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.