tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/sarah-hanson-young-17904/articlesSarah Hanson-Young – The Conversation2023-11-27T04:12:56Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2170022023-11-27T04:12:56Z2023-11-27T04:12:56ZThe government’s Murray-Darling bill is a step forward, but still not enough<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/561714/original/file-20231126-21-rluebs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C0%2C3058%2C2032&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sunrise-on-murray-river-near-kingstononmurray-1207917046">Philip Schubert, Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week, the Senate is debating changes to Australia’s most important water laws. These changes seek to rescue the ailing A$13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan to improve the health of our nation’s largest river system. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7076">Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</a> is a crucial step forward. It proposes to lift the Coalition-era cap on water buybacks, allowing the federal government to recover more water for the environment through the voluntary purchase of water entitlements from irrigators.</p>
<p>It also proposes to extend the deadlines for the many beleaguered water-offsetting projects put forward by state governments.</p>
<p>Through the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists – an independent group working to secure the long-term health of Australia’s land, water and biodiversity – we strive to restore river health for the basin’s communities, industries and ecosystems. Here we ask whether the bill can fulfil the Albanese government’s <a href="https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labors-plan-to-future-proof-australias-water-resources-butler">2022 election promise</a> to deliver the plan.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1728928333243781591"}"></div></p>
<h2>Securing support of the Greens and crossbenchers</h2>
<p>The bill is central to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s <a href="https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labors-plan-to-future-proof-australias-water-resources-butler">five-point election promise</a> to deliver the plan, and Federal Water Minister Tanya Plibersek’s <a href="https://www.tanyaplibersek.com/media/media-releases/media-release-plibersek-decade-of-liberal-national-sabotage-puts-murray-darling-basin-plan-behind/">subsequent commitment</a> to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.</p>
<p>With the Coalition <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7076">voting against the bill</a> in the lower house, the federal government <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/plibersek/media-releases/joint-media-release-strengthening-restoring-our-rivers-bill">secured the support</a> of the Greens with measures that considerably strengthen the bill.</p>
<p>It is now up to key crossbench Senators to secure passage through parliament. But they have said the bill doesn’t go far enough, citing serious concerns it <a href="https://www.lidiathorpe.com/mr_water_legislation">excludes First Nations water rights and interests</a> and <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MDBAWaterBill2023/Report">ignores climate change</a>.</p>
<p>The federal government must pass the bill in the next two sitting weeks to avoid triggering a statutory deadline, after which unfinished water offset projects would be cancelled and water recovery would be required instead.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-new-murray-darling-basin-plan-deal-entrenches-water-injustice-for-first-nations-212261">Labor’s new Murray-Darling Basin Plan deal entrenches water injustice for First Nations</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Water Act and Basin Plan: where are we at?</h2>
<p>Born of the crisis of the Millennium drought, the Water Act 2007 was announced by the Howard government to “<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/howards-full-speech-to-the-national-press-club/news-story/cfd6aa4761027929545602a96dc04254">once and for all</a>” address over-allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin.</p>
<p>Five years later, the Basin Plan 2012 was established to recover 3,200 billion litres of water for the environment from other uses, or to implement projects that deliver “equivalent” outcomes. That includes securing 450 billion litres for the health of the River Murray, Coorong and Lower Lakes.</p>
<p>But this volume of water fell substantially short of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s best estimate of what was needed to “<a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s3.html">ensure the return to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction</a>”, and did not take climate change into account.</p>
<p>All water recovery targets were expected to be met by June 2024. But while some progress has been made, water recovery has <a href="https://wentworthgroup.org/2017/11/review-of-water-reform-in-the-murray-darling-basin/">almost stalled</a> in the past decade.</p>
<p>Only <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/water/policy/mdb/progress-recovery">26 billion litres have been recovered</a> of the crucial 450 billion litres. </p>
<p>Of the 36 water offset projects meant to be operational by 2024, <a href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/2023-sdlam-annual-assurance-report.pdf">16 are not likely to be complete</a>, contributing to a likely shortfall of between 190 billion and 315 billion litres.</p>
<p>No onground work has commenced to alleviate flow “constraints”, leaving thousands of hectares of floodplain forests in the River Murray disconnected from their channels and at risk of drying out and dying.</p>
<p>The Water Act and the plan <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-14/lawyers-academics-first-nations-rights-murray-darling-basin-plan/103098066">do not provide for First Nations people’s water rights and interests</a>. And they <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/67496/2/01_Pittock_The_Murray-Darling_Basin_Plan_2015.pdf">fail to deal with climate change</a>.</p>
<p>Reforms to both the legislation and the plan are desperately needed to address these major shortcomings.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/murray-darling-basin-plan-to-be-extended-under-a-new-agreement-without-victoria-but-an-uphill-battle-lies-ahead-212002">Murray-Darling Basin Plan to be extended under a new agreement, without Victoria – but an uphill battle lies ahead</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Voluntary buybacks are necessary</h2>
<p>The new bill represents a clear step towards the first of the Albanese government’s <a href="https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labors-plan-to-future-proof-australias-water-resources-butler">five-point promises</a> to “deliver on water commitments” by removing the cap on buybacks.</p>
<p>Without buybacks, it is unlikely the federal government will be able to deliver the 3,200 billion-litre plan in full.</p>
<p>While the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MDBAWaterBill2023/Report">Senate Committee</a> acknowledged the impacts of buybacks on communities, the committee found some concerns were “overinflated and not supported by the high-quality evidence base”, referring to a <a href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/mdb-outlook-economic-literature-review2.pdf">literature review</a>.</p>
<p>The Wentworth Group has <a href="https://wentworthgroup.org/2010/06/sustainable-diversions-in-the-murray-darling-basin/">long argued</a> for funding to establish a regional transition fund to support impacted communities through these reforms. As part of these reforms, “significant transitional assistance” was <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/plibersek/speeches/speech-introducing-restoring-our-rivers-bill">announced</a> by Plibersek.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1728946516616962316"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/water-buybacks-are-back-on-the-table-in-the-murray-darling-basin-heres-a-refresher-on-how-they-work-200529">Water buybacks are back on the table in the Murray-Darling Basin. Here's a refresher on how they work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Statutory guarantees are needed</h2>
<p>The bill requires <a href="https://wentworthgroup.org/2023/10/submission-to-senate_inquiry_water_amendment_bill_2023/">additional measures</a> to guarantee the unfinished business to which parliament agreed more than a decade ago:</p>
<ol>
<li><p><strong>a legally binding 450 billion litre water recovery target</strong>. The public needs a legal recourse if governments fail to deliver the full volume. We understand the intent of today’s <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/plibersek/media-releases/joint-media-release-strengthening-restoring-our-rivers-bill">announcement</a> is to make the target a statutory requirement, in line with other water recovery targets under the plan.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>improved integrity of the water offset method and withdrawal of unviable water offset projects</strong> The <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/plibersek/media-releases/joint-media-release-strengthening-restoring-our-rivers-bill">agreement</a> reached today allows the Commonwealth to remove non-viable projects. <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/mf/Fulltext/MF22082">Significant flaws</a> in the method used to calculate water offsets still need to be addressed. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>milestones in the bill’s proposed “constraints roadmap”</strong> which specify targets linked to incentive payments.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>transparency and accountability measures</strong> to restore public confidence in water reform, such as whole-of-basin hydrological modelling, water accounting and auditing, and validation of annual permitted take models. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Several of these measures were <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/plibersek/media-releases/joint-media-release-strengthening-restoring-our-rivers-bill">announced today</a>. We’re yet to see details but the high-level agreement is encouraging.</p>
<h2>Urgent reforms can’t wait to 2027</h2>
<p>Australia’s water laws have <a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-new-murray-darling-basin-plan-deal-entrenches-water-injustice-for-first-nations-212261">failed to address</a> the rights and interests of Indigenous people. Indigenous peoples <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719319799">own a mere 0.2%</a> of surface water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin.</p>
<p>In 2022, the Albanese government <a href="https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labors-plan-to-future-proof-australias-water-resources-butler">committed</a> to “increasing First Nations ownership of water entitlements and participation in decision making”.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MDBAWaterBill2023/Report">Senate Committee</a> found “overwhelming support […] that significantly more needs to be done to incorporate the values and interests of First Nations people in Basin Plan management”.</p>
<p>Many solutions can be readily incorporated into the bill. It should be amended so the legislation is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and recommendations of Indigenous organisations, such as the Murray-Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations.</p>
<p>The $100 million <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/plibersek/media-releases/joint-media-release-strengthening-restoring-our-rivers-bill">announced</a> today for the Aboriginal Water Entitlement Program is welcome, although much was already <a href="https://www.tonyburke.com.au/media-releases/2019/5/6/media-release-labornbspwillnbspget-the-basin-plan-back-on-tracknbsp">committed</a> and the remainder won’t make up for the lost value given entitlement prices, according to <a href="https://mldrin.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WEB_20230829-MLDRIN-Slide-Deck-FINAL-STC.pdf">analysis</a> commissioned by the Murray-Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations.</p>
<p>The bill also needs to provide greater clarity for basin communities on how climate change will be incorporated into the Basin Plan review, and strategies for adapting to climate change. This cannot wait until 2027 – communities need to prepare now for their future.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/victorias-plans-for-engineered-wetlands-on-the-murray-are-environmentally-dubious-heres-a-better-option-204116">Victoria’s plans for engineered wetlands on the Murray are environmentally dubious. Here’s a better option</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217002/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Celine Steinfeld is Director of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Vanderzee is a Water Policy Analyst with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. He is a former water policy adviser to the Victorian goverment with more than 12 years experience in national and Murray-Darling Basin water reform.</span></em></p>With the support of the Greens, there’s a chance the ‘Restoring Our Rivers’ Bill will pass. Will it be enough to put the Murray-Darling Basin Plan back on track?Celine Steinfeld, Director, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists & Adjunct Lecturer, UNSW SydneyMichael Vanderzee, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/995092018-07-06T04:05:50Z2018-07-06T04:05:50ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Leyonhjelm’s incivility and the government’s need to appease on GST and energy<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8P90avaFtqY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Michelle Grattan speaks with the Director of the University of Canberra’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis Mark Evans about the week in Australian politics. They discuss Senator David Leyonhjelm’s offensive comments to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, the government’s planned GST reform, and Tony Abbott’s calls for Australia to withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99509/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan speaks with Mark Evans about the week in Australian politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/992222018-07-04T02:44:00Z2018-07-04T02:44:00ZSexist abuse has a long history in Australian politics – and takes us all to a dark place<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226094/original/file-20180704-73326-1nw7pbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With some foul-mouthed words to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator David Leyonhjelm has turned a debate about the safety of women into a sleazy political sideshow.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas/Sam Mooy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In one foul-mouthed phrase, Senator David Leyonhjelm has turned a debate about the safety of women into a sleazy political sideshow.</p>
<p>Claiming – without a shred of factual support – that he had interpreted Senator Sarah Hanson-Young as having said words to the effect of “all men are rapists”, Leyonhjelm called across the chamber that she should “stop shagging men”. Confronted by her afterwards, he told her to “fuck off”.</p>
<p>It is one more example of the debasement of political debate in Australia, aided and abetted by elements of the media, in this case Sky News. Its Outsiders panel of Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron gave Leyonhjelm a platform on which he repeated his offensive remarks, and sat back obligingly while he did so.</p>
<p>Only when the network was deluged with complaints did Cameron apologise for the pair of them, and the network took its own action – suspending not Dean and Cameron but the nameless and faceless <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/02/sky-news-presenters-apologise-hanson-young-leyonhjelm">young female producer</a> who put up a caption at the foot of the screen bearing Leyonhjelm’s words.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/madonna-or-whore-frigid-or-a-slut-why-women-are-still-bearing-the-brunt-of-sexual-slurs-99292">Madonna or whore; frigid or a slut: why women are still bearing the brunt of sexual slurs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Sexism and sexual innuendo are nothing new in politics. Cheryl Kernot, one-time leader of the Australian Democrats who <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/03/1025667007922.html">had an affair</a> with Labor’s foreign affairs minister, Gareth Evans, and defected to Labor in the late 1990s, was the butt of some crude slanging on the floor of the parliament.</p>
<p>But since June 24 2010, when <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-24/gillard-ousts-rudd-in-bloodless-coup/879136">Julia Gillard deposed Kevin Rudd</a> as Labor prime minister, these phenomena seem to have got palpably worse.</p>
<p>The reasons are necessarily speculative, but a series of developments over the intervening eight years might help to explain it.</p>
<p>One has been the explosive arrival of social media and its adoption as a tool of propaganda by all who want to make themselves heard, regardless of taste, harm or substance. Facebook, launched in 2004, went global in 2006, the same year that Twitter was launched. YouTube appeared in 2005, Instagram in 2010 (acquired by Facebook in 2012) and Snapchat in 2011.</p>
<p>Whatever benefits they have brought – and there are many – they have also brought trolling.</p>
<p>During Gillard’s prime ministership, a vast amount of trolling was directed at her. It was gross in its extremism and vulgarity. Much of it was crude pornography. There was incitement to violence and unbridled misogyny. <a href="http://www.annesummers.com.au/speeches/her-rights-at-work-r-rated-version/">Research by Anne Summers</a>, for her 2012 Human Rights and Social Justice Lecture at the University of Newcastle, revealed just how vile this online assault became.</p>
<p>The poison seeped out into the wider public discourse, where inevitably elements of the mainstream media magnified it.</p>
<p>Notable contributors to this were commercial radio talkback shock jocks Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and Chris Smith. Their depictions of, and remarks about, Gillard were disgustingly offensive. Not only were they sexist, extremist and malicious, but in Jones’s case involved encouragement of the idea that the prime minister should be dumped at sea.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hsaVpepMyA8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And then, of course, there was the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flAJmIs1d1I">infamous question</a> about the sexual orientation of the prime minister’s partner.</p>
<p>Portrayals of Gillard by other elements of the mainstream media, especially the newspapers, were generally less grotesque, but raised important ethical issues just the same.</p>
<p>The most common, and in some ways the most difficult to pin down, concerned the passively neutral way in which they covered the grossly disrespectful public attacks on her, just as Dean and Cameron did on Sunday.</p>
<p>An egregious example was the coverage of the rally outside Parliament House in 2011 when the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, gave legitimacy to sentiments such as “ditch the witch” and “bitch” by allowing himself to be photographed in front of placards bearing those words.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Opposition Leader Tony Abbott addresses a crowd in front of crude signs referring to Prime Minister Julia Gillard in March 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A more recent development, also made possible by the internet, has been the rise of the <a href="https://metoomvmt.org/">#metoo movement</a>, in which women who previously felt powerless to speak out about sexual harassment are now doing so, bringing down some powerful men such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html">Harvey Weinstein</a> in the process.</p>
<p>This has produced a backlash consisting of a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-rising-pressure-of-the-metoo-backlash">complicated mix</a> of male dubiety about the exact nature of sexual harassment and irritation by some feminists at what they see as an apparent weakening of women’s agency.</p>
<p>The fact there is a backlash at all doubtless encourages those who wish to say that attention to sexual harassment is overdone, and we should get back to a bit of good old-fashioned slagging of the kind epitomised by Leyonhjelm’s remarks.</p>
<p>A further factor might be that the boundaries of privacy have shifted. Sexual references that would have been deemed off-limits a decade ago are now shared on social media. Perhaps this is having a desensitising effect on standards of public taste.</p>
<p>Trends in public standards influence editorial decision-making. Stories are published that previously might not have been, or might have been toned down.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-parliament-should-care-about-its-reputation-even-if-leyonhjelm-doesnt-value-his-99225">View from The Hill: Parliament should care about its reputation even if Leyonhjelm doesn't value his</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As professional mass media try to keep pace with developments in social media, editors may feel they will be left behind if they don’t swiftly adapt to these changing mores and become more libertarian in their decision-making.</p>
<p>In these ways, boundaries in public taste and decency shift over time. However, Leyonhjelm has clearly put himself beyond the pale. Sky News obviously recognised this and felt an apology was necessary, even if Leyonhjelm himself does not.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, it is sobering to reflect on the worst consequences of disrespectful attitudes to women. The shocking rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon in Melbourne last month – which gave rise to the debate in which Leyonhjelm made his disgraceful interjection – has rightly led to an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/18/eurydice-dixon-vigil-silence-and-song-as-mourners-come-to-remember-and-reclaim">outpouring of community outrage and grief</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/2018/06/04/report-australian-domestic-and-family-violence-death-review-network-data-report-2018">2018 report</a> of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, which draws on data from all the coroners’ courts in Australia, stated that between July 1 2010 and June 30 2014 there were 152 intimate partner homicides across Australia that followed an identifiable history of domestic violence.</p>
<p>Of these, 121, or 79.6%, <a href="http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/e7964843-7985-4a25-8abd-5060c26edc4d/website+version+-+adfvdrn_data_report_2018_.pdf">were women killed by men</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99222/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many female politicians have had to endure sexist abuse, from Cheryl Kernot to Julia Gillard to Sarah Hanson-Young. And it is not a matter that should simply be brushed aside.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/992922018-07-03T06:33:11Z2018-07-03T06:33:11ZMadonna or whore; frigid or a slut: why women are still bearing the brunt of sexual slurs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225869/original/file-20180703-116139-1j6vdus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sarah Hanson-Young on David Leyonhjelm: "He is — for lack of a better word ... slut-shaming me".</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Senator David Leyonhjelm’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-parliament-should-care-about-its-reputation-even-if-leyonhjelm-doesnt-value-his-99225">sexist slur</a> on Senator Sarah Hanson-Young during parliamentary debate raises many issues about how women’s credibility can be undermined by implications that they are sexually more active than is deemed “acceptable”. </p>
<p>This is a long-standing tactic, based on sexist assumptions that women can be classified as either Madonna or whore, frigid or slut: something Australian feminist Anne Summers wrote about so powerfully in her book <a href="http://www.annesummers.com.au/books/damned-whores-and-gods-police/">Damned Whores and God’s Police</a>. In it, Summers quoted Caroline Chisholm’s belief that the colony needed “good and virtuous women”. The misuse of female sexuality has more recently been rebadged as “slut shaming”, which in turn created its own feminist protests by women engaging in “slut walks” as a means of reclaiming the term as a positive. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-parliament-should-care-about-its-reputation-even-if-leyonhjelm-doesnt-value-his-99225">View from The Hill: Parliament should care about its reputation even if Leyonhjelm doesn't value his</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As academic and author Jessalynn Keller <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming">has written</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The phrase [slut-shaming] became popularized alongside the SlutWalk marches and functions similarly to the “War on Women,” producing affective connections while additionally working to reclaim the word “slut” as a source of power and agency for girls and women.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this spirit, Hanson-Young has hit back. Leyonhjelm has refused to apologise for his comments, and Hanson-Young is now seeking further action. “I have a responsibility now, I have a responsibility to call this for what it is,” <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-03/david-leyonhjelm-sarah-hanson-young-slut-shaming-shagging-men/9934114">she told ABC radio</a>. She said Leyonhjelm had suggested she was “sexually promiscuous”. She continued:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He is — for lack of a better word, and I really apologise for this, I’m thankful that my daughter is home in bed still and not up for school — he’s slut-shaming me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This conflict arose from one of the many debates raised by the astounding successes of the #metoo movement, which has exposed women’s widespread experiences of sexual harassment and bullying. </p>
<p>The wider debate records what are obviously very long-standing differences of criteria applied to women’s behaviour as opposed to men’s. Despite it being nearly 70 years since publication of another classic feminist tome, Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, women are still seen as Other, and defined by powerful male criteria. </p>
<p>Whereas men’s virtues are often seen as multiple and universal, those seen as relating to women are still tied to outdated moral codes that assume our sexual behaviour is the primary indicator of who we are.</p>
<p>While sexual prowess and multiple “conquests” may be indicators of men’s approved masculinity, women may lose legitimacy if they are deemed promiscuous by having multiple partners. </p>
<p>There is no doubt men’s active sexuality is deemed acceptable and often excused as driven by physical needs, but women are still criticised for leading men on or astray. In other words, not only can’t women win in terms of their own sexuality and how it is somehow tied to their moral character, they are often asked, implicitly or explicitly, to take responsibility for men’s sexual behaviour too.</p>
<p>The so-called sexual revolution, catalysed by the availability of reliable female contraception in the 1960s, does not seem to have freed women in the same way it freed men. Interestingly, there is still no male pill that would reduce the risks for women, so we still carry that responsibility far too often.</p>
<p>All of this raises questions of how far real equality for women has come. I often quote a 1970s badge that read “women who want equality with men lack ambition”. We wanted to change what was valued and by whom, to balance the emphasis on macho material goals, tastes, attitudes and ambitions.</p>
<p>Current evidence suggests that, despite having more women in the senior ranks of most institutions, these are still there as parvenus, subjected to male criteria of what they think matters.</p>
<p>So women who do not fit the designated behaviour of Madonnas or whores are likely to be targeted for sledging. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard copped it and there is no evidence the culture has improved.</p>
<p>For his part, Leyonhjelm is unrepentant. When asked whether his reaction was too personal, regardless of what he thought Hanson-Young, <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/senator-sarah-hansonyoung-hits-out-at-david-leyonhjelm-over-sexist-slurs/news-story/b7a35ed9996899e610636857961bf156">he said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think you’re being way too precious. If you’re a woman of 36, unless you’re celibate, it might be a reasonable assumption that you’re shagging men occasionally. It’s a legitimate assumption and I simply made that assumption.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This just reinforces the idea that she is promiscuous, which he must know will reduce her wider credibility. It is an oddly puritanical comment, given he claims to be libertarian. </p>
<p>Many politicians have taken issue with Leyonhjelm’s comments, though it is perhaps in part a result of the general debasing of parliamentary debate in recent years. Let’s hope the public outrage over this particular incident will create some push-back against vocal sexist slurs against women, in parliament and in broader society.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99292/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The stoush between Senators Sarah-Hanson Young and David Leyonhjelm harks back to age-old - not to mention nonsense and deeply sexist - dichotomies about women’s sexuality and moral character.Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow, Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/992252018-07-02T10:06:56Z2018-07-02T10:06:56ZView from The Hill: Parliament should care about its reputation even if Leyonhjelm doesn’t value his<p>If David Leyonhjelm hasn’t apologised to Sarah Hanson-Young by the time parliament resumes next month, the Senate should tell him to do so.</p>
<p>The recalcitrant Liberal Democrat senator might tell his upper house colleagues to go jump, but the Senate needs to take a stand for the sake of its own reputation.</p>
<p>The outraged Greens have already flagged they’ll move a censure over Leyonhjelm’s smearing of their senator.</p>
<p>This matter goes beyond the actual stoush between the two. It raises the issue of when parliament should call out unacceptable behaviour by its members. It has also triggered questions about the media’s role.</p>
<p>Let’s go back to the start. Last Thursday Hanson-Young told the Senate that during a motion relating to violence against women, “senator Leyonhjelm yelled an offensive and sexist slur at me from across the chamber.</p>
<p>"After the vote on the motion was complete, I walked over to the senator and confronted him directly. I asked whether I had heard him correctly. He confirmed that he had yelled, ‘You should stop shagging men, Sarah.’</p>
<p>"Shocked, I told him that he was a creep. His reply was to tell me to ‘f… off’,” she said.</p>
<p>Earlier, Greens leader Richard Di Natale had approached Senate president Scott Ryan about the incident. Ryan spoke to Leyonhjelm. Leyonhjelm wouldn’t apologise.</p>
<p>Subsequently, Leyonhjelm gave his version in a <a href="https://medium.com/leyonhjelm/media-statement-on-senator-hanson-young-c16a134b56bb">media statement</a>, saying during the debate Hanson-Young had interjected “something along the lines of all men being rapists. [She says her interjection was ‘putting more tasers on the streets would not make women more safe from men’].</p>
<p>"I responded by suggesting that if this were the case she should stop shagging men.”</p>
<p>Adding more provocation, Leyonhjelm said in his statement that while not prepared to apologise “I am prepared to rephrase my comments. I strongly urge senator Hanson-Young to continue shagging men as she pleases.”</p>
<p>The incident has blown up especially because of what followed at the weekend. Leyonhjelm was interviewed on Sky and on 3AW on Sunday morning. On each program he cast a particular slur on Hanson-Young’s reputation.</p>
<p>On 3AW he was challenged by the presenters. On <a href="https://medium.com/leyonhjelm/senator-david-leyonhjelm-on-outsiders-3043f9b1af39">Sky’s Outsiders</a> it was a different story. He fitted the vibe of a program, that stretches to breaking point the limits of the permissible. A strap line was put up of his words, “SARAH HANSON-YOUNG IS KNOWN FOR LIKING MEN THE RUMOURS ABOUT HER IN PARLIAMENT ARE WELL KNOWN”.</p>
<p>Then, all hell broke loose.</p>
<p>Within hours Sky <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/1013293086493949952">apologised</a> to Hanson-Young for “broadcasting appalling comments … and for highlighting them in an on-screen strap”. It said a producer had been suspended, ahead of an internal investigation.</p>
<p>Multiple Sky presenters distanced themselves in tweets. Hanson-Young <a href="https://twitter.com/sarahinthesen8/status/1013595816856940544">announced</a> on Monday that she was seeking legal advice. Letters <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-02/david-leyonhjelm-refuses-to-apologise-sarah-hanson-young/9931386">have been</a> sent to Sky, 3AW and Leyonhjelm. She could only sue in relation to what happened outside parliament. </p>
<p>Ryan - who did his best on the day - has explained that he doesn’t have power to force an apology.</p>
<p>He <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorRyan/status/1012524143084953602">said</a> on twitter on Friday: “As the comments were not part of the formal proceedings of the Senate, they are not recorded in Hansard and therefore I have no authority to require a withdrawal, nor do I have the power to demand an apology from any senator or apply a sanction such as suspension.”</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm, who is railing against misandry (hatred of men) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelkoziol/status/1013622100475559936">told</a> Fairfax Media it would be easier to apologise but that would be “insincere… because I don’t think I have anything to apologise for”.</p>
<p>If Leyonhjelm really believes that, he is totally out of touch with reasonable standards of behaviour, let alone how ordinary people think their representatives should conduct themselves, whatever their disagreements.</p>
<p>His conduct is at the extreme end of the discourteous, sometimes boorish, discourse that too often is characterising political exchanges. And politicians then wonder why so many people are angry at them.</p>
<p>As for Sky, its response has been less than convincing – some might say it is hiding behind a petticoat.</p>
<p>Di Natale opined that Sky’s “apology rings hollow when the man who made the offensive comments goes unpunished, the male producers who booked him go unpunished, the male executives who set the tone and pay their salaries go unpunished and the only one held accountable is a junior producer who also happens to be a female member of staff.”</p>
<p>Suspending a producer, over the strap line, is tokenism. The fact the strap line “highlighted” what was said is hardly the point. Leyonhjelm himself said on Monday “the producer was not responsible for my comments” and pointed to Sky fears about losing sponsorship.</p>
<p>Forget the producer - wasn’t it for the the hosts, Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron, to challenge, or stop, Leyonhjelm? Yet Cameron wound up the segment with the words, “senator David Leyonhjelm, we appreciate your advocacy of the individual to be defended against the sludge of the collective”. (Later in the program - presumably after someone twigged - Dean started the damage control, saying Leyonhjelm’s views “are not the views of Sky News”.)</p>
<p>There was not a word about the presenters in the Sky apology - which was not issued in anyone’s name.</p>
<p>As for an internal investigation, is that needed? Aren’t things pretty obvious? Leyonhjelm was invited on to be controversial. He did exactly what was wanted but when it didn’t work out too well, Sky failed to confront the real issue for the network – a low rent program.</p>
<p>Cameron and Dean on Monday night <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/1013727258316402688">admitted</a> that a line had been crossed and they disassociated “ourselves from the use of unverified rumour and innuendo”. Pity they didn’t see the line when Leyonhjelm crossed it in their plain sight.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99225/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Leyonhjelm’s conduct is at the extreme end of the discourteous, sometimes boorish, discourse that too often is characterising political exchanges.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/936652018-03-20T10:16:16Z2018-03-20T10:16:16ZPolitics podcast: Sarah Hanson-Young on the Greens’ Batman setback<p>Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has strongly backed party leader Richard Di Natale’s push to purge those who leaked against candidate Alex Bhathal in the Batman byelection. </p>
<p>Hanson-Young told The Conversation it was clear that party infighting played on voters’ minds. “I don’t think there’s a place for people who want to undermine our party like that. This selfish act by a small number of people in Victoria has ramifications for all of us … because of that these individuals need to face the consequences.”</p>
<p>On the future of the Greens, Hanson-Young admitted that while nobody could match Bob Brown’s legacy, it was important the party get behind Di Natale’s leadership – which has been criticised by some Greens figures outside parliament.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93665/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sarah Hanson-Young has strongly backed Richard Di Natale's push to purge those who leaked against Alex Bhathal in the Batman byelection.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/796452017-06-18T11:58:29Z2017-06-18T11:58:29ZWill the Greens let the teachers’ union bully them over schools funding?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174293/original/file-20170618-10505-i1ooyb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sarah Hanson-Young has come up against the pressure of the Australian Education Union.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Some Liberals love to deride Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young. In the past, the government’s immigration minister and attack dog, Peter Dutton, was particularly insulting when she was spokeswoman in his area.</p>
<p>Now it’s Hanson-Young, handling the education area for the Greens, who is battling to get her party to pass the schools package that, in political terms, Malcolm Turnbull desperately needs.</p>
<p>The package is a truer version of the original Gonski needs-based system, and so would benefit deserving government schools, which are Hanson-Young’s priority. She’s gone out on a limb within her own ranks to attempt to promote a deal.</p>
<p>The government hopes to have the legislation through this last week before the winter break. “We’ll make sure we land this,” Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said on Sunday. The question is: who can it get to be its dancing partners? The Greens, or other crossbenchers?</p>
<p>Negotiations between Hanson-Young and Education Minister Simon Birmingham – one of the better ministers, with an admirably low-key style – have seen the government showing a good deal of flexibility.</p>
<p>Hanson-Young says what the government has put on the table moves the package closer to what the Greens have been advocating.</p>
<p>It involves setting up the independent body to oversee funding that was recommended originally by Gonski, and legislation to tie the states into pulling their weight on money. The negotiations have also canvassed shortening the timeframe of the government’s A$18.6 billion plan from ten years to possibly six years, which could cost the government an extra $4.5 billion-$5 billion over a decade.</p>
<p>The government is coy about the details of concessions it would make to the Greens. But if a deal with those sorts of changes could be done, you’d think the Greens would be trying to clinch it as quickly as possible. It would represent a major win for them.</p>
<p>There is, however, an internal battle – the party is divided. </p>
<p>This is an issue on which one would think Greens leader Richard Di Natale could adopt the more pragmatic style he seemed to promise when he became leader.</p>
<p>Yet on Sunday he showed he was conflicted when he appeared on Sky. Rather than displaying leadership and saying he will urge his party room to accept a deal if it is favourable – which would allow him to claim credit for delivering a better system – he stressed not being hurried and speaking to “all the key stakeholders”, who have in fact already been consulted.</p>
<p>So what’s going on here?</p>
<p>This is going on: the Australian Education Union (AEU) is standing on the Greens’ neck. The AEU wants this as an issue at the election. And the Greens are frightened of the union, especially what it could do to the party’s aspirations in inner city seats. </p>
<p>The teachers’ union has a lot of political clout and there is extensive overlap between its membership and the support base of the Greens. The New South Wales branch of the Greens is strongly identified with the union line.</p>
<p>On Sunday the union position was simply that the Greens must block the legislation this week. It will be lobbying them hard in Canberra over the next few days.</p>
<p>It’s a sordid tale of the power of politics over policy – and it leaves the Greens exposed in their periodic bids to present themselves as the party of principle.</p>
<p>Just as they are responsible for Australia not having a better climate change policy, because they refused to accept the Rudd government’s efforts to put one in place, so too if they don’t cut a schools deal, they will be open to the criticism of trying to stymie the introduction of a more needs-based schools policy.</p>
<p>But if they opt for staying pure – or indeed even if they don’t – the government might get its way via the rest of the crossbench.</p>
<p>These players have demands of their own. But it’s possible a deal with the non-Green crossbench could come at a cheaper price than one with the Greens. If that was the case, the Greens would likely find themselves sidelined.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Labor’s performance has been hypocritical. It has said all along that because the government’s schools plan fell $22 billion short of the ALP’s original proposals, it wouldn’t even bother negotiating.</p>
<p>As far as one can see, Labor has three motives. </p>
<p>First, it wants to reap the advantage of the discontent in the Catholic system, which loses out in relative terms when there’s a more needs-based system, because it has been feather-bedded with special arrangements by successive governments.</p>
<p>Second, it doesn’t want to allow the Coalition any win on schools policy.</p>
<p>Third, like the Greens it is unwilling to get the teachers’ union offside.</p>
<p>If the ALP really cared as much as it claims about state schools, it would not oppose the government’s policy but promise at the election that a Labor government would top up the money.</p>
<p>But that would be putting policy ahead of politics.</p>
<p><strong>POSTSCRIPT</strong></p>
<p>The Coalition trails Labor 47-53% on the two-party vote for the third consecutive <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll/newspoll-turnbull-fails-to-turn-corner-with-power-battle/news-story/79ce414773ab471673e3cf1e1935f1f6">Newspoll</a> – the 14th consecutive one in which it has been behind.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten both lost ground on net satisfaction – they are tied in deeply negative territory on minus 23. Turnbull’s satisfaction rating fell from 35% three weeks ago to 32%.</p>
<p>Turnbull has a 13-point margin over Shorten as better prime minister, 44-31%, compared with a 12-point lead in the last Newspoll.</p>
<p>The ALP primary vote is up one point to 37%. The Coalition vote is steady on 36%, for the fifth consecutive time. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is up from 9% to 11%; the Greens are down from 10% to 9%. </p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/teu9e-6be86f?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79645/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Some Liberals love to deride Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young. In the past, the government’s immigration minister and attack dog, Peter Dutton, was particularly insulting when she was spokeswoman in his…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/645442016-08-29T05:10:29Z2016-08-29T05:10:29ZPolitics podcast: Bob Brown on Malcolm Turnbull and the same-sex marriage plebiscite<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135712/original/image-20160829-17880-6adszl.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C134%2C1326%2C911&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pat Hutchens/TC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since retiring from politics in 2012, former Greens leader Bob Brown has continued to offer sharp perspectives on issues of national debate. After giving the closing address at the Canberra Writers’ Festival at the weekend, Brown tells Michelle Grattan that Malcolm Turnbull should have “stood up to the right wing” of his party at the end of 2015.</p>
<p>“We now have a reactionary and conservative government. I don’t think that’s where Malcolm Turnbull wants to be. I think he would prefer to be a Bob Menzies, and his time’s running out.</p>
<p>"He either will stand up to that power base of right-wing reactionaries and conservatives, or he’ll be another prime minister who failed to reach their promise, and Australia deserves a very progressive and liberal-minded leader. </p>
<p>"Turnbull’s got it in him, but one wonders if he’s had the life experience to be able to say: ‘Well, I’m not going to be dictated to’. It’s pretty late in the piece. ‘I’m not going to be dictated by these right wingers. I will stand up to them and if I lose out as a result of that at least I’ve tried.’,” he says. </p>
<p>In the wake of a Greens portfolio reshuffle last week, Brown pays tribute to Sarah Hanson-Young’s period as the party’s immigration spokesperson.</p>
<p>“I think she’s helped move this nation from feeling ‘oh, you know let’s forget about those people’ to saying ‘no, we can’t. They’re under our care.’</p>
<p>"I was sorry to see her move because she’s done such a fine job in that portfolio. On the other hand I think it’s a very, very daunting job. You know, you are dealing with the agony and suffering of men, women and children and she’s been doing that for years. So in a way it might end up being a hidden blessing.</p>
<p>"I think it’ll free her a little. You know, I just think it’s a harrowing job,” he says.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Opening music credit: What Tomorrow Brings, by Ketsa on the Free Music Archive.</em></p>
<p><em>Closing music credit: Earth Song, written by Bob Brown. Sung by Claire Dawson and accompanied by Craig Wood and Michelle Wood.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64544/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Since retiring from politics in 2012, former Greens leader Bob Brown has continued to offer sharp perspectives on issues of national debate.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/548252016-02-22T00:45:37Z2016-02-22T00:45:37ZFactCheck Q&A: are Indigenous children ten times more likely to be living in out-of-home care?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111721/original/image-20160217-24635-admnmf.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, speaking on Q&A, February 15, 2016.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation is fact-checking claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b3EAuQEV-hk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, February 15, 2016.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>You know, Indigenous children at the moment are 10 times more likely to be living out of home right now. – Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4398246.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, February 15, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Comments by broadcaster <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/2gb-broadcaster-alan-jones-says-we-need-stolen-generations-20160215-gmubhk.html">Alan Jones on the Stolen Generation</a> have refocused public attention on the rate at which Indigenous Australian children are placed in out-of-home care.</p>
<p>Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young recently told Q&A that Indigenous children are 10 times more likely to be living out of home (compared to non-Indigenous children).</p>
<p>Is that accurate?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a data source to support her assertion, a spokesman for Hanson-Young sent the following by email:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The figure came from the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Out_of_home_care/Report">Out of Home care report</a> tabled August 19, 2015 by the Community Affairs References Committee. It can be found in <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Out_of_home_care/Report/c01">Chapter 1, Introduction 1.2</a> of the report.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the <a href="http://theconversation.com/response-from-spokesperson-for-sarah-hanson-young-54883">full response</a> here. </p>
<p>That Out of Home Care report notes that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are almost 10 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than their peers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So Hanson-Young is close to the mark. The rate is “almost ten times more likely”, according to the source she used.</p>
<h2>Checking other data</h2>
<p>The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) is the national body responsible for compiling the data from all the states and territories on child protection and out-of-home care. </p>
<p>Their most recent report on this issue, <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129550762">Child Protection Australia 2013–14</a>, indicates that Indigenous children (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) are 9.2 times as likely to be in out-of-home care than non-Indigenous children in Australia. </p>
<p>So it’s nearly ten, but not quite. But <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-protection-and-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-children">missing data</a> on Indigenous status means that figure may be an underestimate. And for young children, the rate disparity is even higher, with Indigenous children <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554513">aged one to four years being 11.1 times as likely</a> as non-Indigenous children to be in out-of-home care.</p>
<p>In 2014, a total 43,009 children aged 0–17 were in out-of-home care in Australia (as at June 30), the AIHW data showed. Some 14,991 – or nearly 35% – of these children were Indigenous.</p>
<p>The highest number of Indigenous children in care in Australia live in New South Wales (6,520 children), but the highest rate ratio of Indigenous to non-Indigenous children is in Western Australia, where <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554513">Indigenous children are 15.5 as likely as non-Indigenous children to be in out-of-home care</a>. The rate ratio was <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554513">lowest in Tasmania</a>, at 2.9.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112073/original/image-20160219-1274-1ixapqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112073/original/image-20160219-1274-1ixapqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112073/original/image-20160219-1274-1ixapqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112073/original/image-20160219-1274-1ixapqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112073/original/image-20160219-1274-1ixapqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112073/original/image-20160219-1274-1ixapqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112073/original/image-20160219-1274-1ixapqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554513">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How are the trends changing over time?</h2>
<p>The problem is getting worse, and it is getting worse faster for Indigenous children than it is for non-Indigenous children. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554513">noted</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>a steady rise in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care has largely driven the overall increase in the number of children in out-of-home care… The rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children placed in out-of-home care has risen steadily since 2010, from 40.4 to 51.4 per 1,000 children, while the non-Indigenous rate has risen slightly from 5.1 to 5.6 per 1,000 children.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112036/original/image-20160218-1283-yvjmoi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112036/original/image-20160218-1283-yvjmoi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112036/original/image-20160218-1283-yvjmoi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112036/original/image-20160218-1283-yvjmoi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112036/original/image-20160218-1283-yvjmoi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112036/original/image-20160218-1283-yvjmoi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112036/original/image-20160218-1283-yvjmoi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112036/original/image-20160218-1283-yvjmoi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554513">Child protection Australia report, 2013–14, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why are more Indigenous children in out-of-home care?</h2>
<p>The main reasons for being placed in out-of-home care are: physical, sexual, emotional abuse and/or neglect. The <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554513">AIHW report notes</a> that in 2013-14:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Overall, the most common type of substantiated abuse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children was neglect, which represented 41% of substantiations (compared with 22% for non-Indigenous children)… Across all jurisdictions, sexual abuse was the least common type of substantiation for
Indigenous children (9%). </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554513">reasons for the over-representation of Indigenous children in child protection</a> substantiations are complex, as the AIHW report explains:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The legacy of past policies of forced removal; inter-generational effects of previous separations from family and culture; lower socio-economic status; and perceptions arising from cultural differences in child-rearing practices are all underlying causes for their over-representation in the child welfare system. Drug and alcohol abuse and family violence may also be contributing factors.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Out_of_home_care/Report">Senate inquiry into out-of-home care</a> reports examples of failure to understand cultural practices leading to findings of neglect and removal of children. For example, one expert told the inquiry:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a community was very distressed that children were taken away after a
child protection visit around neglect. The worker visited and had a look in
the cupboards and there was no food, and there was no food in the fridge,
and, of course, the children were neglected!… The worker was without the thought, understanding and knowing that everyone eats [at] Auntie Elsie’s place and that no one else needs to have the food in the house because they live as a communal family.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ongoing removal of Indigenous children has led community groups such as <a href="http://stopstolengenerations.com.au/">Grandmothers Against Removals</a> and peak Indigenous agencies such as the <a href="http://www.snaicc.org.au/">Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care</a> to call for reform.</p>
<h2>Where do these children live when they are in out-of-home care?</h2>
<p>The AIHW report noted that, in 2013–14, 67% of Indigenous children were placed with relatives or kin, other Indigenous caregivers or in Indigenous residential care; this proportion is similar to that reported in previous years. </p>
<p>There are <a href="http://snaicc.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/02727.pdf">accounts</a> of departmental failure to locate suitable kin as a result of the department not being well-connected to community.</p>
<h2>How well do Indigenous children do in out-of-home care?</h2>
<p>Indigenous children and young people are strongly over-represented in both out-of-home care and juvenile justice detention, even more so in juvenile detention – <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/indigenous-compendium-2015/indigenous-compendium-2015.pdf">especially in Western Australia</a>.</p>
<p>If young people have been in out-of-home care or on a care and protection order, they are <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554445">23 times as likely as the general population</a> to be in detention in the same year.</p>
<p>A large-scale ongoing longitudinal study of children who entered care on first-time orders in New South Wales over an 18-month period, <a href="http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/pathways/index.htm">Pathways of Care</a>, will help to provide solid evidence to answer some of these questions about how well all children fare in care.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young is close to the mark to say Indigenous children are 10 times more likely to be living in out-of-home care (compared with non-Indigenous children). The source she referred has the figure at “almost 10 times more likely”, while the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says the latest figure (June 2014) is closer to 9.2 times as likely. <strong>– Judy Cashmore and Teresa Libesman</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This a sound analysis. I would further add that the true picture of disadvantage experienced by many children and young people in out of home care, as demonstrated most profoundly by the statistics regarding Indigenous children, is clearly shown when one considers engagement in criminal activity. </p>
<p>Approximately one in 10 young people involved with the criminal justice system in NSW were also in <a href="http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Can-child-protection-data-improve-the-prediction-of-reoffending-in-young-persons-cjb188.pdf">care</a> and similar <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554443">over-representation rates</a> have been reported nationally. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC_C_AUS_CO_4.pdf">United Nations</a> has expressed serious concerns at “widespread reports of inadequacies and abuse” within Australia’s care system, drawing particular attention to the inappropriate placements of children, inadequate screening, training, support and assessment of carers and the mental health issues “exacerbated by (or caused in) care”.</p>
<p>It has concluded that young people in care have much poorer outcomes compared to general population in terms of health, education, well-being and development. <strong>– Katherine McFarlane</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54825/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Judy Cashmore is adviser to the Pathways of Care study and is currently working on an ARC Discovery grant on decision-making in Children’s Court child protection matters.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>In 2010, as a lecturer in Justice Studies at Charles Sturt University, Katherine McFarlane was the Chief Investigator for a NSW Government-awarded tender ($50,000) to Charles Sturt University. This project examined bail practices affecting children and young people and discussed, among other issues, the prevalence of young people in out of home care in the criminal justice system. Between April 2011-Dec 2015, Katherine McFarlane was Chief of Staff to a NSW State Minister, in the various portfolios of Planning and Infrastructure, Juvenile Justice, Corrections, Attorney General, Family and Community Services and Social Housing.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terri Libesman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sarah Hanson-Young told Q&A that Indigenous children are currently ten times more likely to be living out of home. Is that right?Judy Cashmore, Professor of Socio-Legal Research and Policy, University of SydneyTerri Libesman, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/495122015-10-21T08:04:28Z2015-10-21T08:04:28ZPolitics podcast: Sarah Hanson-Young on the plight of ‘Abyan’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99156/original/image-20151021-15414-na6mxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In this interview, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young calls on the government to appoint an independent advocate to protect the interests of the Somali woman known as “Abyan”, who is being held on Nauru. Michelle Grattan also probes Hanson-Young on the Greens’ electoral prospects following the ascension of Malcolm Turnbull to the prime ministership.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49512/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this interview, Sarah Hanson-Young calls on the government to appoint an independent advocate to protect the interests of the Somali woman known as "Abyan", who is being held on Nauru.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/433402015-06-16T12:34:19Z2015-06-16T12:34:19ZPoliticians put forward their worst sides<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85230/original/image-20150616-5854-1el3nk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Recent attacks by Peter Dutton on Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young have gone well beyond legitimate tough criticism – they've been abusive.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dave Hunt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the latest <a href="essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport">Essential poll</a>, just 11% have some or a lot of trust in politicians and 49% have no trust. Not a surprising result perhaps. What is surprising is that politicians don’t seem much worried how badly they are regarded collectively.</p>
<p>Despite the evidence that ordinary people are often disgusted by their behaviour, too many politicians want others to change but won’t themselves, talk loyalty but frequently betray it, profess lofty intentions while acting from low motives.</p>
<p>Without romanticising the past, things currently do seem particularly bad, fuelled by the contemporary news cycle’s voraciousness, the continuous election campaign, and the players themselves.</p>
<p>As the ideological divide has narrowed, personal distance has widened. Having less to war over, politicians find it necessary to exaggerate what’s left and to demonise opponents they consider easy targets.</p>
<p>For some, shock jocks’ standards become their standards. Recent attacks by Peter Dutton (in one case in a joint act with Ray Hadley) on Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young have gone well beyond legitimate tough criticism – they’ve been abusive.</p>
<p>Mature politics in a system that needs to be simultaneously competitive, adversarial and reasonably respectful requires striking balances: on leadership, between giving loyalty and demanding performance; in seeking and exercising power, between fighting to win and preserving the cohesion of the polity. The lines will inevitably be blurry.</p>
<p>Leaders have always been potentially vulnerable but modern parties, when constant polling corrodes the leader’s authority and the followers’ patience, are ever more volatile, as Tony Abbott found after less than 18 months in office.</p>
<p>The ABC’s Killing Season gives a riveting insight into the devastation that Labor, after securing its decisive victory in 2007, brought upon itself, with a coup against its prime minister in his first term.</p>
<p>In Tuesday’s episode Anthony Albanese, recalling his thoughts when Kevin Rudd was about to be deposed, said: “I remember very vividly leaving the room [after a discussion with colleagues] and saying if this occurs, we will kill two Labor prime ministers”. And that’s just what happened.</p>
<p>Now, having achieved the mutual destruction that would have been avoidable if they had behaved differently, the two former Labor prime ministers are bidding for the loudest word in the history.</p>
<p>It’s ugly. They indict themselves in their indictments of each other. Gillard argues Rudd was dysfunctional. Rudd accuses her of duplicity and – despite having himself deposed Kim Beazley – complains of “betrayal by people who you thought you could trust”.</p>
<p>Gillard says of Rudd in early 2010: “My sense of him at that point was that he was spent in a physical and psychological sense”. Rudd replies: “If that was a serious view on Julia’s part at the time, then she would’ve had an obligation to go to the national security committee of the cabinet and put it forward”. And on it goes.</p>
<p>Those remembering this pair in their halcyon days are now seeing, under the harsh spotlight of skilled television interviewing, their characters stripped bare, their flaws raw and exposed. There is no winner.</p>
<p>Former minister Greg Combet told the program: “If anything this tragedy of Labor in this period is about that, you know, the humanity of it, the poor judgements that are made, the ambitions, the egos … and the darker arts that some people are drawn to, the backgrounding, the leaking and the backstabbing”.</p>
<p>Combet, worn down and in poor health, retired at the 2013 election. It was a loss to Labor and the parliament, a premature departure by someone acknowledged across the spectrum as having performed well.</p>
<p>Some years into the future, the ABC will do another series – one about the Abbott government.</p>
<p>We can’t know the detail or timing; we don’t know whether that government will prosper or crash.</p>
<p>But we’ve seen its style so far, and it is not one that has made the public think better of politicians. It has been notable for the trashing of trust with broken promises, wilful misrepresentations when convenient, and an us-versus-them mentality (“them” defined very widely) that’s sharp and often vindictive.</p>
<p>Its ruthless and expedient approach is on display as Abbott ramps up national security as an issue.</p>
<p>Abbott has put national security at the centre of his agenda. His government talks constantly about keeping Australians safe. Polling shows people are worried about security, and it is always naturally strong ground for the Coalition. Abbott judges it can be made even better politically if only he can shake off Bill Shorten’s desire to stay close.</p>
<p>Abbott would like nothing better than a partisan fight over his proposed legislation to strip citizenship from dual nationals associated with terrorism, as is clear from the question time briefing note that was leaked this week.</p>
<p>There are real arguments to be had about issues of security, and perhaps some aspects should provoke partisan debate. But to cynically hope to exploit national security, and community fears, as a tactical weapon undermines the pursuit of good policy. The tactic brings discredit on those who use it. Not that they give a damn if it works.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://michellegrattan.podbean.com/e/sarah-hanson-young-1434357637/">Listen to the latest Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast, with guest, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, here or on iTunes.</a></strong></p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/yuxk7-56b070" width="100%" height="100" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43340/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In the latest Essential poll, just 11% have some or a lot of trust in politicians and 49% have no trust. Not a surprising result perhaps. What is surprising is that politicians don’t seem much worried…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/443502015-06-14T14:00:00Z2015-06-14T14:00:00ZPolitics podcast: Sarah Hanson-Young on personal attacks and people smugglers<p>Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young sits down with Michelle Grattan to talk about personal attacks on her, the accusations that people smugglers were paid by Australian officials to turn their boat around, stripping the citizenship of dual citizens engaged in terrorist activity, gay marriage, and much more.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44350/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan talks to Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young about personal attacks on her, paying people smugglers to turn their boat around, gay marriage, and much more.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.