tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/qut-31159/articlesQUT – The Conversation2017-02-28T23:32:55Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/737522017-02-28T23:32:55Z2017-02-28T23:32:55ZParliamentary inquiry into free speech resolves nothing, so 18C should be left alone<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158819/original/image-20170228-29924-1en5ztx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Federal parliament should leave section 18C untouched. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The inquiry into <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia">freedom of speech in Australia</a> by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported to parliament. Unsurprisingly, it has focused most of its recommendations on the procedures and processes associated with the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission in accepting and hearing complaints.</p>
<p>The impetus for the inquiry was the now-infamous “<a href="https://theconversation.com/qut-discrimination-case-exposes-human-rights-commission-failings-68235">QUT case</a>”, in which an employee of Queensland University Technology asked non-Indigenous students to leave a computer lab designated for the use of Indigenous students. Those students then allegedly posted comments on Facebook, in relation to which the QUT employee lodged a complaint of unlawful vilification against the students. In November 2016, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/queensland-university-of-technology-case-thrown-out-as-18c-inquiry-looms-20161103-gshurj.html?deviceType=text">the Federal Court dismissed</a> all the complaints against the students.</p>
<p>The QUT case was the most recent impetus for the launch of this inquiry, although it followed earlier rumblings in the Australian Law Reform Commission’s <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/freedoms-alrc129">report</a> on traditional rights and freedoms, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bolt-loses-highprofile-race-case-20110928-1kw8c.html">the Andrew Bolt case</a> and the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-dumps-controversial-changes-to-18c-racial-discrimination-laws-20140805-3d65l.html">unsuccessful 2014 attempt</a> to narrow section 18C.</p>
<h2>The words of section 18C</h2>
<p>All eyes were on what the report would recommend regarding the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">words used in section 18C</a>. This is because critics of the section are quick to point out that it says that unlawful conduct occurs when it is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on the ground of their race. The bar is too low, they say. Merely offending someone or insulting them ought not to be grounds for a complaint of unlawful conduct under civil law.</p>
<p>Supporters of the section are equally quick to point out that the courts have interpreted section 18C to mean that the conduct captured by the law has to amount to a profound and serious harm, “<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2001/1007.html">not to be likened to mere slights</a>”. Therefore, merely having one’s feelings hurt or feeling offended does not reach the threshold required to lodge a complaint. Independent MP David Leyonhelm found this out when he tried, unsuccessfully, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-rights-commission-rejects-david-leyonhjelm-angry-white-male-discrimination-claim-20161129-gt0el9.html">to complain about</a> journalist Mark Kenny <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016-opinion/freespeech-fundamentalists-break-free-of-good-conscience-20160808-gqnhnw.html">describing him</a> as speaking on ABC television with “angry-white-male certitude” and being a “rank apologist for the resentment industry promoted by angry-white-male shock jocks”.</p>
<h2>What changes to 18C have been proposed?</h2>
<p>Of the 22 recommendations made in the report, only one deals specifically with the words in section 18C. This recommendation is inconclusive. It notes merely that at least one member of the committee had supported each of the five mooted proposals.</p>
<p>This leaves no-one the wiser about what the federal parliament will do about the text of section 18C. It also puts the responsibility squarely in the hands of the parliament to make a decision on what has lately become a highly controversial piece of Australian federal law. The recommendation contains five options regarding the words in section 18C:</p>
<p><strong>1.</strong> No change. This option is strongly supported by the Australian Greens, who wrote a dissenting report. Labor also wrote extended additional comments, which noted the high levels of racism experienced in Australian society, the important role that 18C has played during the more than 20 years of its operation, and that the section only captures serious conduct. They agreed with witnesses to the inquiry who suggested that amending the section would send a dangerous message to the community. Overall, it seems highly likely the ALP supported this option.</p>
<p><strong>2.</strong> Codifying the courts’ interpretation of section 18C as referring to “profound and serious effects”. This change would have no material impact on how section 18C operates as a legal prohibition of unlawful conduct.</p>
<p><strong>3.</strong> Removing the words “offend”, “insult” and “humiliate” and replacing them with “harass”. This change would create uncertainty in the interpretation of section 18C, until a case was able to make its way to the courts and a definitive interpretation of the term “harass” was able to be made.</p>
<p>The Oxford English Dictionary defines “harass” as to “trouble or vex by repeated attacks”, or alternatively as to “trouble, worry or distress”. These terms could imply, but do not necessarily imply, profound and serious conduct.</p>
<p>It is possible a court would apply a similar interpretation to the term “harass” as has already been applied to the existing text. If that were the case, nothing much would change. </p>
<p><strong>4.</strong> Including a “truth” defence in section 18D. Section 18C operates in conjunction with section 18D, which allows for exemptions to conduct that would otherwise be considered to contravene section 18C. Exemptions currently exist for conduct done “reasonably and in good faith”, including artistic expression, public debate and fair and accurate reporting.</p>
<p>The inclusion of a “truth” defence in 18D would radically alter its scope. I imagine many people whose conduct might be caught by 18C would relish the opportunity to argue the “truth” of their views (for example, Holocaust deniers or those who would want to argue the inferiority of particular races). Deliberately providing a platform for such discourse through the text of 18C would make a mockery of 18C’s purpose and operation. It would significantly weaken the protection it offers to vulnerable communities, and provide a platform for hate speakers.</p>
<p><strong>5.</strong> Changing the test of whether unlawful conduct has occurred from the experience of a member of the targeted group to a “reasonable member of the Australian community”. This <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Attachment%20A.pdf">suggestion was included</a> in the ill-fated attempt to reform 18C in 2014. </p>
<p>Implementing this recommendation would mean a complete reframing of the way in which racial vilification is conceptualised in federal law. Currently, 18C is the only racial vilification law in Australia in which the test of whether conduct is unlawful depends on the response of the group targeted by the vilification. This is a great strength.</p>
<p>Changing to a test of whether a “reasonable” person in the community would regard an expression as vilifying or not would discount the lived experience of targets of vilification, and thereby reduce the likelihood of a complaint being upheld. People who are not the targets of vilification are simply not able to understand its effects in the ways that those who are targeted experience it.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>On the whole, this report is unhelpful. It has failed to resolve the key issues at stake in terms of the text of section 18C. Given the inability of the committee to reach agreement on suggestions for textual reform, the parliament should leave 18C unchanged.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73752/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Gelber has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Academy of Social Sciences Australia.</span></em></p>The much-anticipated report has offered little in the way of a solution to the disagreement over section 18C, so parliament should leave it as it is.Katharine Gelber, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/682352016-11-06T20:27:38Z2016-11-06T20:27:38ZQUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144694/original/image-20161106-27904-gfgmq3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">QUT student Calum Thwaites arrives at the Federal Court in Brisbane.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a decision that was seen as a litmus test for the controversial <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">section 18C</a> of the <em>Racial Discrimination Act 1975</em> (Cth) (RDA), <a href="https://theaustralianatnewscorpau.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/prior-v-queensland-university-of-technology-ors-no-2-2016-fcca-2853.pdf">the Federal Circuit Court has dismissed</a> Cindy Prior’s case against Queensland University of Technology students Alex Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell. Prior had alleged that these students breached <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">section 18C</a>. Judge Michael Jarrett concluded that Prior’s claim against them had <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/fccr2001262/s13.10.html">no reasonable prospect of success</a>.</p>
<h2>What was the case about?</h2>
<p>On May 28, 2013, Wood and two other students were using a QUT computer lab when Prior asked them whether they were indigenous. They replied they weren’t. Prior then asked them to leave.</p>
<p>Later that day, on the “QUT Stalkerspace” Facebook page, Wood posted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Just got kicked out of the unsigned Indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation…?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Many people commented. Powell posted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I wonder where the white supremacist computer lab is…. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prior alleged that Thwaites posted “ITT niggers”. (A claim that Thwaites has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/offer-to-drop-qut-race-slur-case-for-5000/news-story/2cd2f6b1598d776a49acd14ef2f9bcba">always categorically denied</a>.)</p>
<p>Prior complained to QUT about these and other comments, which were promptly removed. However, Prior was ultimately unhappy with QUT’s handling of the matter and lodged a complaint in the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
The AHRC conciliated Prior’s complaint. However, it did not contact the students directly about the complaint or the conciliation conference. Instead, it left this task to QUT. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/watchdog-kept-18c-respondent-in-the-dark-about-qut-complaint/news-story/b5aa4706ba62548bd20353bd1682f31b">Powell did not know about Prior’s complaint</a> until after the conciliation conference.</p>
<p>Conciliation failed, and Prior commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against QUT, certain QUT employees, and a number of QUT students including Wood, Thwaites and Powell. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/racial-stoush-erupts-over-qut-computer-lab/news-story/b80de339339f2d5588839ac06f3c8909">Prior’s claim was for A$247,570.52</a>. Prior alleged that the students had breached 18C. She also alleged that QUT and its employees had breached <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s9.html">section 9</a> of the RDA.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/offer-to-drop-qut-race-slur-case-for-5000/news-story/2cd2f6b1598d776a49acd14ef2f9bcba">A number of students settled with Prior.</a> Wood, Thwaites and Powell brought an application for Prior’s case to be summarily dismissed. (It should be noted that Prior’s case against QUT, its employees, and student Chris Lee continues despite her case being dismissed against Wood, Thwaites and Powell.)</p>
<h2>Why did Judge Jarrett decide the way he did?</h2>
<p>For Wood and Powell, Judge Jarrett concluded that an ordinary and reasonable member of a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (either students or generally), who had the characteristics of a member of a fair and tolerant society, would not be reasonably likely to find their statements offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidating. Wood’s statements were against both QUT and racial discrimination generally. Powell’s statements, when read in the context of other comments, were “a poor attempt at humour”. In any event, both Wood’s and Powell’s statements amounted to “mere slights”, thereby not meeting the threshold 18C requires. Finally, neither Wood or Powell made their statements because of Prior’s race, or because of the race of the relevant groups.</p>
<p>Judge Jarrett decided Prior’s claim against Thwaites differently. Thwaites had provided evidence that he could not have posted the comments Prior alleged. Despite having opportunity to do so, Prior provided no evidence contradicting Thwaite’s evidence. Hence, Judge Jarrett concluded Prior could not sustain a case against Thwaites.</p>
<h2>Why did this case generate controversy?</h2>
<p>18C’s supporters point to decisions like this one to say that the system works: a weak claim was dismissed at an early stage. However, this case in fact highlights significant problems with 18C.</p>
<p>First, the <a href="http://www.steynonline.com/7588/free-speech-does-not-include-legal-bills">process itself is the punishment</a>. A summary dismissal application involves the filing of pleadings, affidavits and submissions, and appearing in court. There are significant costs in time, money and stress. A dispute that arose in May 2013 has taken until November 2016 to resolve. Tony Morris QC and Michael Henry <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/a-black-and-white-issue-from-both-sides-of-the-fence/news-story/abe946f4aae908b6ec621bdadcf3999b">have acted pro bono</a> for Wood, Thwaites and Powell. But most people are not so fortunate.</p>
<p>In applications like these, legal fees frequently exceed A$10,000, and often go much higher. Most people simply cannot afford to defend themselves, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/there-will-never-be-winners-under-section-18c-as-it-stands/news-story/1bacb30956b99217e34116f222196ff2?login=1">and legal aid is unavailable</a>. Hence, it is unsurprising that other QUT students <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/offer-to-drop-qut-race-slur-case-for-5000/news-story/2cd2f6b1598d776a49acd14ef2f9bcba">settled their cases with Prior for A$5,000</a>, even though they probably could have successfully defended themselves.</p>
<p>In addition to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/qut-computer-lab-racism-case-thrown-out-by-federal-circuit-court/news-story/5132ee2ebdc6a6366f5bfcd4e4dad013">the costs in time and stress</a>, and despite being “cleared”, the QUT students’ reputations have suffered enormously. The stain of being an alleged racist will be hard to remove. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/section-18c-teaching-cases-can-end-dreams/news-story/dee28734e8ead0efd89243ed4e471caf">Thwaites has abandoned becoming a school teacher</a> because parents or students may Google his name and find he was accused of racism.</p>
<p>Second, the AHRC’s conduct in this case has been disgraceful. Judge Jarrett’s dismissal of this case raises the question of why the AHRC did not initially reject Prior’s complaints against the students. That the AHRC proceeded to conciliation may have given Prior false hope that her case against them had merit. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/nick-cater/tim-soutphommasanes-grievance-industry-sees-bigots-everywhere/news-story/bfd5162bff06cf8dd86bc06059ff1e80">Nick Cater notes</a> that, from 2001 to 2005, the AHRC rejected almost 30% of complaints. He also writes that under its most recent Presidents, Catherine Branson and Gillian Triggs, less than 5% have been rejected. The AHRC must exercise better judgement. </p>
<p>Further, it is astounding that <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/qut-students-demand-apology-from-hurman-rights-commission-in-race-case/news-story/6afd0c478acd990050a663e7cd746c0f">the AHRC left it to QUT</a> to contact students about the conciliation conference. The AHRC must contact each respondent directly. In defending its actions, the AHRC has stated that in such matters it <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/qut-students-claim-human-rights-discrimination-20160429-goit14.html">“sometimes” leaves it to organisations to contact members who are respondents</a>, a practice <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/watchdog-kept-18c-respondent-in-the-dark-about-qut-complaint/news-story/b5aa4706ba62548bd20353bd1682f31b">Triggs has confirmed</a>. However, even if only done “sometimes”, the AHRC violates both fundamental principles of procedural fairness and what <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ahrca1986373/s46pj.html">its own governing statute requires</a>. Indeed, that the Prior case does not appear to be an isolated instance of AHRC misconduct is deeply disturbing. Unsurprisingly, Thwaites and Powell <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/qut-students-demand-apology-from-hurman-rights-commission-in-race-case/news-story/6afd0c478acd990050a663e7cd746c0f">have lodged complaints</a> about this issue.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, until 18C is amended, repealed, <a href="https://theconversation.com/section-18c-is-too-broad-and-too-vague-and-should-be-repealed-64482">or struck down</a>, cases like this will arise in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Forrester receives an Australian Postgraduate Award.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Auugusto Zimmerman is senior Vice President of the Liberal Party's Fremantle Division. He is also a member of the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorraine Finlay is affiliated with the Liberal Party of Australia, being a member of the WA Division.</span></em></p>The QUT students case was a litmus case for 18C- and it highlighted its serious flaws.Joshua Forrester, PhD Candidate in Law, Murdoch UniversityAugusto Zimmermann, Director of Postgraduate Research and Senior Lecturer in Law, Murdoch UniversityLorraine Finlay, Lecturer in Law, Murdoch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/651092016-09-11T20:07:59Z2016-09-11T20:07:59ZThe fossil fuel divestment game is getting bigger, thanks to the smaller players<p>Fossil fuel divestment is gathering pace around Australia and the world. More and more individuals and organisations are pulling their investment assets out of companies involved with the exploration, extraction, production or financing of fossil fuels. </p>
<p>The underlying reason is the brutal maths of climate change: to keep global warming within 2°C of pre-industrial levels – as both scientists and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris climate agreement</a> say we must – around <a href="https://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2-1.pdf">80% of declared fossil fuel reserves</a> need to stay in the ground. </p>
<p>So far, 580 institutions, controlling assets <a href="http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/">worth about US$3.4 trillion</a>, have divested from fossil fuels. The top four types of divest institutions are faith-based groups, foundations, governments and educational institutions. The pattern in Australia is largely the same. </p>
<p>Local governments have been some of the most active organisations in the Australian divestment scene. Last week Sydney’s city council <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/06/city-of-sydney-council-divest-fossil-fuels-regardless-election-result">pledged to divest its A$500 million portfolio</a>, regardless of the outcome of the forthcoming mayoral and council election. </p>
<p>It will join a list of <a href="http://gofossilfree.org.au/fossil-free-councils/">27 Australian local governments</a> that have divested since 2014. This includes other significant investors such as the City of Melbourne and the <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-government-fossil-fuel-divestment-speed-wins-praise-from-environmental-campaigners-20151105-gkr8wh.html">ACT government</a>. Sydney is the tenth Australian local government to have made a divestment pledge in 2016 alone. </p>
<p>Australian universities have joined in. In May, La Trobe University pledged to <a href="http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2016/opinion/fossil-fuel-decision-a-significant-step">divest its A$40 million portfolio </a>from fossil fuels. Swinburne University, with a portfolio of some A$150 million, <a href="https://350.org.au/news/swinburne-university-takes-first-steps-towards-full-fossil-fuel-divestment/">agreed to pursue a similar goal</a> last December. And last week Queensland University of Technology (QUT) <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-05/qut-to-divest-fossil-fuel-investments/7816016">agreed to pull its A$300 million fund out of fossil fuels</a>.</p>
<p>Many financial institutions have also joined the movement. So far <a href="http://www.marketforces.org.au/banks/compare">52 banks and credit unions</a> in Australia have publicly divested and will no longer fund fossil fuels. Among these are comparatively major players such as <a href="http://350.org.au/news/bendigo-bank-makes-a-bold-move/">Bendigo Bank</a>.</p>
<h2>Why now?</h2>
<p>Beyond an underlying recognition of a need to move to a low-carbon economy, the trends driving the current flurry of divestment are manifold. </p>
<p>Part of the impetus is due to the growing financial case for divestment itself. This means that divestment, far from being a decision made in spite of lower financial returns, can actually lead to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/10/fossil-fuel-free-funds-out-performed-conventional-ones-analysis-shows">better returns.</a> </p>
<p>International events are probably also driving this year’s prominent moves. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/paris-2015">negotiation of the Paris Agreement late last year</a>, and its <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-china-ratification-of-paris-agreement-ramps-up-the-pressure-on-australia-64821">recent ratification by both China and the United States</a>, may make continued investment in fossil fuels <a href="https://theconversation.com/want-to-know-if-the-paris-climate-deal-is-working-university-divestment-is-the-litmus-test-59263">seem riskier</a>. </p>
<p>But the strongest force behind divestment seems to be simple public pressure from concerned citizens, investors and students. At every Australian university that has announced plans to divest, the decision has been made after lengthy “fossil-free” campaigns by students and academics. It has been a bottom-up phenomenon, rather than top-down, proactive actions by the administration. </p>
<h2>Different approaches</h2>
<p>The exact approaches to divestment have varied across institutions. Different organisations have adopted contrasting timelines and extents for their divestments, as well as differing approaches to transparency. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2016/release/la-trobe-signals-fossil-fuel-divestment">La Trobe University has pledged</a> to divest from the “top 200 publicly traded fossil fuel companies ranked by the carbon content of their fossil fuel reserves within five years”. This will be coupled with full carbon disclosure and annual reports on the state of divestment. </p>
<p>Similarly, Swinburne’s <a href="http://www.swinburne.edu.au/news/latest-news/2015/12/swinburne-adopts-responsible-investment-charter.php">responsible investment charter</a> says that it will divest from companies that earn significant revenues from fossil fuel extraction or coal power generation. This will be backed by full disclosure of investments and carbon exposure. </p>
<p>Others have been more ambiguous. QUT has directed its external fund manager to ensure that it has “no fossil fuel direct investments” and “no fossil fuel investments of material significance”. Sydney’s council has agreed to put coal, gas and oil extraction on its list of environmentally harmful activities that are to be avoided when investing. </p>
<p>Others have taken even more unconventional approaches. Both Monash University and the Australian National University (ANU) have taken first steps <a href="https://350.org.au/news/350-org-welcomes-monash-university-and-anus-partial-divestment-commitments/">partially divested</a> by targeting coal. The ANU, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/anus-resources-blacklist-social-activism-or-the-shape-of-things-to-come-32803">blacklisted seven specific resources firms in 2014</a>, has made a point of reducing the <a href="http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/update-on-anu-socially-responsible-investment-policy">“carbon intensity” of its portfolio</a>. This appears to have been done with view to reducing its carbon risk exposure. This is financially prudent, but it is not full divestment, and therefore not real moral leadership. </p>
<p>To draw a parallel with a previous campaign, it’s hard to imagine universities during the apartheid era bragging about reducing their “racism intensity” while stopping short of a full embargo. </p>
<p>It would be intriguing to compare the reductions in carbon intensity from full divestment to that of the ANU’s current approach. For now that is impossible since the ANU has not made details about its externally managed investments publicly available. </p>
<p>Given the diversity of actions there is a need to clarify what exactly constitutes full divestment. At the very least, transparency and carbon disclosure should be considered as necessities for accountability. </p>
<h2>Truth to power</h2>
<p>The main aim of fossil fuel divestment is not what many people tend to think. It’s not about reducing carbon risk. It’s not even primarily about financially wounding the fossil fuel industry. It’s about taking away its social licence – turning fossil fuel firms into social pariahs, just like big tobacco. </p>
<p>There is also a curious element to the movement: it is not the powerful who are typically taking action. </p>
<p>Among government it is the local branches such as the ACT government and Sydney council that are taking action. No Australian state government has yet joined the ranks, while the federal government seems intent on making its climate policies as friendly as possible to the fossil-fuel industry. </p>
<p>Among universities, too, smaller institutions such as La Trobe, Swinburne and now QUT have led the charge. So far none of the <a href="https://www.go8.edu.au/">Group of Eight</a> elite universities has fully divested. It is odd, given their cherished status as “thought leaders” and drivers of national policy debate.</p>
<p>Among banks it has generally been the smaller players who have responded to climate science and investor concerns. None of the “big four” banks – Westpac, ANZ, NAB and the Commonwealth Bank – has divested. Instead they funded the fossil fuel industry to the tune of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/26/australias-biggest-banks-pump-billions-into-fossil-fuels-despite-climate-pledges">A$5.5 billion</a> last year. </p>
<p>But as divestment gathers pace, powerful institutions will soon have no choice but to jump aboard the juggernaut or be left behind. Once national governments, major banks and superannuation and pension funds divest, the financial bottom line of the fossil fuel industry may actually take a hit. </p>
<p>Destroying a social licence can eventually lead to financial losses. Markets, like movements, often operate by critical mass. </p>
<p>In historical hindsight the first movers of divestment will be viewed fondly. The laggards, meanwhile, will probably be seen by future generations as 21st-century Neros, fiddling with their money while the planet burned.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65109/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Kemp has received funding from the Australian and German governments. He is an active member of the Fossil Free ANU campaign.</span></em></p>The pressure for organisations to divest from fossil fuels is coming from institutions with relatively little financial clout. But soon the richest and most powerful will have no choice but to join in.Luke Kemp, Lecturer in International Relations and Environmental Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.