Ìý

Your meticulously researched book, Cultivating Community, examines water management in the Murray–Darling Basin. As a researcher from Ottawa, what piqued your interest in a river system so far away from home?

Ìý

Amanda: Before writing the book, I spent two years as a policy analyst with the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa, Canada, working primarily on World Trade Organization files. This experience showed me how high-level government decisions—especially trade policies—affect farmers globally. Decisions made at the federal and international levels often leave farmers with little say in matters that directly impact their livelihoods. My dissertation supervisor, Dr Peter Andrée, who had done research in Australia, told me about the political controversy that plagued the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) since the Millennium drought. I was struck by how deeply the drought had affected the region and how government decisions played such a critical role in its management. It seemed an ideal case study for understanding the relationship dynamics between environmental policy and farming communities.

Initially, my focus was on the intersection of agricultural and environmental policy, but my research led me to develop a strong interest in water policy. What started as an inquiry into the politics surrounding the drought grew into a broader exploration of the river system’s history. I found that many environmental decisions affecting the Basin were shaped by long-standing assumptions embedded in language and culture. This discovery pushed me to examine how these deeper historical and cultural forces influence modern-day water management.

Ìý

Cultivating Community draws on extensive field research among local farmers and Murray–Darling Basin Authority officials. What do you see as some of the major hurdles for positive collaboration between farmers and government officials?

Ìý

Amanda: One of the biggest challenges to collaboration between farmers and government officials is the fundamental difference in how each group perceives the world around them. These two groups operate within distinct cognitive paradigms—shaped by their lived experiences, values and professional demands. Farmers, grounded in the day-to-day realities of agriculture, focus on maximising yields, ensuring economic viability, and responding to environmental challenges as they arise. In contrast, government officials often approach water management from a policy-centric perspective, prioritising broader sustainability goals and regulatory compliance. This disconnect creates tensions, particularly when farmers perceive government policies like buybacks as decisions made without understanding the needs of the farming community. Issues related to over-allocation and salinity only compound these challenges, reinforcing the perception that government interventions are out of touch with local realities.

Trust, or the lack thereof, further complicates collaboration. Farmers can view officials as disconnected bureaucrats imposing regulations that seem overly complex or irrelevant to farmers’ concerns. Conversely, government officials may see farmers as resistant to change, particularly regarding environmental protections. This lack of mutual understanding is intensified by poor communication. Policy language can be complex for farmers to translate into practical action, and farmers’ concerns are often expressed in ways that don’t resonate with policymakers. Moreover, issues like drought, flooding, and economic hardship deepen this divide, as farmers struggle with regulations that feel disconnected from their lived experiences and the economic fragility of regional communities. To bridge this gap, both groups must build trust and craft solutions that address local realities, including community-led initiatives, infrastructure investment, and context-specific water management strategies.

Ìý

What was your experience like working in regional Australian communities?

Ìý

Amanda: Working in regional Australian communities was both rewarding and challenging. It is impossible to think about my time there without recalling the land and animals. The landscapes were striking, and the variety of bird species in central New South Wales (NSW) was extraordinary. I spotted fairy-wrens, kookaburras, kites, lorikeets and even sea eagles on farms. I also had the precarious blessing of witnessing a mob of at least fifty kangaroos bound past my kids and me at full speed, not more than ten metres away.

The research was difficult due to the vast distances between farms, which limited me to one interview per day. The year was exceptionally wet, leading to incidents like being swept off the road and having to wait for a stranger to help me out. As a solo female traveller without cell reception, these situations were particularly challenging. I also had issues running low on gas or windshield fluid (which meant bugs would obstruct my view). Despite these hurdles, the farmers were generally very welcoming and appreciated my efforts to visit them. The farmers I met were well-informed about politics and ecology, and I quickly discovered that most also shared my passion for the land and animals. Some of my experiences working in and navigating the landscape of regional NSW are shared in the book.

Ìý

In the book, you analyse five environmental discourses prevalent in the Murray–Darling Basin; could you briefly describe them here?

Ìý

Amanda: In managing the Murray–Darling Basin’s water resources, I identified five distinct environmental discourses: administrative rationalism, economic rationalism, democratic pragmatism, green environmentalism, and community centrism. These discourses represent the diverse priorities of various stakeholders involved in shaping the Basin’s water policies, ranging from farmers to government officials to local communities and environmental advocates. Each approach reflects a different worldview when it comes to balancing the complex demands on water in the region, though each has its limitations.

Administrative rationalism advocates a top-down, bureaucratic approach, with government authorities and scientific experts leading the decision-making process. This discourse emphasises regulation, centralised control, and technical expertise to ensure sustainable water use. However, its reliance on centralised decision-making often alienates local communities, leading to a lack of trust and resistance, as policies may feel disconnected from on-the-ground realities.

By contrast, economic rationalism treats water as an economic commodity, promoting market-based mechanisms such as water trading and privatisation to determine how water should be allocated. This discourse assumes that the free market is best equipped to ensure resources are distributed efficiently, with minimal government intervention. However, this approach can exacerbate inequalities, as wealthier stakeholders may buy up more water rights, leaving smaller farmers and marginalised communities with insufficient resources. It also risks undermining long-term environmental sustainability in favour of short-term profit.

Democratic pragmatism pushes for a more inclusive decision-making process, encouraging broader public participation. This discourse values the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including local communities, industries and environmental organisations, in shaping water management strategies. It stresses the importance of consensus-building and finding practical solutions that account for the diverse needs of all affected parties. While democratic pragmatism fosters inclusion, it does not always recognise how power dynamics can negatively impact the decision-making process. It tends to assume that actors have equal bargaining power, when in reality, numerous factors can affect the capacity of actors to influence policy.

Green environmentalism shifts the focus toward the ecological health of the Basin, prioritising environmental sustainability over economic or social concerns. This discourse calls for strong protections for ecosystems, advocating for policies that place the long-term health of rivers, wetlands and other natural resources above short-term human economic activities. However, green environmentalism can sometimes fail to address how social and economic injustices can often be deeply tied to environmental problems. It also conceives of humans as outside of nature, which can cause problems for the environmental movement.

Lastly, community centrism, a discourse introduced in the book, emphasises the importance of local knowledge and the unique needs of rural and Indigenous communities in the MDB. This approach advocates for bottom-up solutions that respect and integrate local experiences, fostering active community participation in water management decisions. Community centrism also champions socially fair water allocation systems that account for the specific challenges faced by marginalised groups, offering a more socially equitable approach to water governance.

Ìý

What are the advantages of a community-centred approach to environmental decision-making?

Ìý

Amanda: A community-centred approach to environmental decision-making offers several advantages, particularly when managing complex ecosystems like the MDB. First, it empowers local communities, particularly Indigenous and marginalised groups, by giving them a voice in the decision-making process. These communities often have intimate, long-standing knowledge of their local environment, which can provide valuable insights into sustainable management practices that external stakeholders might overlook. By drawing on local knowledge and traditions, this approach fosters solutions better suited to the area’s specific ecological, social and economic context.

Another advantage is that community-centred approaches promote greater social equity and justice. By prioritising the needs and values of the people most directly affected by environmental policies, decision-making processes are more inclusive, fair and transparent. It reduces the likelihood of disenfranchising local populations, particularly rural or Indigenous peoples, who might otherwise be ignored in top-down decision-making structures. Additionally, when communities are directly involved, they are more likely to support and comply with environmental regulations, creating a sense of ownership and accountability that can lead to more effective long-term management of natural resources.

Community-centred decision-making also fosters resilience and adaptability. Engaging those most familiar with the local landscape allows for more flexible and adaptive responses to environmental challenges, whether droughts, floods or other ecological shifts. Local communities can quickly mobilise to respond to immediate crises, and their continuous involvement ensures that environmental management remains dynamic and responsive to changing conditions over time.

Ìý

For readers who would like to learn more about water management and environmental ethics, what resources might you recommend?

Ìý

Amanda: For readers interested in expanding their knowledge of water management and environmental ethics, there are several works that I would recommend. A good starting point would be Vandana Shiva’s Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit (2002). In the book, Shiva critiques the privatisation of water resources, emphasising the importance of water as a fundamental human right. She explores how corporate control of water contributes to inequality and environmental degradation, and offers a critical analysis of how the commodification of natural resources impacts both marginalised communities and ecosystems.

Another valuable resource is Maude Barlow’s Blue Future: Protecting Water for People and the Planet Forever (2013). Barlow, a globally recognised water campaigner, outlines a comprehensive blueprint for protecting the world’s water resources. Her work addresses the challenges of pollution, depletion and water privatisation, and argues for ecologically focused, community-centred solutions that empower local communities to manage their resources. This attention to community engagement and social equity makes her work especially relevant to ongoing water management debates.

For those seeking a deeper understanding of ecological knowledge and ethics, Robin Wall Kimmerer’s Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants (2013) offers a unique perspective. Kimmerer weaves together Indigenous wisdom and scientific understanding, advocating for a more reciprocal relationship between humans and the natural world. Her emphasis on community and traditional ecological knowledge mirrors themes found in the work of another Indigenous writer, Bruce Pascoe, in Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture (2014), which looks at the rich history of agriculture in pre-colonial Australia. These works highlight the critical importance of Indigenous knowledge in environmental management.

Murray Bookchin’s work is foundational in a broader socio-ecological context. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy (1982) was an influential text in the writing of this book. Bookchin explores the connections between ecological issues and social structures, arguing that environmental degradation is closely tied to hierarchical power systems. His call for decentralised, community-driven solutions resonates strongly with discussions on water management and the need for local empowerment in decision-making processes.

Wendell Berry’s The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture (1977) also provides critical insights into the ethical concerns surrounding land use and environmental stewardship. Berry critiques modern agricultural practices and argues for a return to sustainable farming rooted in strong communities. His focus on the cultural and ethical dimensions of land use provides a critical lens through which to view current environmental challenges.

As someone who loves reading literature, I find John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath (1939) eye-opening. This book offers a powerful depiction of how environmental degradation, in this case, the Oklahoma Dust Bowl, intertwines with economic inequality and human suffering. Steinbeck’s exploration of land and livelihood, though fictional, mirrors real-world concerns about the social impacts of environmental collapse. In this way, the book is a timeless masterpiece that helps explain how the events of the early twentieth century were foundational in shaping the current agricultural and environmental landscapes. Ìý

Ìý

Cultivating Community: How discourse shapes the philosophy, practice and policy of water management in the Murray–Darling BasinÌýis available now. Order your copyÌýhere.

Congratulations on the publication of your new book, International Student Policy in Australia! You have researched social policy for a number of years – what sparked your interest in this particular area?

Ìý

Gaby: Thank you! I came to research on international students by accident. I was based at Monash University in the early part of my career in the early to mid-2000s. There was a favourable funding context, as the university had just issued a large call for project funding applications on the broad theme of ‘global movements’. Importantly, this coincided with the beginning of a new phase in my research, which was beginning to branch out from the areas I was trained in. Specifically, I was becoming excited about investigating the global dimensions of issues and categories of people that I had up to then analysed as being within nation-state and nation-‘bound’ terms. If you like, I was really finding myself as a researcher on people whose welfare could not be determined solely in the policy regime of one country. To be honest, up to then I was never attracted to researching international students, because I did not like the idea of researching human subjects who appeared before me in the classroom. It had seemed somehow too easy and not intellectually adventurous enough. But let me assure you that it is a very challenging area, if only because policy studies specialists – especially social policy researchers – are generally very sympathetic but not that interested. Though, having said that, let me emphasise their general support. Nobody is in the way. I do and have published on international students in social policy journals and settings. In fact, part of my research contribution, as I see it, is bringing public and social policy theories and perspectives to the study of international education and the lives of students.

Ìý

The book begins with an account of Scott Morrison’s press conference on 3 April 2020, in which he announced that international students would not receive any compensation for the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Do you think this overt disregard for international student welfare shocked or surprised many social policy experts? What about the students themselves?

Ìý

Gaby: In a way it did. The exclusion of international students from income compensation in 2020 occurred in a policy environment where a highly conservative government discovered the need for social policies – specifically, ‘universalist’ as opposed to ‘selective’ payment benefits – as the primary means to avoid economic recession while a pandemic was besieging Australia and the rest of the world. It was surprising also because, up to that point, like most researchers in the area, I was convinced that the economics of international education would win the day. That argument states that international students may not choose Australia in the future if they were treated so badly in 2020. In other words, governments would not want to sacrifice the future trade benefits brought about by international student revenues. Otherwise stated again, they would not want to ‘kill the golden goose’. But then, on the other hand, as I argue in the book, the international education ‘market’ for Australia has never seen extended declines in global share. It is a market characterised by ‘resilience’. In fact, the main trend is one of growth. And excluding temporary visa holders like international students from benefits in 2020 was totally consistent with the historical trajectory of national social policy. The thinking behind the Australian welfare state has always been that permanent residents and citizens can receive welfare payments and services if and when they qualify, but ‘foreigners’ never can.

Ìý

Australia has long been a popular destination for international students. How did Australia gain this reputation? And how has it changed in recent years?

Ìý

Gaby: Full-fee international education was opened up by the Hawke Labor government by the early 1990s. At that stage Australia was not expected to be a global ‘player’, but that status did emerge, as I demonstrate in Chapter 3 of the book. Australia has now long been associated with a positive and relatively accepting and liberal lifestyle and culture. It generally has favourable climatic and other conditions. It is considered safe. It has also become an increasingly competitive economy on the international stage. It is a globally recognised and respected country. Finally, and most importantly, in the last two decades, universities have increasingly relied on international student revenues as a means to fund research, which is a particularly attractive strategy in the face of what has been a lowering of the funding share coming from governments. In the process of increasing the research reputations of our universities, more international students have chosen to come to study in Australia. Our higher education system is generally seen as internationally focused and high-quality, and our universities have been climbing up the global research and quality rankings. The book explores these ‘student choice’ and ‘mobility’ factors further.

Ìý

In what ways does the government’s diminishing support for international students reflect public attitudes towards university funding?

Ìý

Gaby: As I suggest in my response to the previous question, there is a really close relationship between the research agendas of universities and the attraction of international students to Australia. Universities therefore obviously want and increasingly need international students. The Australian public, on the other hand, has become a little bit warier of universities because of their corporatisation. Indeed there is some data which suggests that universities are less respected national institutions than they once were. There are also some in the wider community who, in addition to questioning universities’ motivations as hosts for international students, also question whether we should be accepting so many international students. Let me be clear, though, that international students do not displace domestic students. Both student cohorts are being encouraged to study in larger numbers and are generally courted by governments. The current international student caps proposal is the only exception to that erstwhile rule. Finally, international students do not crowd out domestic students or other members of the community from housing, and the economic benefits of them being here far outweigh any effects they may (or may not) have on inflation and the cost of living. Any anti-international student sentiment is bad for Australia.

Ìý

What advice would you give international students who are interested in pursuing higher education in Australia?

Ìý

Gaby: The main piece of advice is please do come and study in Australia. As a lecturer I can say that international students enrich the classroom I stand in, and they do that beyond measure. As I say in the preface, it is to absolutely nobody’s benefit if international students do not come here. If they do not come, international students lose by missing out on a high-quality education and new life-experiences in a beautiful country. The domestic economy and governments miss out on the benefits of international education as an export. Educational providers at all levels miss out on the broader benefits of internationalising curricula and their campus and classroom cultures. And Australian society certainly misses out on the opportunities that come with a more global Australia. I hope we always have international students in large numbers in Australia.

Ìý

International Student Policy in Australia: The welfare dimension is available now. Order your copyÌýhere.

Phillip Toner is a political economist and has worked in government, universities and industry focussing on industry policy, labour markets and technical innovation. He has published in leading journals and worked extensively in consulting to entities such as the OECD, ILO and European Union. He is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Political Economy, University of Sydney.

Ìý

Ìý

Congratulations on the publication of your book, Captured: How neoliberalism transformed the Australian state. When and how did this project begin?Ìý

Ìý

M&P: The book came about over a few years of dialogue about the problems with political and economic debate in Australia and elsewhere. The first is the overuse of the term ‘neoliberalism’ to describe everything we don’t like about contemporary capitalism. We thought that if we want to understand the epoch we are living through, there is a need to move beyond generalisations and outrage. The book assembles leading scholars in areas of policy analysis to build critical essays on specific neoliberal public policy initiatives in Australia, how they have been implemented and sustained, and their consequences.Ìý

The second motivation for the book is that neoliberalism is often presented mainly as an ideology – a set of ideas and general orientations that are anti-statist andÌý supportive of markets and competition – but not as a practice conducted in and through the state. It was only as a state project that neoliberalism was able to implement its radical vision for a different sort of capitalism. The book’s premise is that if we want to challenge neoliberalism, we need to understand how it is actually practiced. The essays in the book move beyond neoliberalism as an idea, so we get to see how neoliberal governance occurs in Australia.Ìý

Ìý

In Captured, you note that neoliberalism arose out of a series of ‘economic, political and social crises’ four decades ago. What were some of these crises?ÌýÌý

Ìý

M&P:ÌýWhile neoliberalism only gained substantial political traction in Australia in the 1980s, international economic and political crises were building from the late 1960s and early 70s. There was increasing unemployment and inflation (starting with the oil price shocks in the 1970s) and falling profitability in major industrial countries. This led to political struggles about how to reform capitalism, with the neoliberal project seeking to renounce the post-war social democratic settlement, including by cutting government expenditure, restraining organised labour, and lowering taxes, particularly for the wealthiest. While the struggles were often of a general, whole-of-society nature, they also often developed particular focus, including on industrial relations, welfare, health and education reform.Ìý

Ìý

This book presents a series of case studies from leading public policy experts. What benefits are there of using case studies to explore and analyse the effects of neoliberalism on our society?Ìý

Ìý

M&P:ÌýThis book presents a series of case studies from leading public policy experts. The case studies permit detailed attention on specific areas of reform and the tussles which accompanied the drive to make major changes along neoliberal lines. While neoliberalism is an international project, it turns out that Australia became a test bed for some of neoliberalism’s most important policy ideas, such as user pays, income contingent loans and partial privatisation of the age pension.Ìý

Ìý

What are some consequences of neoliberalism that might surprise some readers?Ìý

Ìý

M&P:ÌýWe have all experienced the effects of neoliberal public policy in Australia. For instance, we know that privatised utilities jack up prices and operate with impunity from any serious regulation. We also know that the false fiscal crisis argument has been used to restrict access to basic services like education, health care and welfare, all while governments have actively redistributed income and wealth to corporations and the rich. Of course, that is not the way that these neoliberal policy changes have been presented. But as the essays in the book show, the gap between the rationales for and outcomes of neoliberal policy have become so wide that many previous advocates for neoliberal policy have become outspoken critics.Ìý

ÌýOne of the surprising consequences of neoliberalism readers will notice is that its success is as much about denying and excluding alternatives as articulating a coherent and compelling vision of society. After more than three decades of dominating public policy, we can see how many problems and crises that we face, many of which are the direct result of neoliberal policy. But neoliberalism still has an imperialistic reach across public policy and that ability to dominate debate is a major problem to be confronted.Ìý

Ìý

The book warns against turning to nihilism or ‘incoherent populism’ in response to the disillusionment caused by neoliberalism. What do you consider the potential outcomes of these political philosophies or world views? What alternatives might you suggest?Ìý

Ìý

M&P:ÌýThere are a range of policy alternatives discussed in the case studies, from mild reformism to a complete rejection of neoliberalism’s main premises, particularly the primacy of individualism as the desired basis of human existence, and the blind support for corporate power it has often become.ÌýÌý

Both nihilism and populism feed off neoliberalism, rather than understanding and rejecting its premises. Those philosophies organise discontent in ways that channel anger and alienation mainly as a confusing and often contradictory oppositional current. There is a need to imagine how a wealthy society can re-organise how things work based on the enormous possibilities we now have in our midst.ÌýÌý

Ìý

For readers interested in further investigating neoliberalism’s impacts on Australia and the world, what other resources would you recommend?Ìý

Ìý

M&P:ÌýSome recent excellent books are: Jessica Whyte’s The Morals of the Market Human Rights and the Rise of Neoliberalism (2019); Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America (2017); Mark Blyth’s Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea (2013); Clara Mattei’s The Capital Order. How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism (2022); and Melinda Cooper’s Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism (2017).Ìý

A great current affairs site that tracks the increasing corporate capture of government in Australia is the Michael West Media site, while think tanks like the Australia Institute also produce some compelling critical analysis. Additionally, the authors we have assembled in this book have all written extensively on aspects of the neoliberal order in Australia and are well worth following.Ìý

Ìý

Captured: How neoliberalism transformed the Australian state is available now. Order your copyÌýhere.