An analysis of Australia’s most influential billionaires reveals a consistent pattern where immense personal wealth, derived primarily from resource exports to China, is leveraged to exert significant influence over the nation’s political and media landscape. These actors, whether wittingly or unwittingly, function as key vectors for the Minimisation Plan’s objectives by consistently opposing ‘greater good’ policies, fostering domestic political instability, and promoting a strategic narrative that prioritizes economic appeasement over national security. Their actions can be categorized into two primary roles: the “Co-opted Integrationist,” who works to deepen Australia’s economic enmeshment, and the “Chaos Agent,” whose function is to sow domestic discord.
Business Ties: Gina Rinehart’s transformation of Hancock Prospecting from a financially troubled entity into a mining behemoth is inextricably linked to the rise of China. The company’s flagship Roy Hill project, which required an unprecedented US$7.2 billion in debt financing, is a joint venture with several Asian partners, including the state-owned China Steel Corporation. Initial shipments from the mine in 2015 were sent to China, underscoring the foundational importance of this market to her wealth [1]. More recently, Rinehart has made significant investments in the rare earths sector, acquiring major stakes in Lynas Rare Earths and the US-based MP Materials [2]. This move places her at the center of a strategic industry overwhelmingly dominated by China, creating a complex dynamic of both competition and potential co-dependence.
Political/Ideological Alignment: Rinehart is arguably Australia’s most prominent and vocal opponent of climate action and government regulation, which she consistently frames as existential threats to the economy. Her strategic intent is to prevent any policy that would impose costs on her mining operations. She is a major financial backer of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a free-market think tank that has been a consistent and powerful voice for climate science skepticism and pro-mining, deregulatory policies. Her secret funding, amounting to AUD 4.5 million over two years (2016-2017), was revealed only through court proceedings initiated by her children [3]. This funding created a significant “hum” in Australian politics, providing an intellectual veneer for opposition to climate policies like the Carbon Tax. Furthermore, Rinehart has expressed support for Donald Trump, whose “America First” foreign policy, characterized by hostility towards traditional alliances, directly serves the Minimisation Plan’s goal of fracturing the Western coalition.
Media Influence: Rinehart’s attempt between 2012 and 2015 to gain control over Fairfax Media, one of Australia’s most respected newspaper publishers, demonstrates a clear strategic intent to shape public narratives. Her push for board seats and editorial influence was ultimately rejected due to her refusal to sign Fairfax’s charter of editorial independence, a move that revealed her desire to use the media platform as a “mouthpiece for the mining industry” [4].
Business Ties: The success of Fortescue Metals Group is a direct result of China’s industrialization; the company was founded in 2003 specifically to meet Chinese demand for iron ore, with its first shipment arriving in China in 2008 [5]. The company’s dependence on China is absolute. This dependency was formalized in August 2025 when Fortescue secured a landmark US$2 billion syndicated loan denominated in Chinese Renminbi (RMB) [6]. This move, the first of its kind for a major Australian corporation, directly supports Beijing’s strategic goal of de-dollarization and further enmeshes Fortescue’s financial future with Chinese state-controlled banks.
Political/Ideological Alignment: Forrest is a prominent public advocate for a closer Australia-China relationship, consistently framing it as essential for mutual prosperity. His rhetoric often aligns with Beijing’s preferred narratives, contrasting China’s “industrial scale and innovation” with a United States that is “stepping back from investing” in green energy [7]. Through his Minderoo Foundation, Forrest has taken a key role in sensitive geopolitical discussions, notably by funding a US-China “Track II Dialogue” on AI and national security [8]. This positions him as a central, private interlocutor between the two superpowers, a role that affords him significant influence but also raises questions about accountability and alignment with Australia’s national interests.
Business Ties & Disputes: Clive Palmer’s initial fortune was amplified by a massive 2006 royalty deal with the Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) CITIC Pacific for the Sino Iron project. This partnership, however, devolved into one of Australia’s most bitter and protracted corporate legal battles, which Palmer has framed as a fight against the “communist Chinese government” [9]. The dispute centered on allegations of unpaid royalties and a claim by CITIC that Palmer had siphoned AUD 12 million from a joint account to fund his political party’s election campaign [10].
Political/Ideological Alignment: Palmer’s public stance on China has performed a complete reversal, mirroring the trajectory of his business disputes. Initially a vocal supporter who in 2011 decried Australia’s foreign investment laws as “racist” and a “national disgrace,” he transformed into a virulent nationalist following the souring of the CITIC deal [9]. In a now-infamous 2014 television appearance, he labeled the Chinese “bastards” and “mongrels” who “shoot their own people” and “want to take over this country” [9]. Through his political vehicle, the United Australia Party (UAP), Palmer has spent hundreds of millions of dollars (over AUD 100 million in the 2022 election alone) on populist, anti-establishment advertising campaigns [11]. These campaigns serve the Minimiser objective of creating systemic chaos and eroding trust in democratic institutions.
Business Ties: As Chairman of Seven Group Holdings, Stokes oversees WesTrac, one of the world’s largest Caterpillar dealerships, which has significant and established operations in North-East China [12]. This provides a direct and substantial economic link to the Chinese industrial and construction sectors.
Media Influence: Stokes is the Chairman of Seven West Media, a dominant Australian media conglomerate that includes the Seven Network and The West Australian newspaper [12]. This gives him a powerful platform to shape public opinion, particularly in the resource-rich state of Western Australia.
Political/Ideological Alignment: Stokes has used his public platform to advocate for a pragmatic, economics-first approach to China. He has publicly urged Australian Prime Ministers to visit Beijing to “reset the relationship,” warning that Australia’s standard of living is “virtually determined by the exports we make to China” and that, unlike China, “Australia has none” when it comes to alternative economic partners [13]. This narrative directly serves Beijing’s strategic goal of weakening the U.S.-Australia alliance by emphasizing economic dependency over shared security interests.
The actions of the Trump administration, when analyzed through the Minimisation Plan framework, resolve from seemingly chaotic and contradictory policies into a coherent pattern of systemic erosion that aligns perfectly with the plan’s objectives. The administration served as a powerful accelerator, taking the slow, patient erosion of Western institutions sought by the Minimisation Plan and injecting it with a volatile and highly effective catalyst.
Phase I: Deconstructing the Arborescent Order – The Assault on Alliances (2017–2019)
The first phase of the operation focused on dismantling the “arborescent” or hierarchical structure of the U.S.-led international order. This was achieved through a consistent campaign of withdrawal from and delegitimization of key international agreements and alliances.
Phase II: Economic Chaos and the Weaponization of Trade (2018–2020)
The second phase focused on the economic vector, using trade as a tool for global disruption. The U.S.-China trade war, initiated in March 2018, functioned as a mechanism to introduce chaos into global supply chains and damage the perception of the U.S. as a predictable economic actor [21]. The constantly shifting tariff rates, threats, and truces made long-term business planning impossible. While the stated intent was to protect American industries, a key beneficiary was Vietnam, which saw a surge in manufacturing as companies shifted production out of China to avoid tariffs. The primary cost was borne by American consumers, who faced higher prices on imported goods [26]. The strategic effect was to accelerate de-risking and supply chain diversification that ultimately benefits China by forcing other nations to build systems independent of the U.S., aligning with the Minimisation Plan’s goal of fostering a multipolar economic order [22].
Phase III: Internal Destabilization and the War on Truth (2017–2021)
The most critical vector was the information war. Domestically, the relentless attacks on the press as “the enemy of the people” and the propagation of the “stolen election” narrative after the November 3, 2020 election were a direct application of the Sino-Russian psyop model [23]. Polling from Gallup shows a sharp decline in trust in mass media among Republicans during this period, falling to a low of 10% by 2020, demonstrating the systemic impact of this rhetoric [27]. The “stolen election” narrative was the ultimate expression of the Law of Projection: while actively attempting to subvert a democratic election through dozens of failed legal challenges and pressure on state officials, the actor relentlessly accused opponents of the same. This culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection, which served as both a live-fire stress test of U.S. institutional resilience for foreign adversaries and a direct attempt to trigger the Minimisation Plan’s ultimate strategic objective: an American civil war [24].
Analogous Event Research: The “Stolen Election” Tactical Signature
The tactical signature of the “stolen election” narrative—a populist leader preemptively sowing doubt about electoral integrity and then refusing to concede defeat—is not unique. It is a core tactic in the modern Minimiser-aligned populist playbook. A prominent analogous event is the 2022 Brazilian general election. Jair Bolsonaro, often referred to as the “Trump of the Tropics,” spent months mimicking Trump’s rhetoric, making unsubstantiated claims about the vulnerability of Brazil’s electronic voting systems. After his narrow defeat, his supporters, fueled by these claims, stormed the National Congress in Brasília on January 8, 2023, in an event that was a near-perfect echo of the January 6th insurrection in the U.S. [28]. This demonstrates a clear pattern of tactical replication among Minimiser-aligned actors.