating the rights of Indigenous communities.

Strengthening Human Rights Protections

Australia must prioritize the protection of human rights, especially for vulnerable groups. The government can strengthen legal frameworks to safeguard Indigenous land rights and provide adequate funding for public housing projects. Additionally, greater accountability mechanisms must be introduced to ensure that human rights are upheld in all areas of policy. Australia’s monetary sovereignty can play a crucial role here, allowing the government to distribute resources towards strengthening human rights protections without financial constraints.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Social Justice in Australia

Australia’s four principles of social justice – equity, access, participation, and rights – are essential to creating a fair and inclusive society. However, neoliberal policies have eroded these values, prioritizing corporate profits over public welfare. By recognizing and using Australia’s monetary sovereignty, the government can reverse these trends and create a society where social justice is at the forefront of policymaking.

Restoring equity through progressive taxation, ensuring universal access to essential services, revitalizing democratic participation, and strengthening human rights protections are all achievable goals. Australia must take bold action to reclaim its commitment to social justice, ensuring a fairer future for all citizens.

Question for Readers

How do you think Australia can better uphold the principles of social justice in today’s political and economic climate?

Call to Action

If you found this article insightful, share it on social media and join the discussion on how we can create a more just Australia. Visit our website for more articles on social justice and political reform.

 

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Understanding Youth Crime in Australia

By Denis Hay

Description

Explore youth crime statistics, the effects of neoliberalism, and how addressing root causes offers long-term solutions beyond incarceration.

Introduction

Youth crime in Australia has become a pressing issue, with many regions reporting increasing rates of theft, violence, and repeat offenses. As the debate around youth crime intensifies, solutions vary – from tougher laws and longer sentences to programs focusing on rehabilitation. The rise of neoliberal policies over the past decades has worsened many of the root causes of youth crime, leading to systemic issues like economic inequality, reduced access to education, and cuts to essential social services.

This guide delves into the statistics of youth crime in Australia, explores the underlying causes, examines the impact of neoliberalism, and offers actionable solutions to address youth crime more effectively than incarceration.

What is Youth Crime?

Defining Youth Crime

Youth crime refers to criminal offenses committed by individuals under the age of 18. These crimes range from minor offenses, such as vandalism and petty theft, to more serious crimes like assault and robbery. How the Australian legal system handles youth crime depends on factors like the age of the offender and the severity of the crime, with more severe offenses often leading to juvenile detention.

Youth Crime Trends in Australia

Youth crime trends in Australia have seen fluctuations over the past few decades. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), youth crime involving property offenses, such as theft and car-related crimes, has been on the rise in certain regions, particularly in Queensland. Violent crimes, while less common, have also seen increases in specific areas. The rise in repeat offenses among young offenders has become a growing concern, especially in states like Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria.

Youth Crime in Each Australian State

Queensland’s Youth Crime Crisis

Queensland has experienced a surge in youth crime, especially in vehicle theft and burglaries. According to ABS data, the state has seen a 12% rise in youth property crime since the early 2000s. The Queensland Liberal National Party (LNP) has made youth crime a focal issue in its election campaigns, advocating for stricter laws, increased police presence, and harsher penalties.

However, critics argue that focusing solely on punitive measures ignores the root causes of youth crime and risks increasing recidivism.

New South Wales and Victoria

New South Wales (NSW) has seen fluctuations in youth crime rates, with a resurgence of violent crimes, including robbery and assault, in recent years. In Victoria, group-related youth crimes, such as gang violence and theft, have been rising in suburban areas, often correlating with economic disparity.

Both states have implemented community-based intervention programs aimed at preventing youth crime.

Western Australia and South Australia

Western Australia has also seen an increase in youth assaults and theft. South Australia has stable but concerning rates of youth crime, with Indigenous youth disproportionately represented. Despite stable crime rates, critics call for more funding for social services to prevent youth from entering the criminal justice system.

Underlying Causes of Youth Crime in Australia

Socioeconomic Disadvantage

A key driver of youth crime in Australia is socioeconomic disadvantage. Young people in poverty-stricken areas face numerous challenges, including limited access to education, job opportunities, and stable housing.

These factors often push young people towards crime, as a means of coping with or escaping difficult circumstances. In regions with high unemployment and limited economic mobility, youth crime rates are consistently higher.

Study and Data

The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) found that youth in impoverished areas are 30% more likely to engage in property crimes, such as theft and vandalism, compared to those in wealthier areas.

Family Environment and Mental Health

Family dynamics, including domestic violence, neglect, and poor parenting, contribute significantly to youth crime. Additionally, untreated mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, and conduct disorders, are major risk factors for criminal behaviour among youth.

Without early intervention, these issues often escalate, leading to involvement in the criminal justice system.

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse is another leading cause of youth crime. Young people struggling with alcohol and drug abuse are more likely to commit offenses, particularly property crimes, to support their addiction. Effective rehabilitation and substance abuse programs are essential in addressing this aspect of youth crime.

The Impact of Neoliberalism on Youth Crime

Neoliberal economic policies, introduced in Australia during the 1980s and 1990s, brought significant changes to public services, including cuts to social programs that provided support to disadvantaged communities.

These policies have been linked to rising crime rates, particularly among youth, who are often most affected by reductions in welfare, education, and mental health services.

Cuts to Social Services and Youth Crime

As neoliberal policies were implemented, Australia saw significant reductions in public spending on services such as education, housing, and youth support programs.

These cuts left vulnerable youth without the support structures that could help prevent them from turning to crime. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that, during the 1990s, youth involvement in property crimes, such as theft and vehicle-related offenses, began to rise.

For example, Queensland saw noticeable increases in youth crime during this period, particularly in disadvantaged areas where social services were reduced.

Economic Inequality and Youth Crime

The economic inequality worsened by neoliberal reforms has had a profound effect on youth crime rates. Studies from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) show that areas with reduced access to social services experienced higher youth crime rates, particularly for property offenses.

The AIC emphasizes that social and economic disadvantage is a key driver of youth offending, with young people from low-income communities significantly more likely to engage in criminal activity compared to those from wealthier areas.

Defining When a Child Has the Mental Capacity to Be an Adult

The question of when a child develops the mental ability to be treated as an adult is complex and involves both legal definitions and psychological development. In Australia, the age of criminal responsibility is set at 10 years old, meaning children under this age cannot be held legally responsible for criminal acts.

However, even after this age, whether a child has the maturity and understanding to be treated as an adult in legal terms is often debated.

Legal Perspective on Mental Capacity

In many legal systems, including Australia’s, children between the ages of 10 and 14 are presumed to be incapable of forming criminal intent – a concept known as doli incapax. This presumption can be rebutted if it is proven that the child understood the consequences of their actions.

For children aged 14 to 17, the legal system still treats them differently from adults, often focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

In Queensland, for instance, youths aged 10 to 17 are dealt with under the Youth Justice Act 1992, which focuses on restorative justice approaches rather than purely punitive measures.

Psychological and Cognitive Development

Psychologists argue that the brain, particularly areas involved in decision-making and impulse control (such as the prefrontal cortex), continues to develop until around age 25. According to research from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, adolescents often have diminished ability for reasoning and judgment compared to adults, making it difficult for them to fully grasp the consequences of their actions in the same way adults would.

Cognitive Capacity: By mid-adolescence (around age 15-17), many youths develop reasoning skills like adults. However, their ability to make sound judgments, especially in emotionally charged situations, is still immature due to ongoing brain development.

Emotional and Social Development: Adolescents are more influenced by peer pressure, emotional swings, and the desire for immediate rewards. This can contribute to risky behaviour and criminal acts, often without fully understanding the long-term consequences.

International Perspectives on Age and Maturity

Globally, the age of criminal responsibility varies, reflecting differing views on when a child can be considered mentally capable of adult responsibility. For example, in Sweden and Norway, the minimum age is 15, whereas in Germany, it is 14. These countries adopt a more rehabilitative approach to youth crime, recognizing that young people do not have the same maturity and decision-making ability as adults.

The Challenge of Defining Adult Mental Capacity in Youth

While legal systems set specific ages for criminal responsibility, the science of brain development shows that children and adolescents often lack the full mental ability of adults. Therefore, policies focusing on rehabilitation, rather than treating young offenders as fully responsible adults, align better with their cognitive and emotional development.

Benefits of Addressing the Causes of Youth Crime vs. Incarceration

Reducing Recidivism Through Rehabilitation

Studies have shown that addressing the root causes of youth crime – such as mental health issues and socioeconomic disadvantage – is more effective in reducing reoffending than incarceration. Programs focusing on rehabilitation, mental health support, and job training help young offenders reintegrate into society.

Study and Data

A University of Sydney Law Faculty study found that juvenile detention rates increased by 15% post-neoliberal reforms, yet recidivism remained high, with 60% of young offenders reoffending within two years of release.

Economic Benefits of Prevention Over Punishment

Prevention programs, particularly those targeting at-risk youth, are more cost-effective than long-term incarceration. The cost of detaining a young person far exceeds the cost of providing community-based rehabilitation programs.

Social Impact and Community Strengthening

Focusing on early intervention and addressing the root causes of youth crime not only reduces crime rates but strengthens communities by providing young people with the tools to succeed. Communities benefit from reduced crime, better educational outcomes, and stronger social cohesion.

Queensland LNP’s Political Focus on Youth Crime

LNP’s ‘Tough on Crime’ Approach

The Queensland LNP has adopted a ‘tough on crime’ stance, advocating for increased police presence and harsher penalties for young offenders. However, critics argue that this punitive approach does not address the root causes of youth crime, leading to higher recidivism rates.

Criticisms of the LNP Approach

Studies show that focusing solely on incarceration increases recidivism rates and does not reduce crime long-term. Critics argue that investing in rehabilitation, education, and mental health programs would be a more effective solution to reduce youth crime in Queensland.

Long-Term Solutions to Youth Crime

Investing in Education and Job Opportunities

Providing disadvantaged youth with education and job opportunities is one of the most effective ways to prevent crime. Vocational training, apprenticeships, and scholarships offer pathways out of poverty and into stable employment, reducing the likelihood of criminal behaviour.

Strengthening Social Services

Governments need to restore funding for essential services such as mental health care, family support programs, and youth rehabilitation. These services play a critical role in preventing youth from becoming involved in crime in the first place.

Adopting Restorative Justice Approaches

Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm and encouraging offenders to take responsibility for their actions. Programs such as community service and victim-offender mediation have been shown to reduce recidivism and help young offenders reintegrate into society. Solving Youth Crime:

 

Summary

Youth crime in Australia is a complex issue influenced by socioeconomic factors, mental health challenges, and policy decisions. Neoliberalism’s focus on reducing social services and increasing economic inequality has contributed to rising youth crime rates.

However, evidence suggests that addressing the root causes of youth crime through rehabilitation, education, and preventative programs offers a more effective long-term solution than punitive measures like incarceration.

Question for Readers

“What do you believe is the most effective approach to reducing youth crime in Australia – harsher laws or addressing social inequalities?”

Call to Action

If you found this article insightful, share it with your community and explore more about how Australia can address youth crime prevention on Social Justice Australia.

Visit our “Reader Feedback” menu. Let us know how our content has inspired you. Submit your testimonial and help shape the conversation today!

Additionally, leave a comment about this article below.

Referrences:

Positive Youth Justice: Solving the youth crime ‘problem’ with children first solutions.

Many interesting resources here.


This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Hidden Influence of Neoliberalism in Australian Institutions

By Denis Hay

Description

Explore the hidden influence of neoliberalism shaping our institutions. Learn about the impact on policy and the path to a fairer political system.

Introduction

Neoliberalism has deeply infiltrated Australia’s key institutions, shaping policies that prioritize market interests over public welfare. From economic agencies to healthcare and local government, this ideology has created systemic barriers to progressive change. Understanding how neoliberalism works within these institutions is crucial for citizens looking for a more compassionate and ethical political system. In this article, we explore the roots and impact of neoliberalism in Australian institutions and discuss how Australia can use its monetary sovereignty to build a fairer society.

Neoliberalism’s Deep Roots in Australian Institutions

What is Neoliberalism?

Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, privatization, and reduced government intervention in the economy. While it promises efficiency and growth, it often leads to increased inequality, diminished public services, and prioritization of corporate interests over the common good. In Australia, neoliberalism became prominent in the 1980s and has since influenced the policies of both major political parties, embedding itself in various institutions and affecting their functioning and priorities.

The Separation of Powers: Parliament vs. Government and Opposition

Australia’s parliamentary structure is designed to separate legislative authority from executive power. However, the ideological alignment of key institutions with neoliberal values blurs this separation, undermining the intended checks and balances.

Parliament should serve as an independent body standing for diverse viewpoints, but in practice, it often becomes an arena where neoliberal policies are reinforced rather than challenged. This has led to a narrowing of political discourse, where both government and opposition largely run within a neoliberal framework, limiting genuine debate on alternative policies.

Key Institutions Influenced by Neoliberalism
Treasury and Economic Policy

The Treasury is pivotal in shaping Australia’s economic policies, including taxation, public spending, and fiscal strategy. Influenced by neoliberal ideology, it has consistently advocated for policies that favour budget surpluses, reduced public spending, and tax cuts for corporations. This focus has often resulted in underfunded public services and infrastructure, widening the gap between rich and poor.

For example, the prioritization of balanced budgets over social investment has constrained funding for education, healthcare, and welfare programs, affecting the most vulnerable Australians.

Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)

The RBA’s primary focus on controlling inflation rather than achieving full employment reflects neoliberal principles. While low inflation is essential, an overemphasis on it can lead to underemployment and wage stagnation, worsening economic inequality. The RBA’s policy decisions, such as raising interest rates to curb inflation, often ignore broader economic conditions, affecting households with high debt levels and increasing financial stress on working families.

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)

APRA oversees the stability of the financial sector, yet its neoliberal leanings have led to a regulatory environment that Favours large financial institutions over consumer protection. The 2018 Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation, and Financial Services Industry revealed systemic issues in the financial sector, many of which were enabled by a regulatory framework that prioritized corporate interests over public accountability.

Education: Focus on Private Schools

Neoliberalism has significantly influenced the Australian education system, leading to increased support for private schools at the expense of the public system. Government funding policies have disproportionately favoured private and independent schools, creating a two-tier education system where resources and quality of education vary widely.

This trend has worsened inequality, as well-resourced private schools offer more opportunities to their students, while public schools, especially in lower socioeconomic areas, struggle with inadequate funding and support. The focus on privatization and competition undermines the principle of fair education for all, reinforcing societal divides.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

ASIC, responsible for regulating corporate conduct and protecting consumers, has also been shaped by neoliberal ideology. The Commission has faced criticism for its perceived leniency towards corporate misconduct, reflecting a regulatory approach that often prioritizes market stability over strict enforcement.

The influence of neoliberalism is clear in its reluctance to impose significant penalties on major corporations, as seen in the aftermath of the banking Royal Commission. This has led to a belief that ASIC is more concerned with protecting corporate interests than safeguarding the rights of consumers and investors.

Defence and Security

Neoliberal influence extends to defence policy, where decisions are often driven by strategic alliances and military procurement rather than national interest. The alignment with U.S. foreign policy, showed by significant defence spending and involvement in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, reflects a neoliberal agenda that prioritizes geopolitical strategy over regional stability and peace.

Medical and Healthcare Bodies

Healthcare in Australia, although better than in many countries, is not immune to neoliberal policies. The increasing push for privatization, the underfunding of public hospitals, and the promotion of private health insurance have created a two-tier system where access to quality care depends on one’s financial status. This approach undermines the principle of universal healthcare and worsens health inequalities.

Local Government and Planning

Local governments often run under severe financial constraints, as funding models shaped by neoliberal policies limit their ability to deliver essential services. The emphasis on ‘efficiency’ and ‘cost-cutting’ has led to the outsourcing of many services, resulting in reduced quality and accountability. For instance, the privatization of waste management and public transport services in many municipalities has often led to higher costs for residents and lower service standards.

The Consequences of Neoliberal Domination

Economic Inequality and Social Services

Neoliberal policies have significantly widened economic inequality in Australia. The emphasis on market-based solutions and reduced government intervention has led to a situation where the wealthiest benefit from tax cuts and deregulation, while low- and middle-income families face stagnating wages and rising living costs. Social services, once seen as a safety net, are increasingly underfunded, forcing more Australians into poverty and insecurity.

The Housing Crisis

Australia’s housing crisis is a direct consequence of neoliberal policies that prioritize investment and profit over the right to housing. The federal government’s reluctance to directly build public housing, instead relying on market mechanisms and incentives for private developers, has resulted in skyrocketing rents and unaffordable home prices. State governments have struggled to address this issue effectively, constrained by funding limitations and political pressure from the property sector.

Environmental Degradation

Neoliberalism’s focus on economic growth often comes at the expense of environmental sustainability. In Australia, policies that support fossil fuel industries and deregulate environmental protections contribute to ongoing degradation and hinder the transition to renewable energy. Corporate influence on environmental policy is clear in decisions such as approving new coal mines despite widespread public opposition and the urgent need to address climate change.

Disconnect Between Politicians and Voters

Australia’s political system works within a framework that often disconnects elected officials from the expectations and desires of their constituents. Once politicians are elected, there is no formal obligation for them to fulfill the promises or policy positions they campaigned on. This lack of accountability is compounded by the influence of party politics and corporate interests, which often shape decisions more than voter demands.

As a result, the electorate often finds that their votes do not translate into meaningful representation or policy outcomes, reinforcing the belief that the political system serves vested interests over public needs.

This dynamic is particularly problematic when addressing complex issues like housing, healthcare, and climate change, where public sentiment is often ignored in favour of keeping the status quo.

Challenging Neoliberalism and Promoting Public Interest

Progressive Movements and Political Alternatives

Grassroots movements and smaller political parties, such as the Greens, play a crucial role in challenging neoliberal dominance. These groups advocate for policies that prioritize public welfare, environmental sustainability, and social justice. Building public support for these alternatives requires raising awareness of neoliberalism’s impact and showing that there are practical, progressive policy options available.

Institutional Reforms

Reforming key institutions is essential to reducing neoliberal influence. This could include:

Revising the RBA’s Mandate: Expanding the RBA’s focus to include employment and wage growth alongside inflation control.

Strengthening Regulatory Bodies: Enhancing the independence and accountability of bodies like APRA and the ACCC to protect public interests more effectively.

Public Investment: Increasing government investment in public services and infrastructure, funded by public money rather than relying solely on private capital.

Using Australia’s Monetary Sovereignty

Australia’s status as a sovereign currency issuer means it has more fiscal flexibility than commonly understood. The government can use its monetary sovereignty to fund essential public services, build infrastructure, and support full employment without the constraints of a household budget. Embracing this approach can transform public policy, enabling a more fair and sustainable society.

Summary: The Need for a Paradigm Shift

Neoliberalism has entrenched itself in Australian institutions, creating systemic barriers to progressive change. Understanding the hidden influence of neoliberalism is the first step toward challenging it. By advocating for institutional reforms, supporting progressive movements, and using Australia’s monetary sovereignty, citizens can push for a political system that truly serves the public interest. This change in basic assumptions is essential for building a fairer, more just society that prioritizes people over profit.

Question for Readers

What changes do you think are necessary to reduce the hidden influence of neoliberalism in Australian institutions?

Call to Action

If you’re passionate about creating a fairer society, visit my website and do your best to support progressive change in Australia.

Social Sharing

Share this article with your network to raise awareness about the hidden influence of neoliberalism in our institutions and how we can advocate for a fairer Australia.

 

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 

How U.S. Influence Keeps Neoliberalism Alive in Australia

By Denis Hay

Description: U.S. Influence

Explore how U.S influence and military interests keep neoliberal policies in Australia, and what Australians can do to push for social justice and sovereignty.

U.S. Influence Shapes Neoliberalism in Australia: Corporate, Political, and Military Control

Neoliberal ideology has held a firm grip on Australian politics for decades, affecting everything from healthcare to education, employment, and the environment. However, it’s not just domestic forces that support these policies. The United States, through its corporate interests, military-industrial complex, and global influence, plays a significant role in keeping Australia aligned with neoliberalism.

This article explores the profound influence that the U.S. has on Australia’s political landscape, why both major political parties continue to support neoliberal policies, and what Australians can do to push for change.

1. Historical Overview of Neoliberalism in Australia

Neoliberalism became entrenched in Australia in the 1980s, much like in the United States under Ronald Reagan. Successive Australian governments, both Labor and Liberal, adopted neoliberal principles of deregulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending on public services. This shift was a response not only to global economic pressures but also to the influence of U.S. economic policies that advocated for free markets and reduced government intervention.

Australia’s close relationship with the U.S., politically and economically, has made it a loyal ally in promoting neoliberalism. This alignment has been cemented through trade agreements and military partnerships, making it difficult for Australia to pursue alternative paths that focus on social welfare and environmental sustainability.

2. Why Both Major Political Parties Support Neoliberalism

Australia’s two main political parties, Labor and Liberal, have both embraced neoliberal policies, albeit for different reasons. But their continued commitment to this ideology is not solely due to internal economic rationale. The United States’ extensive influence, especially through its corporate and political interests, plays a pivotal role.

Labor’s Shift Toward Neoliberalism

Labor, once a party dedicated to the working class, started to embrace neoliberalism in the 1980s under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. The U.S. government and multinational corporations exerted significant pressure during this period, emphasizing the need for economic liberalization to compete globally. Labor’s adherence to these policies can be seen in its moves to deregulate financial markets, privatize state assets, and open trade with the U.S. and other major economies.

Liberal Party’s Longstanding Neoliberal Commitment

The Liberal Party has long aligned itself with neoliberal principles, advocating for deregulation, reduced taxes, and privatization. This pro-business stance fits well with U.S. corporate interests, particularly those looking to invest in Australia. The U.S. corporate lobby has been instrumental in ensuring that both political parties support policies that favour large multinational companies, often at the expense of ordinary Australians.

The Role of U.S. Corporate Influence

Both Labor and Liberal parties receive large donations from multinational corporations, many of which are U.S.-based. These donations significantly shape policy decisions. U.S. tech giants, mining companies, and pharmaceutical corporations have lobbied for deregulation, lower corporate taxes, and favourable trade agreements. These influences keep Australia tied to the neoliberal agenda, limiting the political will for progressive reforms.

3. The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex and Its Influence on Australia

Australia’s alignment with the U.S. is not just economic but also military. The U.S. military-industrial complex has had a significant impact on Australia’s political direction, particularly in its adoption of neoliberalism. Through defence agreements, military cooperation, and joint bases, Australia has become increasingly dependent on U.S. military support. This partnership reinforces neoliberal policies by prioritizing defence spending over social welfare programs.

AUKUS and Military Spending

The recent AUKUS pact between the U.S., the U.K., and Australia highlights how U.S. influence extends into military affairs. AUKUS promotes massive investments in defence, including nuclear submarines, drawing significant public money away from areas like healthcare, education, and environmental protection. The military-industrial complex, driven by U.S. corporate interests in arms manufacturing, benefits directly from these deals, further embedding neoliberal priorities in Australian policy.

Pressure to Maintain U.S. Strategic Interests

Australia’s geopolitical position in the Indo-Pacific region makes it a crucial ally for the U.S. in countering China’s influence. This strategic relationship ensures that Australia is still committed to U.S. interests, including supporting neoliberal economic policies that favour multinational corporations. The U.S. government, through its military alliances and foreign policy influence, encourages Australia to prioritize military cooperation over social investment, preventing progressive reforms that could reduce corporate profits.

4. How Trade Agreements Lock in Neoliberalism

Australia’s trade agreements, particularly with the U.S., have historically embedded neoliberal principles such as free markets and investor rights, often at the expense of national sovereignty. Many of these agreements contain Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses, allowing multinational corporations to sue governments if their policies are seen as detrimental to profits. This has been a significant barrier to implementing progressive reforms, but Australia has shown resilience, notably in the case of its anti-smoking strategies, where it successfully overcame legal threats from Big Tobacco.

Australia’s Anti-Smoking Campaign: A Case Study in Resistance

In 2012, Australia introduced one of the world’s most stringent anti-smoking measures: plain packaging laws. These laws required cigarettes to be sold in standardized packaging with graphic health warnings and removed all branding, logos, and colours from cigarette packs. The legislation aimed to reduce smoking rates and public health costs associated with tobacco use. However, this move triggered a significant legal battle with tobacco giants, particularly Philip Morris.

Philip Morris Asia, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based tobacco giant, used the ISDS clause in a trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong to challenge the plain packaging laws. The corporation argued that Australia’s policy violated their intellectual property rights and sought billions in damages. This was a prime example of how trade agreements can empower corporations to challenge public health policies that may affect their profits.

Australia’s Victory in Overcoming Legal Threats

Despite the legal challenge, Australia successfully defended its anti-smoking laws. In 2015, an international tribunal dismissed Philip Morris’s case, ruling that the company had engaged in “treaty shopping” by shifting its operations to Hong Kong solely to exploit the trade agreement. This victory showed that even in the face of powerful corporate and legal threats, a nation can assert its sovereignty and prioritize public health over corporate profits.

Australia’s win was a pivotal moment, not only for public health policy but also for showing that a country can push back against the neoliberal framework imposed by trade agreements. It paved the way for other nations, such as the U.K., France, and New Zealand, to introduce similar plain packaging laws, reinforcing that progressive reforms can be implemented even in a globalized, neoliberal economy.

Implications for Trade Agreements

Australia’s experience with Big Tobacco underscores the need to reform trade agreements that limit national sovereignty, particularly provisions like ISDS clauses. While Australia succeeded in this case, it highlighted how easily corporations can exploit these mechanisms to challenge public policies. Going forward, Australia and other countries should push to renegotiate trade agreements to remove ISDS provisions, ensuring that public interest policies – whether related to health, labor rights, or the environment – are not vulnerable to corporate lawsuits.

Australia’s triumph against Big Tobacco serves as a reminder that while neoliberal trade agreements create significant hurdles, determined resistance and international legal strategies can protect national interests and public welfare.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Mechanisms

Many of these trade agreements include ISDS clauses, which allow U.S. corporations to sue the Australian government if they believe their profits are being affected by local regulations. This has a chilling effect on the introduction of progressive policies, as the threat of costly lawsuits makes governments hesitant to enact laws that would help citizens but harm corporate interests.

Blocking Progressive Reforms

The U.S. government and its corporate backers have, on multiple occasions, pressured Australia to block reforms that would prioritize social justice. Environmental regulations, worker protections, and labour laws have been weakened or delayed due to threats from U.S. corporations working under the protection of these trade agreements.

5. The Social and Environmental Costs of Neoliberalism

The U.S.’s influence in supporting neoliberalism in Australia has severe social and environmental consequences. Ordinary Australians withstand the worst of these policies, while U.S. corporations and a small elite reap the benefits.

Growing Inequality

\Neoliberal policies have widened the gap between the rich and the poor in Australia. U.S. multinational corporations, often working with little regulation, extract significant wealth from Australian resources while offering low wages and insecure jobs. Meanwhile, the top 1% benefit from tax cuts and financial deregulation, leaving the average worker struggling with stagnant wages, high living costs, and rising debt.

Environmental Degradation

Neoliberalism, driven by U.S. corporate interests, prioritizes profits over environmental sustainability. Mining giants, many of which are U.S.-owned or influenced, exploit Australia’s natural resources with little regard for environmental damage. The destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity is a direct result of policies that favour corporate profits over ecological protection.

6. What Australians Can Do to Push for Change

While U.S. influence over Australian politics is significant, there are ways that Australians can push back against these neoliberal policies and move towards a more just and sustainable society.

Support Grassroots Movements

Grassroots movements play a vital role in challenging entrenched neoliberal policies by mobilizing ordinary citizens to advocate for change. These movements often operate outside traditional political frameworks, leveraging collective action, social media, and local organization to press for reforms that prioritize people and the environment over corporate profits. In Australia, movements like GetUp! and Extinction Rebellion have shown the power of grassroots activism in raising awareness and pressuring governments.

– GetUp!: This progressive movement has been instrumental in advocating for social justice, environmental protection, and economic fairness. Through campaigns on climate action, refugees’ rights, and corporate accountability, GetUp! mobilizes large groups of citizens to engage with politics in new and impactful ways.

– Extinction Rebellion: Known for its civil disobedience tactics, Extinction Rebellion pushes for urgent action on climate change. By organizing protests, blockades, and mass mobilizations, it forces governments to confront environmental issues often sidelined by corporate agendas.

To support these movements:

1. Participate in campaigns: Sign petitions, attend protests, and engage in their advocacy efforts.
2. Donate: Grassroots movements rely heavily on public funding. Contributions help them expand their reach and influence.
3. Spread awareness: Sharing information through social media and personal networks amplifies the movement’s message and encourages wider participation.

Grassroots movements are essential for creating bottom-up pressure, directly challenging the neoliberal structures that benefit corporations at the expense of the public good.

Electoral Accountability

Electoral accountability is critical in dismantling the grip of neoliberalism on Australian politics. By holding politicians accountable, voters can demand that their representatives prioritize policies that benefit the majority rather than a small elite. This is especially crucial in a political landscape influenced by U.S. corporate interests.

To ensure electoral accountability:

1. Demand transparency in campaign finance: Push for reforms that limit or ban corporate donations to political parties. This reduces the undue influence that corporations, particularly U.S. multinationals, exert on Australian politics. Voting for candidates who reject corporate funding can also signal a clear message that voters want politicians to serve public interests.

2. Support Independent Candidates and Smaller Parties: While major parties like Labor and Liberal are often entrenched in neoliberalism, smaller parties (such as the Australian Greens) or independent candidates may prioritize social justice, environmental sustainability, and corporate accountability. Shifting your support to these alternatives can create political diversity and foster policies that challenge the neoliberal status quo.

3. Stay Engaged Beyond Election Cycles: Voting is essential, but so is continuous engagement with elected officials. Writing to your representatives, participating in town halls, and joining political advocacy groups can ensure that your voice is heard year-round, not just during election time.

By exercising electoral accountability, Australians can push for a political system that serves the people, promotes social equity, and protects the environment from corporate exploitation.

Renegotiate Trade Agreements

Australia must push to renegotiate trade agreements that lock in neoliberal principles. By removing provisions like ISDS clauses, Australia can regain control over its economic policies and introduce reforms that help its citizens rather than multinational corporations.

Challenge Military Spending

Australians can call for a reduction in defence spending, especially in areas that directly help the U.S. military-industrial complex. By reallocating these funds to healthcare, education, and social services, the government can begin to address the needs of its citizens instead of prioritizing foreign military interests.

Conclusion

U.S. influence over Australia, particularly through corporate and military interests, has been instrumental in keeping neoliberal policies that help the few at the expense of the many. The U.S. government, multinational corporations, and military-industrial complex exert immense pressure on Australian politics, making it difficult for progressive reforms to take root. However, through grassroots activism, electoral accountability, and renegotiating harmful trade agreements, Australians can challenge these policies and push for a more fair and sustainable future.

Question for Readers:

How do you think Australia can better assert its sovereignty in policymaking and resist U.S. corporate influence?

Call to Action:

Share this article to raise awareness of U.S. influence on Australian politics and encourage discussions about how we can push for a fairer, more just society.

 

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Human potential is crushed by disaster capitalism

We must speak to people who require assistance and listen to their needs instead of speaking over them. In the case of Australia’s refugee policy, we wasted billions on toxic cruelty when we could have done much better by cooperating internationally and supporting people humanely.

One of the “greatest pre-resettlement programs in the world” for refugees began with “$200 and 50kg of books.”

That mantra neglects the key to the plan to educate refugee children stuck in limbo, of course, by focussing on the minimal outside support that enabled the endeavour. The driving force to educate refugee children came from the countless hours and endless energy dedicated by people trapped in refugee status themselves.

By labelling people refugees – or asylum seekers – in public discourse, we strip them of the hopes and dreams, the histories and experience, that make up the individual. Instead we impose upon them a permanent collective identity.

The politics made of the labels “refugee” and “asylum seekers” since the John Howard years in Australia have made for poisonous strategies to shape public discourse and venomous public policy that has wasted years and broken lives.

It has also cost us billions of dollars, this bigoted fearmongering generated by ambitious politicians and their strategist friends. The Refugee Council of Australia has calculated that from 2013 to 2022 alone, Coalition governments have spent $9.65 billion dollars on such policies. Australian governments have granted these billions to companies registered to a beach shack on Kangaroo Island; to donors with a company worth $8 dollars; to contractors suspected of drug smuggling and weapons trafficking; to corrupt foreign businessmen; to corrupt governments in Papua New Guinea and Nauru; even to people smugglers.

The result has been devastating harm: children dying of Resignation Syndrome as Peter Dutton’s Home Affairs fought their evacuation from Nauru, suicides, murder and abuse, not to mention families destroyed by long separation.

By contrast, the 5 learning centres currently educating 1200 refugee children in Indonesia continue to operate without government support. Thousands of children have been through these centres, and almost all have gone on to age-appropriate schooling levels on arrival in the new homes. Those children, displaced by war and genocidal armies, are now studying at university and committed to contributing to their beloved safe-haven homes.

In 2014, then immigration minister Scott Morrison said, in Holocaust-evoking dehumanisation, that Australia would stop taking refugees from Indonesia to take “the sugar off the table,” as if these people were insects. The decree that families would be trapped with glacial processing to places like Canada or Germany in – perhaps – a decade compounded the deep despair that pervaded the scared and isolated people trapped in Cisarua near Jakarta, desperate for a future that would save them from Taliban genocide.

The chance meeting of one of the most energised figures there, photographer Muzafar Ali, with an Australian documentary-maker, Jolyon Hoff, enabled the leasing of a two-room house that became the first learning centre that aimed not just to occupy children trapped in lodgings with increasingly despairing parents, but to prepare them for schooling in English-speaking countries.

Volunteer management and teachers took on the task of educating the community’s children, whether Hazara like the organising group or from other ethnicities finding a staging post in the town. These places became community hubs, teaching language and skills to parents as well as children, fostering hope.

The energy and excitement in the schools have always been palpable. The education now stretches from pre-school to GED qualifications which earn tertiary access. There are a karate club and futsal teams to promote physical health, sport enjoyment and confidence. The girls alone boast 10 futsal teams and ever more impressive skills.

The teachers too have gone on to grand achievements. University degrees including in teaching number amongst the opportunities embraced by these impressive figures in their resettled homes. Anyone who has worked to learn a foreign language, with a non-alphabet script, will grasp the scope of the effort required to gain university qualifications in it.

Muzafar and Jolyon made an exceptional documentary called The Staging Post around the initial project. Last year they released a second documentary recounting Muzafar’s efforts to find the legacy of the Afghan camel-men, who were central to Australian settlement. Now they are working to begin a sequel to The Staging Post where they plan to highlight the achievements of the people who have emerged from the Learning Centre project.

Meanwhile Clare O’Neil’s Home Affairs is only beginning to reckon with the harm done to the Australian record and budget by Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton and Michael Pezzullo, their chief public servant, recently removed in disgrace.

Australians ought to be angry, not only about the vast quantity of taxpayer money that should have been much better spent. We ought to be angry that enterprising people who could, with a little support, have achieved great accomplishments enabling a better future for them and the countries that would host them.

Above all, we ought to angry and ashamed at the harm done to people who fled persecution, genocide and oppression. Australia has been asked to host very few of the world’s displaced. Our response has been driven by populist politics of bigotry and grievance. We have a few young men remaining in PNG in 2024 from our Manus Island concentration camp, many of whom are barely functioning after years of Australian cruelty and Kafkaesque bureaucratic torment. What would these young men have become with just a little support instead of (expensive) torture?

Australians are beginning to learn what it means to be displaced by crises as the climate catastrophe displays that it is already underway.

We need to be taking lessons from the Cisarua project for Australians here as well as for the small percentage of the world’s displaced that have asked Australia for a safe future.

We must speak to the people who require assistance and listen to their needs instead of speaking over them. In the case of Australia’s refugee policy, we wasted billions on toxic cruelty when we could have done much better in ways that cooperated internationally and supported people humanely.

We must also steer clear of the disaster capitalists who would profit from every one of our catastrophes, with bonuses, growth, and profits as their goals, and apparently no care for their responsibility to the survivor or the taxpayer.

 

This essay was first published in Pearls and Irritations as A little support instead of billions on toxic cruelty

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Climate change deniers, theocrats and neoliberals meet in London for the scariest Halloween Party

It was helpful of Greg Sheridan to advertise in The Australian (27/10) the new ultraconservative conference that he is attending in London. While his column is no doubt intended to recruit, it is useful in shining a spotlight on a traditionally shadowy architecture of influence.

Apparently 1,500 citizens from around the world are gathering at the O2 venue over Halloween in London to talk about how to save the world from the “elites” at a cost of AUD2870 per head. The new body promoting conservative activism is the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC). The body’s tagline is that the “The ARC of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” The “ark” wordplay to denote them as saviours of Western Civilisation is no doubt intentional.

One of the key figures organising this event is John Anderson, former National Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister. He recently appeared at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Australia conference which was a Trumpist rallying cry against the Voice to Parliament and LGBTQIA+ rights. He also spoke at the reactionary Family First NZ conference. More significantly, Anderson, according to the ARC site, runs “Australia’s pre-eminent politico-cultural video podcast,” an “enterprise” that has 400,000 subscribers.

On his program, Anderson interviewed the unbearable Jordan Peterson; now they are at the helm of this nascent body. Peterson is one of the stars of the internet manosphere where he makes his money selling sexism, Western chauvinism and climate denial. Joining these two as founder is Baroness Philippa Stroud, formerly of the Legatum Institute, an influence body whose “lead sponsor” is the Legatum Group, representing a Dubai-based private hedge-fund billionaire. This is the “think” tank that fought for the strictest Brexit with no tariffs, and drones to cope with the Irish border issue. The economic conditions created by “think” tanks such as this have one million British children living in “destitution,” more than doubling the figure over the last five years.

The pretext for forging this alliance is that climate action is going to destroy the ability to provide food for humanity, pushing us into poverty. Recent scientific findings that point to evidence that all “life on Earth is imperilled” by the climate crisis are not accepted. Desmog has described the ARC conference as a key event in the “climate crisis denial movement.”

Of the international crowd, 150 are Australian. Anderson and Sheridan are to be joined by former Prime Ministers John Howard, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. Anti-abortion activist Amanda Stoker is on the advisory panel alongside Howard, Abbott and Andrew Hastie. Angus Taylor, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Ted O’Brien and James Paterson are attending, as is Barnaby Joyce. Mark Latham is too. The only political surprise is Julian Leeser who was a more moderate actor in the Voice debate.

Most delegates are coming from the UK and the US. Sheridan counts 300 as deriving from Europe. One of the most noteworthy American attendees is new House Speaker Mike Johnson, who is a fully-fledged theocrat. He has been described by a colleague as a “despicable bigot of the highest order.” The list of figures on the advisory board alone features notables representing climate denial, Western chauvinism and ultraconservative religious beliefs from around the world. It also has what Sheridan characterises as “serious business backers.”

Anderson explained to Sheridan that, “Citizens in the West feel marginalised, treated with contempt by the elites.” The Voice was apparently a project of the “expertocracy” that patronised the voter. We need elites, but “the right elites.” This reflects a trend in the National Conservative (Nat Con) movement that, while pitched at actual elites, demonises the intellectual “elites” as the crisis in society. It feigns populism while aiming to control all the behaviours and beliefs in the populace that are not “traditional.” It is simultaneously statist in its disdain for the individual’s choices and libertarian for the “conservative” business world.

This is an important moment to read prize winning journalist and historical researcher Anne Nelson’s “Shadow Network” book, recounting the history of the Council for National Policy in the US. It illustrates the strategies at work in this body as well as the global Atlas Network. The “think” tanks and organisations formulated in this model unite disparate actors in cutting edge strategies led by a multitude of misleadingly-named bodies to foster ultra-free market policy and ultraconservative social goals. Many of the plutocrat funders are fossil fuel billionaires.

The game-plan of the Atlas Network was rolled out for the Voice to Parliament referendum, as UTS lecturer Jeremy Walker examined. The 500 Atlas affiliates around the world have consistently worked to break the union of Indigenous populations and environmental action impeding resource extraction. Their ploys include depicting climate activists and environmentalists as terrorists or extremists. This has been the case for Indigenous environmental protectors around the world. They have also worked to co-opt some First People with mining profits to break unity and fight the resource extractors’ opponents for them. ARC Advisor Magatte Wade heads Atlas affiliate “Center for African Prosperity” where she argues climate activism is the new colonialism, intended to impoverish Africans.

The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), an Australian Atlas affiliate, has strong personnel connections to the Advance body that led the No campaign through its Fair Australia brand. Advance shares personnel and an address with sites that that promoted a range of disruptive and contradictory positions against the Voice, including a Christian one (not least because spiritual connections to country are a pagan threat). The cluster includes an anti-climate action offshoot called “Not Zero.” Advance has personnel and logistical connections with Whitestone Strategic consulting, a shadowy company that also has links with the Pentecostal movement’s peak body, the Australian Christian Lobby, and with Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party. It’s uncertain how much damage to the referendum was achieved by Advance and friends: they seem a clumsy attempt at the Atlas model.

Nelson illustrates how the possible American political collapse into fossil fuel-embracing, theocratic authoritarianism was created over 50 years with the kind of networking reflected in the ARC conference. The O2 event trumpets the spread of the fossil fuel-promoting, ultraconservative movement internationally, work that Atlas has been carrying out in secret.

This might be 2023’s scariest Halloween party.

 

This was first published in Pearls and Irritations as An ultraconservative shadow network is forming, designed to influence you

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Greed is the problem, not workers

Of course, The Australian republished Andy Kessler’s ridiculous Wall Street Journal column, “The decline of work in a spoiled society.” Those News Corp bedfellows continue to miss that they are at the core of the problem.

The pandemic drew back the curtain for the workers of the West, casting a glaring spotlight on the fact that they were cogs in a machine churning profit for the power brokers. Billionaires took off on joyrides to space, in rockets built of the workers’ stolen wages. Emergency workers received mere thanks for dying in excessive numbers to keep the upper echelons safely serviced in their beach home escapes. Nurses saw that their dedication had been exploited for unfair pay as their shifts ballooned. Teachers learnt they were actually childminders to allow capitalism untrammelled access to parent workers.

This edifying revelation only built on the growing crisis of 2008’s financial crash. Taxpayers’ money was demanded to refund the financial sector that had gambled away its wealth. In the US, 10 million Americans lost their homes, mostly left sitting empty. In the UK, bankers got their bonuses back as austerity policy savaged the lives and communities of the taxpayers who’d funded their bailouts.

Over the Cold War, a combination of factors kept the gap between rich and poor narrow. Partly the financial circumstances of the era; partly a society that required a large educated and healthy workforce to maintain mass-employing sectors. Partly, though, it was the bowel-clenching fear of the rich and powerful that their own masses could revolt to seize the means of production.

The resultant conditions meant that unionised workers could support their families with some spending money on the side. After capitalism’s collapse in the Great Depression and the nightmare of two World Wars, the bargain seemed worthy.

In the wake of the Cold War, neoliberal ideologues and extremists won the battle for understanding how the economy should operate. Milton Friedman’s diktat that the shareholder was the corporation’s only responsibility became the operating principle. Maggie Thatcher killed “society.” The workers were to be recognised as inanimate parts of the machine. The threat of starvation would keep them obediently clocking in, clocking out, clocking in.

Meanwhile, the Cold War reticence about ostentatiously displaying wealth with the prospect of revolution to chill the peacock urge, was replaced by reality TV where everyone could see just how stupid and venal the wealthy actually can be.

In America, the social contract is broken. The poorest workers slog between several jobs, often on poorly maintained public transport, without healthcare. Teachers drive Uber after hours to pay the rent. In the UK, private school alumni threw the country’s well-being off the Cliffs of Dover in pursuit of defunct imperial grandeur. Both countries’ discontent was channelled against people with a different skin colour, seeking safety. The “revolution” to date has taken the form of electing populist-nativist clowns who made all their problems worse.

Liz Truss was the final straw in this revelation of the cold calculations underlying neoliberalism. There would be unaffordable tax cuts for the rich and further austerity for the rest.

In Australia, the crisis of worker investment is different. Rising prices creating rising profits eat into the wages of those previously getting by. The Reserve Bank is driving up interest rates, again eating into survival funds, instead of begging profiteers to cap their greed. Policy promoting property as an investment rather than a necessity is robbing the next generation of the chance to join in that mode of securing their future. Landlords increase rent because that is “the market,” and renters become desperate.

Australia’s workers are, on the whole, better paid than our American parallels but the same pressures that the neoliberal ideologues have imposed on that nation are grinding away at the readiness of workers to give over most of their working hours to employers.

Signs of poverty are becoming more overt in Australia. The recent story about a mother wanting to keep a pot of yoghurt as a Christmas treat went viral, shocking to a complacent population.

Victorian Premier Dan Andrews has taken some steps in his election promises to address the implications of these factors. One that drew howls of outrage from the Murdoch Dog Line was the promise to make menstrual products available in places where people might not be able to afford them. To any person willing to take a moment, it is clear that being forced to choose between food and sanitary products is a crippling decision.

To the Murdoch commentators, Andrews’ decision was an outrage. Regular Murdoch columnist Gemma Tognini fulminated that the promise was, bizarrely, “sexist” as well as “shallow, populist, cosmetic and desperate.” Then again, she is the columnist that equated accepting Dan Andrews to Chamberlain “attempting to appease a monster.”

In the worldview of the News Corp columnist, and their ultra-free market ideology, anyone not working hard enough is choosing to be unable to afford menstrual products. Pandering to this laziness encourages the slacker life.

Andy Kessler argued that what workers get from the ever-more poisonous bargain is “human capital” which he decodes “as what workers learn on the job is theirs to keep.” But too many jobs now, like the grinding immiseration of Amazon warehouse workers, grant little in the way of skills or satisfaction.

He demanded the American government “please stop paying people not to work.” At a moment in employment history where too many people are working in jobs that barely pay survival salaries because human labour remains cheaper or more precise than automation, the only way to get people to work at all is to starve them thoroughly rather than slowly.

A better option might be to abandon ultra-free market ideology as the destroyer of systems it has proven to be. Clearly, workers need to be and feel valued to sign over their lives to the awful jobs we need done. America’s extremes illustrate the utter failure of their neoliberal religion.

Removing obscene profits for executives and shareholders as the driving force of corporations would be a start. A fairer division of the spoils is necessary to keep society functioning. This might need to be achieved by higher taxes on the top tier, since they don’t seem to understand the crisis their never-sated greed has created.

This was originally published at Pearls and Irritations as Greed and a spoiled society: workers are not the problem

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button