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
13 comments
Login here Register here-
Steve Davis -
Cool Pete -
Arnd -
Steve Davis -
paul walter -
Steve Davis -
Arnd -
Steve Davis -
Steve Davis -
Andrew Smith -
Steve Davis -
Denis Hay -
Clakka
Return to home pageNice work Denis.
Good to see the distinction between equity and equality.
There is a ridiculous doctor in Brisbane who wrote an article about how your mortgage might be making you sick, and he asked the question, “Would you vote Right for tax cuts for businesses so that they can employ more people and thus the government can reduce welfare spending?” The problem with that argument is that tax cuts for businesses can boost employment opportunities in a labour-intensive economy; in a capital-intensive economy, they result in greater profits for CEOs and more investment in capital and extend the gap between rich and poor.
Hanson wouldn’t know the difference between social justice and kangaroo poop. She farted about people working hard, but for some people, the opportunity is not there. I remember reading Gary Crews’ “The Inner Circle,” where Joe, a First Nations Australian, goes for a job as an apprentice fitter-and -turner and said that he “worked. The other lot farted around.” And he was asked to get, “The striped paint, the electricity can,” because of racism. He then went for a job with a cabinet maker who said, “If you’re as good as the local timber, you’ll do.” Joe found that he belonged with him. Others weren’t so lucky.
Equity demands that people have the same chances to access the same needs. Equality simply, to give an example of shoes, says, “Okay, here’s a pair of shoes,” and if they don’t fit, too bad. Furthermore, if you examine Tone the Botty’s 2013 slogan of, “Hope, Reward, Opportunity,” it wasn’t about the daughter of a poor couple who worked hard and obtained a university scholarship, it was about a wealthy person being able to get wealthier.
Steve, Denis Hay’s distinction between “equality” and “equity” is indeed a very useful and important one. As are many of his other observations.
But you do realise that implicit to Denis Hay’s outlook is an attitude that the solution to virtually all of our troubles is to get state authority to deal with it on all our behalves, and that we therefore must use every means available to strengthen, underpin and extend state authority and its remit? Which is a fine and very widely held and advocated opinion – the Fabians subscribe to it, and you might also compare, for example, Chandran Nair’s Sustainable State. And even I am not so completely possessed of dogmatic commitment to anarchism so as completely to blind myself to the potential of state authority to do good, especially in the short run. But I do note that is antithetical to the anarchist outlook on political philosophy.
For your consideration, I’d like to alert you to the possibility – the certainty, as far as I am concerned – that a strong emphasis on state authority as governing power invariably necessitates some form of corporatism, and is an approach to political philosophy that (invariably?) either runs up against its own limits and must haplessly, gormlessly succumb to the forces of neo-liberalism (see contemporary Germany, for example), or else begets ever stronger and more robust centralised authoritarianism. Spain under Franco, and Portugal under Salazar are examples of corporatism gone awry. I certainly do not favour this direction of thinking!
Still more concerning is that Denis Hay’s corporatism is founded on MMT, which – as we discussed previously – is a perspective on economics that can’t really bear any weight at all, let alone that of a strong state.
Arnd, I agree, and like you, I have no problem with state intervention in the interests of equity. But I would hope that this would be a restart to social evolution, not an endpoint or goal.
In regard to MMT, I came across an interview with Michael Hudson on a related subject, would appreciate your view of it. He did an article on MMT once without declaring for or against, but gave the impression that he approves on the condition of tight regulation.
Here’s part of the interview.
(Using money as an electoral weapon to keep labour oppressed)
“The right wing economists claim that if government were to provide more public healthcare, and more public services, taxes would go up. And because both Republicans and the Democrats have shifted taxes off real estate, off finance, off the 1% onto the 99%, that means that the wage earners taxes would go up.
But of course, it doesn’t have to be that way at all, because, as you point out, the state theory of money says that governments can create their own money. That’s been the case for the last few hundred years. And China has shown, governments don’t have to borrow money from the wealthy people to pay interest.
They can simply print the money, and the junk economics people say, well, if you print your money, that’s inflationary. But it’s no more inflationary than bank credit. Suppose that a government does indeed borrow a billion dollars from wealthy bond holders, and the wealthy bond holders are going to take the money out of the bank and turn it over to the government for spending.
Why does the government need the bond holders to create this money? Or, why do they need banks to suddenly go to their computer and create a billion dollars, to lend to the government, which the government will then redeposit in these very banks? The government is going to create the money in any case, whether it’s lent by the bond holders, or the banks, or just simply printed.
So the pretense is that the government has to borrow from bond holders. Because the bond holders decide what is economically worthwhile. Well, what does this ignore? That the bond holders are the 1%, and what they find economically worthwhile, isn’t using the government to benefit living standards, benefit labor, and to provide social services.
The (US) government’s role is to provide more money for the 1%, via the military industrial complex, and the other government projects.”
Of course, this leads us to the concepts of openness, transparency and accountability. sp where is the system breaking down?
FOI’s etc, anyone?
Paul, yes, and our problem with FOIs, whistleblowers etc, is a structural fault in our system.
The Chinese are achieving economic progress because of the strength of their foundational assumptions.
For example, this — “In the Chinese context, there are a lot of talks about remembering your original mission. The original mission is to eliminate inequality” – Wang Dan, chief economist of Hang Seng Bank China.
Putting aside the likely misinterpretation of “equity” into “equality”, when have we ever heard a Western banking figure talk like this? It would mean instant dismissal.
It very much looks like Michael Hudson, like all other advocates for MMT, is partially, blinkingly, squintingly, eye-rubbingly, waking up to the insubstantive vacuity of the concept of money.
Once you really think about it, you are forced to realise that “money” as such really is nothing more than some sort of highly influential “Nothing”. A (fungible) token, a mutual, and hitherto mostly unexamined assumption, an unspoken agreement.
But this insight about money is valid for all users of money, not just the “issuers of fiat currency”. Consequently, you cannot selectively remove certain conditions and restrictions imposed on the use of money for one participant in the market only. These restrictions either are, or are not, imbued with an assumption of universal validity.
If we decide that the rules of the (capitalist) market about the use of money to regulate and control the distribution of goods do not, or should not apply, they do not apply anywhere.
State authorities insisting that the rules about money do not apply to to themselves, but do apply to everyone else, thereby undermine public trust and confidence in money as medium to control exchange.
Which is fine … – if people realise the consequences and implications, and behave accordingly. Communism, properly understood and practiced, is about coordinating the productive efforts of a population without money – and, subject to certain conditions, I approve of communism, and have said so repeatedly on these pages.
But if we want to operate our economy on communist principles, everyone must co-operate. (And it will be a long time, and require a lot of effort, to get everyone on the same page on that. Indeed, many insist that this is completely impossible!)
Endeavouring to run an economy generally on capitalist principles, yet exempting state authorities from the capitalist strictures imposed on everyone else really is the height of economic folly.
I didn’t really say that I don’t have a problem with state intervention. As far as I can see, such state intervention may be the lesser of two evils. In the short term, and with “may” being the operative word here. NO GUARANTEES!
PRECISELY as paul walter insists, “concepts of openness, transparency and accountability” come into it immediately – and as far as I am concerned, the clarity of purpose required by the public, and their effort spent on keeping government authority open and accountable could just as easily be deployed by the members of a de-institutionalised stateless *Civil Society” directly to pursue their aims and ambitions, without the legislative and managerial “middle man” of government.
Thanks for taking the time Arnd.
“But if we want to operate our economy on communist principles, everyone must co-operate. (And it will be a long time, and require a lot of effort, to get everyone on the same page on that. Indeed, many insist that this is completely impossible!)”
Exactly.
And cooperation is necessary not only for communism or any form of socialism, non-cooperation will almost certainly be used by the West undermine BRICS. The fear is palpable. From the Atalantic Council — “But over time, groupings such as the BRICS have the potential to undermine Washington’s power when it comes to punishing or isolating countries pursuing policies that contradict US interests, especially if they seek alternative systems and methods for trade and payment over which Washington lacks the same leverage that it has today over SWIFT, for example.”
As for the time and effort required to get to that point of general cooperation, both time and effort will be dramatically reduced if the liberal system falls in a heap, which is quite possible.
Talking of BRICS, I just came across this from Euronews.
IMF predicts a shift in global economic power from G7 to BRICS.
Bloomberg: IMF confirmed the shift of the balance of power in the world economy from the G7 to the BRICS countries. The balance of power in the global economy is shifting from the G7 to the BRICS countries, Bloomberg reports citing a report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
‘According to purchasing power parity-based forecasts released this week, the IMF expects a larger share of growth over the next five years from the powerful BRICS economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil,’ the material says.
The contribution to the global economy of G7 members, such as the U.S., Germany and Japan, according to Bloomberg, since the last forecasts have been revised downward. China’s contribution to global growth will be 22% more than all G7 countries combined, and India will add almost 15% of the total by 2029.
The authors of the material explain that the new IMF forecast indicates the growing dependence of the world economy on emerging markets, especially on the basis of purchasing power parity, which gives more weight to poor and densely populated countries.”
It looks like a collapse of the liberal system might be happening already.
Steve Davis, think you have used a dud source Global Euronews that does not pass the ‘CRAAP*’ test; playing on more established Euronews now owned by Portugese company, with Tone’s friends in the Hungarian government in the background.
*CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. Use the CRAAP Test to evaluate your sources.
Further, like ‘degrowth’ etc. promoted by white nativist economists as grounded science (not, just a PR construct), MMT lacks credible models and exemplars (like local LNP nuclear ideas?), is promoted by the same (Tanton Network), why?
It’s used to rebut and avoid the need for temporary border churn over, mislabelled as immigration, but are ‘net financial & budget contributors’ to support budgets for more retirees; the nativist and social Darwinist right inc media would have us preclude immigration even though we are an immigrant nation.
Evidence, Tanton Network US based ‘OverPopulation Project’ giving faux scientific support to ‘the great replacement’ by citing MMT as a way to avoid immigration, same includes contributions from SPA Sustainable Population Australia types.
Has indirect support from Stanford’s MAHB, where Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehlrich holds a chair in insects or something, in background Stanford (private) is linked with University of Chicago and the right wing ‘Chicago School’ of economics, for corrupt authoritarians and social-Darwinists.
CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. Use the CRAAP Test to evaluate your sources.
The article originated from Bloomberg.
From Bloomberg, The world economy is set to rely even more heavily on the BRICS group of emerging economies to drive expansion, rather than their wealthier Western peers, according to the International Monetary Fund’s latest forecasts.
Compared with its last round of predictions six months ago, the IMF now expects a bigger share of growth over the next five years to come from powerhouse BRICS economies like China, India, Russia and Brazil, according to forecasts published this week based on purchasing power parity. By contrast, the expected contribution of Group of Seven members like the US, Germany and Japan was revised down.
I’d never heard of Global Euronews before today, but at this point they’re looking OK.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-23/imf-sees-growth-shift-toward-brics-away-from-g7-in-new-outlook
Thank you, Arnd, for your comment and for bringing up such a thought-provoking perspective. I agree with you that the distinction between “equality” and “equity,” as highlighted in the article, is a significant one and central to understanding social justice.
You raise a key point about the role of state authority and its potential implications, particularly in relation to corporatism and authoritarianism. It’s true that the emphasis on the state’s role in addressing societal challenges, whether through welfare programs or regulations, can lead to unintended consequences if not managed properly. Historical examples like Franco’s Spain or Salazar’s Portugal indeed illustrate how corporatist structures, when misused, can evolve into authoritarian regimes.
However, there is room to explore a more balanced approach—one that harnesses state authority to serve public interests while staying vigilant against the dangers of excessive centralisation and corporatism. The goal is not to strengthen state power for its own sake, but to ensure that it acts in the interests of the people, providing essential services, and fostering equity without succumbing to neoliberalism or authoritarianism.
As for Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), it offers a unique lens through which we can reconsider how public money is managed. While it certainly has its critics, I believe its core premise—that sovereign governments with their own currency are not constrained in the same way as households—challenges some of the restrictive policies that have led to austerity and inequality.
I appreciate your perspective and agree that these conversations are essential in developing more nuanced political philosophies.
Thanks for the article and thought provoking comments,
It seems that all the struggles we hear of these days are along those lines. But the messages mostly carried to the general public, are messages carried by and to the benefit of corporatism – they severely tamper with folk’s notions of essential aspiration (that required to established a balanced and equitable (or equal) existence) – is that what we call ‘populism’?
Those of neoliberal persuasion and those with autocratic tendencies would assuredly welcome this advent hyped by mainstream / social media that no longer acts as the ‘fourth estate’. Whereas those with more social / sustainable leanings have little choice but to negotiate with corporatism in a bid to bring it to heel for the greater good without collapsing the economic networks extant. So by the devices of politics and media each ‘side’ is seen as indistinguishable from the other, as ‘bad’ as the other, reducing faith, increasing doubt and decrying the efforts of ‘democracy’ as invariably corrupt.
History appears replete with paradoxes and dichotomies, the witness of and involvement in corruptibility and corruption. It appears that innocence is a matter of perspective, and even benevolence and altruism cannot be asserted without talk of a payoff. Ever increasing knowledge and complexity appears to be accompanied by language shifts and a burden of abstractions and sophistry. Rather than the old ‘fourth estate’ rendering such matters to easily read reporting and discussions of the views, the corporatized mainstream / social media indulges in sensation and biased absolutism to the point of engendering hostile conflict and destabilization.
Will it result in a new revolution over the ongoing revolutions, and if so, what then will be next?
It seems it’s normal for humans to have dreams and aspiration, and to that extent, competition, and those that would divide to conquer. Some might ask, given we attend to those matters, as AI rattles our brains and robots provide all our earthly needs, will there be anything for us but attending to art, argument and ailments?