University of Wollongong Research Online
Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities
January 2002
Funding the ideological struggle
Damien Cahill The University Of Sydney
Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers
Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Law Commons
Recommended Citation Cahill, Damien, "Funding the ideological struggle" (2002). Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers. 1528. https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/1528
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Funding the ideological struggle
Abstract Over the past twenty-five years a radical neo-liberal movement, more commonly known as the 'new right', has launched a sustained assault upon the welfare state, social justice and defenders of these institutions and ideas. In Australia, the organisational backbone of this movement is provided by think tanks such as the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), and the Tasman Institute; and forums such as the H.R. Nicholls Society. Central to the movement's efficacy and longevity has been financial support from Australia's corporate sector and industry interest groups. Activists and scholars have produced many articles and books discussing radical neo-liberalism, but the movement has yet to be comprehensively analysed. This article is a contribution towards such a project. What follows is an examination of the relationship between the radical neo·liberal movement and Australia's ruling class; a study of the motivations for corporate funding of neo-liberal think tanks; and an analysis of what impact the movement has had on policy and public opinion.
Keywords struggle, ideological, funding
Disciplines Arts and Humanities | Law
Publication Details Cahill, D. 2002, 'Funding the ideological struggle', Overland, vol. 168, pp. 21-26.
This journal article is available at Research Online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/1528 Copyright ofFull Text rests with the original copyright owner and, except as pennitted under the Copyright Act 1968, copying this copyright material is prohibited without the pennission ofthe owner or 200209620 its exclusive licensee or agent or by way ofa licence from Copyright Agency Limited. For infonnation about such licences contact Copyright Agency Limited on (02) 93947600 (ph) or (02) 93947601 (fax)
Damien Cahill Funding the ideological struggle
VER THE PAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS a radical the CIS derived about $772,077 of its $971,182 neo-liberal movement, more commonly budget from corporate 'donations'. Only $113,085 known as the 'new right', has launched a (about 14 per cent) of its income was derived from O 2 sustained assault upon the welfare state, social justice book sales and subsctiptions. Had the CIS relied upon and defenders of these institutions and ideas. In Aus market forces to fund its activities, it would not have tralia, the organisational backbone ofthis movement been viable. is provided by think tanks such as the Institute of Pub In their early stages of development, the most lic Affairs (IPA), the Centre for Independent Studies prominent support for think tanks came from indi (CIS), and the Tasman Institute; and forums such as vidual corporate CEOs, with mining and minerals the H.R. Nicholls Society. Central to the movement's companies standing out as major 'donors'. In the late efficacy and longevity has been financial support seventies and early eighties Western Mining Cor from Australia's corporate sector and industry inter~ poration (WMC) chief Hugh Morgan served on the boards of most major think tanks and was crucial in est groups. s Activists and scholars have produced many arti brokering financial support for the movement. cles and books discussing radical neo-liberalism,! but WMC, CRA, BHP and Shell were crucial in provid the movement has yet to be comprehensively ana ing the early financial base for the CIS. lysed. This article is a contribution towards such a By the 1980s, farming interests, represented by project. What follows is an examination of the rela the National Farmers Federation (NFF), and small tionship between the radical neo·liberal movement business associations such as the Australian Cham and Australia's ruling class; a study of the motivations ber of Commerce (ACC) and the Australian Federa for corporate funding of neo-liberal think tanks; and tion of Employers (AFE) threw their support behind an analysis ofwhat impact the movement has had on the radical neo-liberals, and by the 1990s, finance policy and public opinion. capital was the backbone of nee-liberal think tanks (although mining and minerals companies were still HE RADICAl NEO-LIBERAL movement's emergence well represented).' Tfrom relative obscurity in the late seventies and Sections of corporate Australia provide funds to early eighties to its current status can be attributed think tanks primarily because they see their inter to two factors. The first is Australia's political eco~ ests served by the promotion of radical neo-liberal nomic context, and the second is backing from the ideas; even if not directly. Indirect benefits may fol corporate sector. Economic stagflation during the low through the promotion of a deregulated envi 1970s provided a window of opportunity for the ronment or anti-union policies, or through influence radical neo-liberals, and during this time, a section of social and market behaviour. IFamily restaurant' of corporate Australia recognised the benefits of McDonald's, for example, funds the CIS 'Taking putting money into nee-liberal think tanks and Children Seriously' ProgramS which has helped put projects. conservative notions of family back on the media Neo-liberalism has never been a popular move· map. Mining companies and agribusiness, in re ment. Without corporate support it is unlikely to have sponse to powerful, militant and well-organised emerged as a potent force. Nor could its promoters unions, have supported think tanks promoting mili 6 have sustained their activities. In 1996, for example, tant anti-union activities. Mining corporations view
2002.1oB.overland 21 environmental and land rights The effect of corporate which catapulted the movement movements as direct threats; con to national media attention, was sponsorship upon the sequently, think tanks have con its opposition to centralised in sistently attacked and undermined output of these think tanks dustrial arbitration and wage fix these (one, the Benne10ng Society, ing. The term 'Industtial Relations is perhaps evident from was formed expressly to challenge Club' was coined by think tanks Aboriginal self-determination, the the fact that, while they to describe the trade unions, law Stolen Generations, and the idea yers, journalists and employer as of "white guilt"). have been fierce critics of sociations (particularly the CAI Financial capital organisations the 'culture of welfare and the Metal Trades Industry As are among the coalition of inter sociation [MTIAJ)-' This 'club' ests which have turned to neo-lib dependency', they have was, in the eyes of neo-liberals, eralism as an alternative to the re~ been remarkably silent on the chief obstacle to industrial Keynesian welfare state.7 Seeing lations change. Consequently, the potential of massively in the issue of corporate neo-liberals called for its aboli creased profits in a deregulated welfare in Australia. tion. Italso called for a curbing of environment, they have backed trade union power through the neo-liberal arguments. Other extension of legal sanctions think-tank backers, such as retail and tobacco corpo against strike action. rations, also have a vested interest in deregulation. The neo-liberal assault upon the 'Industtial Rela tions Club' provoked mixed responses from busi URING THE 1980s there were conflicts within nesses and employer associations. But the depth of D the ruling class itself over issues of industtial hostility of many within the manufacturing sectors relations and tariffs. These conflicts were often bitter. can be gauged by their use of such terms as 'fascist' The manufacturing sector, represented by the Con and 'escapist' to describe the radical neo-liberals in federation ofAustralian Industry (CA!), tended to sup 1986W Clearly, support among the ruling class for port the centralised system of industrial relations as the radical neo-liberals was by no means uniform. well as tariff protections. They were able to enter During the mid-1980s a number of militant and into mutually beneficial and industry-wide agree confrontationalist tactics were used by employers ments with unions, which conditioned their ap against employees, such as in the Dollar Sweets, proach to unions and the arbitration commission. Mudginberri and SEQEB disputes. In these cases, On the other hand, small businesses, represented by employers found allies in the radical neo-liberal the ACC, were less favourably disposed towards the movement, who defended their actions in terms of arbitration system. The NFF also took a strong anti individual liberty." In the Dollar Sweets case, then union and pro-free-trade stance during this period. 8 lavvyer Peter Costello used the common law to pros These tensions led to ecute the union. the NFF splitting from The formation of the CA!. They also led vJhy do you the H.R. Nicholls Soci to the establishment in 9~~P ety in 1986 gave mili 1986 of the AFE, which fora ~~ley tant employers a forum was designed to act as 1 sales"... for meeting with like an alternative employ minded parties. Former ers' association, and Peko-Wallsend head, which pushed market Charles Copeman, at based alternatives to tested to the forum's ef government regulation ficacy, stating that it of industry and labour. provided him with the One of the defining 'inspiration' to take on features of the radical the unions in the Robe neo-liberal movement, River dispute later in and indeed the issue tha tyear. 12
22 overland.lb8.2002 .. ---_._------,
ITH CORPORATE SUPPORT, radical NEO-LIBERAL THINK TANKS W neo-liberals have produced a number of publications which outline AND THEIR FUNDING SOURCES alternatives to the welfare state inAus~ tralia. These publications offer a vision OLLOWING THE us EXAMPLE, Australian new right of what a neo-liberal society mightlook Fthink-tanks have acted as arms-length organisations like, and provide policy alternatives for through which private enterprise donations could be getting there. Australia at the Cross channelled into research tailored to theneeds of roads, funded by Shell Australia, sets out conservative political parties. To give butone example, an economic libertarian analysis of the Institute ofPublic Affairs (IPA) provided extensive Australian society and prescribes desir bogus anthropological research on the validity of able future directions. 13 Mandate to Govern, jointly sponsored by the Aus Aboriginal land claims to the Liberals during theiranti tralian Institute for Public Policy and the Mabo and Wik campaigns. The board oftheVictorian Australian Chamber of Commerce, is IPA has included lamesBalderstone, who also served on based on a similar project conducted by the BHP board; HughMorgan, managing director ofthe the conservative Heritage Foundation WesternMining Company; and Dame Leonie Kramer, in America to coincide with the 1980 anotherWesternMining board member. All of and 1984 Presidential elections and Australia's majornew right think tanks havebeen contains a neo-liberal policy program for a future federal government. 14 Vic heavily dependentonmining company funding. The toria: An Agenda for Change (part of future of the fledgling Centre for Independent.5tudies 'Project Victoria') is a joint undertak (CIS) was reportedly consolidated bya $40,000 dollar ing of the Institute of Public Affairs and grant organised byMorgan, with ongoing funding the Tasman Institute, funded by a provided by the WesternMining Company, CRA,BHP, number of business associations. It co Shell, and Santos. TheTasmanlnstitute,whichwas incided with the election of the Kennert widely credited for providing theideological blueprint government in Victoria and oudined a program of deregulation and privatisa for the Kennetr GovernmentinVictoria, wassponsored tionY The National Priorities Project byBHp, CRA, Esso, MIM, Shell, Woodside Petroleum presented research undertaken by the and Western Mining. Centre for Policy Studies and also by the -MARKDAVlS Tasman Institute on deregulation, priva- tisation/ taxation and the application of market mechanisms to environmental problems. This project was funded by the BCA, NFF, est eighty Australian companies, has differed from mining and energy councils and finance associations. 16 nea-liberals in tactics and policy, generally adopting To a limited extent, nea-liberal think tanks have a more incremental and practical approach to that of not only promoted ideas, but attempted to put these the radical nea-liberals. 18 While the radical neo-lib ideas into practice. The Tasman Institute, which arose erals called for the arbitration system to be abolished, out of the failed attempt to establish a private fee the BCA seemed content to develop policies that had paying university in Australia during the late 1980s,17 a realistic chance of implementation under the then is linked to Tasman Asia Pacific, a company which Labor government. In the arena of industrial rela engages in consultancy work in Australia and over tions, the BCA led the way in the push for enterprise seas, advising governments on ways of implement bargaining. It was the contribution of Fred Hilmer, ing neo-liberal policy programs, such as privatisation rather than that of the think tanks, that was responsi and deregulation. ble for the Council's successful strategy of promot· It is important to recognise the disparity between ing enterprise bargaining. 19 For research it has tended radical neo·liberalist views and those of other sec to turn to other consultants such as Access Econom· tions of the ruling class. The Business Council of ics and McKinsey rather than the radical neo-liberal Australia, for example, comprising CEOs of the larg- think tanks.
2002.1b8.overland 23 The effect of corporate sponsorship on the output cifically at high-school teachers and their students. of think tanks is perhaps evident from the fact that, The ClS established the Economics Education Re while they have been fierce critics of the 'culture of source Centre in 19891 which produced a regular welfare dependency' arising from state-administered publication and sponsored seminars for both eco welfare programs, they have been remarkably silent nomics teachers and students. ln 1993 the C1S
on the issue of corporate welfare in Australia - esti M claimed that its professional development days had mated by Greens Senator Bob Brown to be about attracted 600 teachers, while more than 800 schools, $14 billion." However, it is not good enough simply colleges and libraries subscribed to its newsletter, to describe radical neo-liberals as lackeys of the rul The Economics Education Review." All of this helped ing class. Rather, they are actors in their own right, to legitimate the neo-liberal framework of economic ·with their own interests and values. They are moti analysis within the teaching of high-school econom vated by ideology, by an absolute conviction of the ics, as well as promote the idea that lthere is no alter
correctness of their own beliefs I whereas businesses native' to neo-liberalism. are motivated by profit and are constrained by the This is just one way in which think tanks have limitations of political reality. This has clearly an provided a focus for the radical nee-liberal move noyed the radical nee-liberals, who have called on ment. They have provided continuity, support for business associations to embrace neo-liberal policies activists, an organisational base and a means of dis and ideas with greater vigour. 21 ttibution of information. By bringing the faithful to gether, and by reaffirming nee-liberal ideology, they IKE SOME OiliER MOVEMENTS, the radical neo have helped to embolden participants in the radical Lliberals have moved the goalposts of debate. neo-liberal movement. These ideological shock troops have enjoyed favour able treatment by the mainstream media. My own HILE THE RADICAL NW-LIBERAL movement has survey of The Age, SydneyMorning Herald and Aus W not been the main driver of Liberal Party tralian Financial Reviewbetween 1986 and 1995 re policy! it has been instrumental in shaping it. At the veals that only 14 per cent ofarticles which mentioned most obvious level, a number of radical neo-liberal one or more of the radical neo-liberal think tanks activists have been involved in the Liberal Party. Pe identified them as either right-wing or conservative. ter Costello, the Kemp brothers and lan McLachlan Further, 63 per cent of these articles contained quotes have become federal Liberal MPs. Charles Copeman from think tank publications or members.22 This sug~ unsuccessfully ran for election. Former Liberal MPs gests that the ideological nature of these think tanks John Hyde and Bett Kelly advocated radical neo-lib has been concealed and their ourput has been pre eral approaches while in parliament. Michael Kroger,
sented as authoritative1 disinterested and objective. Andrew Robb and David Trebeck have all moved While they haven't influenced public opinion di into the non-parliamentary hierarchy. Andrew rectly (witness the continuing unpopularity of neo Notton from the ClS is a former adviser to David liberal policies), they have had success intervening Kemp. Alistair Nicholas, also of the ClS, has been an in the agenda-serting organs of the media. For exam adviser to Alexander Downer. ple, being far more radical than the BCA, they were As nee-liberal ideology has developed into politi able to create a "favourable intellectual climate" in cal reality, it has also become more acceptable for which the Business Council's less radical agenda of Labor politicians to fraternise with the radical neo enterprise bargaining was politically palatable." liberal movement. Federal Labor MP Mark Latham Radical neo-liberals argued that the economic cri has dabbled, publishing with the CIS." Former Fed sis of the seventies exposed an inherent flaw in eral Labor Minister Gary Johns is employed by the Keynesianism. Australian policy-making of the time lPA. Former Labor Finance Minister Peter Walsh is a was in fact a grab-bag of theories, and wasn1t a strict friend of the movement. NSW Labor Police Minister application of Keynesian practice at all.24 But radical Michael Costa conttibuted a chapter to A Defence of neo-liberalism helped legitimise the rejection of Economic Rationalism?7 and NSW Labor Premier Keynesianism, and contributed to the context for Bob Carr's description of the CIS as a lijewel in Syd speculation about alternatives. ney's crown" adorns its website. Nonetheless, there They promote these alternatives at every level. have not been any radical neo-liberals who have gone Both the CIS and IPA have had programs aimed spe- to work for Laber MPs or become Labor politicians
24 overland.lb8.2002 C'-_~~~._~.;.~.~.',~ :~:,~~:~ .. of;~ -~ .. -<~.,... .\,~~. -:C .;!-~,;t: ,,~. 'if ""'~'1 -~";: .~~~;,:. ,~:~.;.-_ " .:..,. , .... ;,:~:._ 'c:'('
.• , ':CIT'SHA~~;'fOrOVEflEStl~t~} ;~~Gmi~~AY ,hould bc', man m""ntHj,~;;:ai;~~,;beCentrefor':~'i)t ',.'_ ;.. :. '.,: ".- .-,,~, '. ';" :;-~_:',--(£~~':~~~:'i1;::;,r5:fr;;.~i=.'tt;~;-r:;:-~. JitdepcnQencStudirs {eIS); is today ,the. mOSt inflllemial think.tank 'til the,,:.:'_:::':':.,:.' ._' .~: -THE INFLUENCEGONSERVAl1NE/,' ::countl:)'i,it's unlquc,hrand,of,socialciJnservatism'.;"od neo,c1assica.l eCQnomi~j~~;:~<~ .':' ',-- ., ;.1H INK:~TAN;S~ijAV:~~"HAO:$N :"::-. ~':~~~l;_.~!d~;~~r~:;i~~~ad A~n~ia~~~~~e~ofVt~~rr~~/~i:,~~_~t~~~~t}~.j~~~~~~}~1~ r":~~:: .:~_:! .~ "~"~cr' ~ .;.. >'to;"lrl>i'f"'I'G·"'fi.c'i~"G'''E·f<'r'iO''~fi.·''''I''I;!'· c'b.ikd bi-,both ,id" of politics. Amomem·of triumpb, )'oumi~ht think. And,; '~.,. <7,U, ':'.THER ~;I;, '';''H "'i ;,:n<~ ...}'ef:LIO~saYlstroubled."'· -'~:-.~ ~~, "".'~ .. ':~'~~:' .'",>, .'!"~? ~ ::~:::~~A~ST~.A.gl1~1L~~l~f:i~,,;:;\·; ,,_ ~T;~~~u:~~;e~d:a~r~eC:~~:~: ~::~ ~~e~'~\;3~::d~tO~N)d~~~d i~:1ek 1{~ :~~ _ '~'.- :,tH ErARE~GrRo,ltrGi~ijEiR111(flr~'s:,~~;. ~l,ark~t e~o~:mY,modd,l has :vo"~~. Inrf'!\:,~~r:olll~t~ar~};r~Jct~er~., St;\~~~:~~ ~f ~egu~atJo~ are " ',,<'1,' '-:';>..ffi~::itt;':f~.~!J~...::~-*~;.:~,,,,,,.,,.-~.~~tlJJ'~h~re,\\eha~nofightthat ,, ,', .," ,.', ..' """", ,,~ '.~'";,,, " .. :, ,<,!::.:fOR;;'AmERENS'IV EBA1If.L[:?,':',', ::.\" ~1?~r (J,tbe,se. ar~u'ments - yoLi-,~e,got to,~~ep ~e-stating-the.I1),: r~p3ck~g!,:g:and:.rr~, ''''':''':,,' _,"," ,; ,-'- :~-:-J~J!!:i''''1ff;a:.~~f,'Ji;~;K{;~~~:;;:d;~~·!/',;·~.~ o~amSl!1g;'SqY It 3gam"ger s01m:one:els~,to ~ay It,Jt s ~ cultural f~!ng,too. ,WeJe,'\\·prk~ng .'. fi.GAINSISIGNS·;OEiA'RENAISSANGL,_,rhmugh Ihcsc:~ltural'lidesc one's going'um,and OUIS is r~mingin.We'veFottom,ke .. ~. ',~, --::~":.'!it:::~:~:t9.i?1;?:lt4-]i;.":
2002.168.overland 25 the think tanks, from a common right-wing political Sydney, 1987; J. Freebairn, M. Porter, C. Walsh (eds), Spending and Taxing: Taking Stock, Alien & Unwin, culture. Indeed, the Hanson phenomenon under Sydney, 1988; J. Freebairn, M, Porter, C. Walsh (eds), scored the general unpopularity of neo-liberal poli Savings and Productivity: Incentives for the 1990s, AlIen & cies in Australia. But Hansonism was inarticulate and Unwin, Sydney, 1989; A. Moran, A. Chisholm, M. Porter racist. Combating neo-liberalism requires a mobili (eds), Markets, Resources and the Environment, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1991. sation of both egalitarian ideas and interests against 17. M. Davis, 'Private sector supports trans-Tasman uni the powerful array of forces that nurture it. project', Australian Financial Review, 27 November 1987, p.5. 18. P.A. McLaughlin, 'How Business Relates to the Hawke ENDNOTES Government: The Captains of Industry' in B. Galligan & G. Singleton (edsl, Business and Government Under 1. See for example, M. Sawer (cd.), Australia and the New Labor, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1991, pp.147-167. Right, Alien & Unwin, Sydney, 1982; 1. Aarons, Here 19, ]. O'Btien, 'McKinsey, Hilmer and the BCA: The "New Come the Uglies: The New Right; Who They Are, What Management" Model of Labour Market Reform', Journal They Think, Why They're Dangerous, Red Pen Publica of Industrial Relations, December 1994, pp.468-490. tions, Ultimo, 1987; K. Coghill (cd.), The New Right's 20. 1. van Dyke, 'Sugar Daddies for Corporate Australia: A Australian Fantasy, McPhee Gribble, Fitzroy, 1987; J. Bitter Pill for the Environment', 1999, Wishart, The Challenge for Unions: Workers Versus the
26 overland.lb8.2002