Mates with money

Disclaimer: I am making no suggestion of impropriety from the individuals mentioned in this article.

It’s only a hunch, but billionaires must emit a scent that only far-right politicians can detect and they are drawn to them, especially those billionaires who might want to leverage their wealth to influence policy.

Both the Liberal Party and the National Party have a long history of aligning with business interests, given their centre-right to right-wing ideological leanings – economic liberalism and support for free markets are core to the Liberals, while the Nationals traditionally champion rural and regional industries. This naturally creates fertile ground for relationships with wealthy individuals who have stakes in those sectors.

One name that surfaces repeatedly is Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest person and head of Hancock Prospecting, a major mining company. Her wealth, tied heavily to iron ore and other resource extraction, gives her a vested interest in policies around mining, taxation, and environmental regulation. Rinehart has been a prominent donor to conservative causes and has ties to the Coalition. For example Dutton has been a regular guest of Rinehart’s, such as attending her lavish birthday party – raising eyebrows about the coziness of their relationship. While no public records explicitly show direct donations from Rinehart to Dutton’s personal campaign, the Liberal Party has historically received significant funding from mining-related entities.

But Dutton’s a relative newcomer to the inner circle of billionaires. Barnaby Joyce has also maintained a notable relationship with Gina Rinehart over the years, characterised by mutual support and aligned interests, particularly in agriculture and resource sectors.

Their connection became publicly evident in the early 2010s. In 2011, Rinehart flew Joyce, along with other Coalition MPs, on her private jet to Hyderabad, India, to attend a wedding of a business associate from the Reddy family, linked to GVK, a company pursuing a stake in Rinehart’s coal mines. This trip underscored their early ties and Rinehart’s willingness to leverage her wealth to foster political relationships, with Joyce emphasising the importance of building trade links with India.

By 2013, their bond was further highlighted when Rinehart made a surprise appearance at Joyce’s election after-party in Tamworth, celebrating his victory in the New England seat. She contributed $50,000 to his campaign that year, signaling her financial backing. Joyce, in turn, praised her as a friend and an exemplar of Australian entrepreneurship, arguing the nation needed more figures like her to bolster its economy.

Their relationship deepened through shared interests in agriculture. In 2017, during a National Agriculture Day gala dinner in Canberra – an event Rinehart championed – she awarded Joyce a $40,000 cheque, dubbing him a “champion of farming.” Joyce initially accepted the prize, intending to use it for his farm, but returned it amid public and political backlash. Earlier that year, Joyce had lobbied then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to support Rinehart’s Ag Day initiative, showing his advocacy for her projects. The event, hosted by her company Hancock Prospecting, also reflected her growing influence in agriculture, notably through her part-ownership of the S. Kidman & Co cattle empire.

However, their relationship has not been without controversy, particularly involving Rinehart’s family. In 2011, Joyce sent an email from his government account to Rinehart’s daughter, Hope, urging her to keep a family trust dispute “in house.” This intervention, during a bitter legal battle over a $4 billion trust, drew sharp criticism from Rinehart’s son John Hancock, who called it “outrageous” and “dangerous,” accusing Joyce of being manipulated by his mother. The dispute ended in 2015 but Joyce’s involvement left lingering tensions with Rinehart’s children. In 2018, Bianca Rinehart (another of Gina’s daughters) subpoenaed Joyce over the $40,000 award (see above), probing Hancock Prospecting’s financial dealings, a move Rinehart’s legal team suggested was timed to embarrass him post a controversial TV interview.

Despite such friction, Rinehart’s support for Joyce persisted. In 2021, she hosted a $10,000-a-head fundraiser for him at her Noosa estate after he reclaimed Nationals leadership, reinforcing her role as a benefactor.

Their relationship blends personal camaraderie – Joyce has called her a “great friend” – with strategic alignment on economic and policy fronts, particularly around agriculture, mining, and reducing government debt. Critics have questioned Rinehart’s influence over Joyce’s political decisions, especially given her wealth and stakes in industries he once oversaw as Agriculture Minister. Yet Joyce has consistently defended her, decrying in 2017 the “disgusting” treatment of high taxpayers like Rinehart, arguing they strengthen Australia.

Then there’s Clive Palmer, a billionaire mining magnate who’s taken a more direct route. Palmer founded the United Australia Party, but his influence extends beyond it. He’s poured millions into political advertising – between $70-$100 million in the 2019 federal election alone – often aligning with Coalition-friendly messaging, like opposing Labor’s tax policies. While Palmer’s not a Coalition member, his financial clout has arguably bolstered their electoral chances by splitting the anti-Labor vote strategically. Former Coalition figures such as Mark Vaile (ex-National Party leader) and Martin Ferguson (a Labor turncoat) have also taken lucrative post-politics roles in mining, suggesting a revolving door between resource-rich billionaires and political power.

Policy influence is harder to pin down with a smoking gun, but the patterns are telling. The Coalition’s resistance to aggressive climate policies – like their pushback on phasing out coal – dovetails neatly with the interests of mining tycoons, Rinehart and Palmer. The 2014 repeal of the carbon pricing scheme under Tony Abbott’s government, and the more recent embrace of gas-led recovery plans under Scott Morrison, reflect priorities that benefit fossil fuel magnates. The Liberals’ “Our Plan to Get Australia Back on Track” (released in March) doubles down on a “balanced energy mix” including gas and nuclear, while barely mentioning renewables’ expansion – music to the ears of resource billionaires.

I’ve seen countless social media posts claiming that the LNP gives “tax breaks to billionaires” who “own” the party, pointing to Dutton’s Rinehart connection. While hyperbolic, these sentiments echo a broader perception: the LNP’s small-business rhetoric often feels overshadowed by policies favouring big players. Take the Morrison government’s $423 million contract to Paladin in 2019 – a company with scant experience and a shack for an office – awarded without a proper tender process.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch also loom large. His News Corp empire, a vocal Coalition cheerleader, shapes public narratives that align with Liberal-National priorities – low taxes, deregulation, tough borders. While Murdoch’s not a policy-setter, his outlets amplify the agenda of billionaire-aligned politicians. The Liberals’ 2025 plan to “cut red and green tape” for builders and businesses mirrors News Corp’s editorial disdain for bureaucracy, a stance that benefits property tycoons and industrialists.

So, do these relationships translate to billionaires “using their money to influence policy”? The evidence is circumstantial but compelling. Donations buy access – private dinners, exclusive fundraisers – and access shapes priorities. The Coalition’s funding edge relies on a donor base that includes the ultra-wealthy, and their policy track record – tax cuts for high earners, slow climate action, industry deregulation – consistently favours those donors’ bottom lines.

The counterargument? The Coalition would say they’re just pro-business, not pro-billionaire, and that Labor gets its own big donations. Fair point – politics runs on money everywhere. But the concentration of wealth in Australia’s elite, paired with the Coalition’s ideological bent, makes their billionaire ties stand out. Rinehart’s not in parliament, but her shadow – and who knows, maybe her chequebook – linger over Canberra.

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – 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