Reclaiming the public interest and challenging the power of the super rich

There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way we think about wealth, power, and the role of government in creating a fair and just society.

The influence of the super wealthy in Australian politics is a persistent and troubling issue that has deep roots in the nation’s history, yet continues to evolve with the changing dynamics of global capitalism. The recent presentation by Gina Rinehart at the Bush Summit, an event funded by her own Hancock Corporation and presented by News Corporation is a reminder of this undue influence – Rinehart’s speech, predictably self-serving, highlights the problems of this link between immense private wealth and public policy in Australia.

Rinehart, like many of her wealthy peers, advocate for a contradictory set of demands: she insists on more government spending while simultaneously calling for lower taxes, particularly in ways that benefit her own interests and those of the mining industry. This is reflective of the broader trend among Australia’s wealthiest, who demand that the state serve their interests while vilifying any form of regulation that might curb their profit margins.

The call for the reduction of “red tape” and regulation, without any clear articulation of where these supposed bureaucratic obstacles lie, is a classic strategy employed by those who seek to operate with minimal oversight. This tactic, paired with an advocacy for downsizing the government, reflects a broader ideological assault on the role of the state in regulating industry and protecting public interests. The narrative that all government is inherently obstructive is a powerful one that plays out in the community, particularly when amplified by figures who hold significant economic power. However, this perspective is deeply flawed and fails to recognise the essential role that government plays in maintaining the balance between private profit and public good.

Rinehart’s alignment with figures such as Donald Trump, and her financial support for his political endeavours – as well as her membership of Trump’s high society female supporters, the Trumpettes! – highlights the global reach of this issue. Her rhetoric mirrors the populist, right-wing discourse that has gained traction in various parts of the world, advocating for aggressive resource exploitation (“drill, baby, drill”) without regard for the environmental or social consequences. This approach is not only short-sighted but dangerous, prioritising immediate profits over the long-term sustainability of the planet and the wellbeing of future generations.

Rinehart’s proposals, such as compulsory military service – only for “biological men and women” – and an Israeli-style Iron Dome system for Northern Australia, reveal a worldview that is outdated, psychotic and detached from the realities of contemporary Australian society. These ideas, reminiscent of her father Lang Hancock’s controversial views – who announced in 1984 that he wanted to poison the waterholes of Indigenous people and “breed them out”, as well as making business deals with the Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceaușescu – highlight the grotesque political philosophy of some of Australia’s wealthiest individuals, a philosophy that is rooted in a deep-seated belief in the primacy of wealth and power over social equity and justice.

Rinehart’s tax practices further diminish the legitimacy of her public pronouncements – while the taxes paid by Hancock Corporation are according to the law and sail close to the wind, governments should be forcing a wealth tax or higher mineral royalty rates, not pandering to their interests. The media, out of fear or vested interest, especially in the case of Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Stokes who own significant resources interests, often fails to hold these individuals accountable, allowing them to shape the narrative in ways that serve their narrow interests.

This is where the distinction between wealth and class becomes critical: The super wealthy in Australia often lack the social consciousness and responsibility that should accompany their financial power. Their philanthropic efforts through charity, sportswashing and greenwashing, while touted as evidence of their benevolence, pale in comparison to the potential social benefits that would arise if they were taxed appropriately and those funds were distributed through public channels. This perpetuates a flawed system where the rich not only control the means of production but also the means of social reproduction, further entrenching their power.

The example of Norway provides an excellent example of Australia should proceed in the management of these issues. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, derived from its North Sea oil and gas reserves, is managed in the public interest, ensuring that the benefits of the country’s natural resources are distributed more equitably. In Australia, even though the Constitution stipulates that natural resources belong to the Commonwealth, governments of all persuasions have implemented policies that effectively hand these resources over to private corporations, allowing them to reap enormous profits with minimal return to the public.

The hypocrisy of wealth: How Australia’s elite manipulate politics for personal gain

The entanglement of Australia’s super wealthy with the nation’s politics is not just a matter of undue influence but also a reflection of a broader ideological project that seeks to reshape society in their image. They hold a set of beliefs that are both politically naive and economically unsound, yet these ideas continue to gain traction, largely due to the enormous financial resources these individuals possess.

The irony in their positions is glaring, where they regularly denounce the role of government, advocating for reduced taxes or the outright elimination of taxes, all in the name of fostering a freer, more entrepreneurial society. However, this rhetoric is little more than a smokescreen for their true intentions: securing favourable government support and subsidies that directly benefit their businesses. Hancock Corporation’s joint ventures into the rare mineral sector, for instance, are bolstered by government funding that is not only unnecessary but also serves to further entrench the economic dominance of those who are already at the top.

This selective engagement with government – where support is welcomed when it benefits the wealthy but decried when it aids the less fortunate – reveals a clear double standard. Individuals like Harvey, who lobbied successfully for changes to the impost of GST on international purchases to protect his business interests, while also suggesting that giving money to the homeless was to “help a whole heap of no-hopers survive for no good reason”, exemplify this hypocrisy. The case of Andrew Forrest and the BasicsCard, which was tied to the Indue card company with connections to former Liberal Party MPs, further illustrates this point. Here, we see the super wealthy leveraging their political influence to shape policy in ways that benefit them personally, often under the guise of promoting the public good.

This stance reveals a disturbing lack of empathy and a deep-seated belief in their own superiority – an assumption that their wealth somehow makes them more deserving of government support than those who struggle to make ends meet. The belief in the inherent superiority of the wealthy is a dangerous fallacy, one that has been propagated by figures like Ayn Rand and other proponents of neoliberal ideology. This narrative suggests that business success is a marker of intelligence and capability, on par with or even surpassing the achievements of scientists, academics, and other professionals. However, this notion is demonstrably false. The wealth of these individuals is more often a product of privilege and inherited opportunity than of exceptional intelligence or hard work – they are not particularly innovative or bright; they are simply beneficiaries of a system that rewards the accumulation of capital above all else and a case of being in the right place at the right time.

Australia faces a choice: to continue down the path of increasing inequality and oligarchic rule, or to take bold steps to reclaim the political system from the grip of the super wealthy. This means not only challenging the undue influence of individuals like Rinehart, Harvey, and Forrest but also rethinking the very structure of the economy that allows such extreme concentrations of wealth to exist in the first place.

Government needs to act in the public interest

The central part of this issue is that the influence of the super wealthy over Australian politics is not just a matter of skewed priorities – it’s a direct assault on the public interest. When governments, including Labor governments, cater to the whims of billionaires and corporate elites, it is the taxpayer who ultimately bears the cost. The case of the mining industry is perhaps the most blatant example, but it is far from the only one. Across various sectors, from health to superannuation, the influence of the wealthy and their corporate interests has led to a situation where public funds are increasingly funneled into private hands, exacerbating inequality and undermining the public good.

The health sector is a prime example of this trend. Projections indicate that in just a decade, more government funds will be allocated to private health subsidies than to Medicare. This shift is not accidental; it is the result of sustained lobbying by major health corporations and their army of lobbyists. These entities have managed to convince malleable governments that subsidising private health is in the national interest, when in reality, it serves to deepen the divide between those who can afford top-tier private care and those who rely on an increasingly underfunded public system.

Similarly, the superannuation sector is set to absorb more government subsidies than the government makes in pensions payments within the next 15 years. This too is a consequence of government policy being shaped by the interests of the wealthy, who benefit disproportionately from superannuation tax concessions. These concessions, often justified as necessary incentives for retirement savings, largely benefit those who are already well-off, while ordinary workers see little of the supposed benefits.

The aged care sector further illustrates this dynamic, where government support is channeled into private enterprises rather than public services, ensuring that the profits flow to shareholders rather than improving care for the elderly. This is a perverse outcome of neoliberal policies that prioritise privatisation and deregulation, often at the expense of those who most need support.

There is also a massive gap between the wealth class and the income class in Australia. The wealth class – those who derive their income from shares, property, and capital ownership – enjoys a system that is heavily skewed in their favour. They benefit from lower tax rates and numerous concessions, while the income class – ordinary working people – shoulders a much heavier tax burden through PAYG income taxes. This disparity is not just unfair; it is unsustainable. It reflects a broader neoliberal agenda that has dominated Australian politics for decades, where the state increasingly subsidises private institutions and the wealthy, often at a greater cost than if the government had simply provided these services directly.

This is not just an economic issue but a moral one. The government’s role should be to protect and uplift its citizens, not to cater to the demands of the wealthy few and Labor governments, in particular, should be at the forefront of resisting this trend. The party’s traditional base is not the corporate elite but the working people of Australia – those who rely on a fair and just government to safeguard their rights and interests. For too long, Labor has been caught in a bind, trying to appease both its base and the wealthy interests that exert so much influence over Australian politics.

It is time to reassert the public interest over corporate interests. This means raising taxes on the wealthy to ensure they pay their fair share – something they have been evading for far too long. It means rejecting the constant demands for subsidies and concessions that only serve to enrich the already rich. It means saying no to the undue influence that billionaires and corporate elites have over public policy.

Instead, the government should focus on those who truly need support. It should lift up those who have been left behind by decades of neoliberal policies that prioritise profits over people. This should be the core of the Labor narrative: a commitment to equity, fairness, and the public good. The party should champion policies that close the gap between the wealth class and the income class, that strengthen public services like Medicare, education and aged care, that ensure the benefits of economic growth are shared by all, not just the privileged few.

A Labor government should be the voice of the less powerful, those who have been systematically marginalised. This is not just a matter of political strategy but of moral responsibility. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way we think about wealth, power, and the role of government in creating a fair and just society. The rewards – an Australia that is fairer, more equitable, and more just – are worth fighting for.