tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/institute-of-public-affairs-28107/articlesInstitute of Public Affairs – The Conversation2017-11-10T03:31:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/870932017-11-10T03:31:26Z2017-11-10T03:31:26ZWhy has BHP distanced itself from legal threat to environment groups?<p>Australian environment groups this week found an unexpected supporter in BHP, the world’s largest mining company. </p>
<p>BHP has defended green groups’ right to receive tax-deductable donations, in the face of a concerted push from both the federal government and the Minerals Council of Australia. </p>
<p>Given the influential role of the environment movement in Australia, and the legal <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-06/charities_can_be_political/41852">precedent</a> that NGOs and charities can be political, the big Australian evidently sees value in defending them. </p>
<h2>Environment groups’ tax status</h2>
<p>Environmental organisations in Australia have traditionally been able to claim tax-deductible status under both the Income Tax Act and the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00100">Charities Act</a>, in recognition of the fact that the work these groups do has a clear public benefit. But this status has now come under threat. </p>
<p>The federal government issued a report in 2016 entitled <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/tax-deductible-gift-recipient-reform-opportunities/">Tax Deductible Gift Recipient Reform Opportunities</a>, examining the administration and transparency of the environment groups. The ostensible aim of this report was to ensure that tax-deductible donations to environmental organisations were being used properly. </p>
<p>Among its key recommendations was that environmental organisations would be required to seek tax-deductible status directly from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), and that they be registered as environmental charities in order to qualify. The report also recommended removing the list of environmental groups set out under the Income Tax Act.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-inquiry-takes-aim-at-green-charities-that-get-political-40166">Government inquiry takes aim at green charities that 'get political'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Controversially, the report also recommended that the ATO require environmental charities to spend at least 25% of their donation income on “environmental remediation work”, as opposed to campaigning or other activities. The government has subsequently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/15/governments-letter-to-conservation-groups-has-ominous-implications">indicated</a> that it is considering increasing this percentage to 50%. </p>
<p>But the <a href="http://www.minerals.org.au">Minerals Council of Australia</a> argues that environmental charities should be forced to commit 90% of their resources to on-the-ground environmental remediation, education and research, leaving only 10% for political advocacy.</p>
<h2>Support within the LNP</h2>
<p>Federal resources minister Matt Canavan has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-10/environment-groups-could-lose-tax-concession-status/6384554">indicated</a> his support for removing tax-deductible status from environmental organisations. In 2015 he <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-10/environment-groups-could-lose-tax-concession-status/6384554">stated</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…there are a large minority [of environmental groups] who are clearly engaged primarily in trying to stop fossil fuel development in Australia and I don’t think it’s right that Australian taxpayers, including people who work in the mining industry, be asked to fund those activities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Minerals Council of Australia has also backed the removal of tax-deductible status from environmental organisations, <a href="https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2017/07/charity-defends-dgr-status-champion-environment-democracy/">claiming</a> that many of these groups are “not environmental organisations but rather professional activist groups whose objective is to disrupt and hamper the resources sector”. </p>
<p>The Minerals Council issued its own <a href="http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/media_releases/MCA_submission_on_Tax_Deductible_Gift_Recipient_Reform_Opportunities_discussion_paper_4_Aug_2017.pdf">report</a> documenting environmental organisations that is claims have committed or encouraged unlawful or unsafe activities or sought tax-deductible donations to support politically partisan activities.</p>
<p>The report specifically refers to activities by organisations including <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/">Greenpeace</a>, the <a href="https://www.acf.org.au">Australian Conservation Foundation</a>, the <a href="https://www.nature.org.au">Nature Conservation Foundation of NSW</a>, the <a href="http://www.aycc.org.au">Australian Youth Climate Coalition</a>, and <a href="https://www.marineconservation.org.au">Australian Marine Conservation</a>, arguing that their activities are against federal law.</p>
<p>It is also important to note that environmental organisations are not the only groups to receive tax-deductible status. Other groups, such as the <a href="http://ipa.org.au">Institute for Public Affairs</a>, which often campaigns on behalf of large organisations to remove environmental protections, also has this status. </p>
<h2>Environment groups can be political</h2>
<p>Legally speaking, there is no doubt that environmental charities and other NGOs do engage in political activities in addition to their focus on public welfare and the environment. This does not prevent them from being treated as charities. </p>
<p>Indeed, in the landmark <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-06/charities_can_be_political/41852">High Court decision of Aid/Watch</a> in 2011, the court specifically stated that where it is clear that public welfare is a primary motivation, the fact that the organisation also has political purposes is irrelevant. </p>
<p>On this basis, an environmental organisation can engage in activities to promote political change while still maintaining as its principal purpose the conservation or improvement of the natural environment. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-politically-active-environmental-groups-42748">Australia needs politically active environmental groups</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Even BHP agrees. In response to the Minerals Council report, BHP <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/08/bhp-opposes-minerals-council-of-australias-war-on-activist-rights">announced</a> that it holds a different view. It argued that environmental organisations should not be stripped of their tax-deductible status, because these organisations perform important advocacy roles for policy development in a democratic society. </p>
<p>Subsequently, 100 BHP shareholders have put forward a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/08/bhp-opposes-minerals-council-of-australias-war-on-activist-rights">shareholder resolution</a> through the <a href="http://www.accr.org.au">Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility</a> calling on the company to leave the Minerals Council of Australia. They argued that the Minerals Council’s position is directly at odds with “our company’s long-term financial and strategic interests”.</p>
<p>BHP has agreed to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/19/bhp-agrees-to-rethink-its-links-to-minerals-council-of-australia">review</a> its membership of the Minerals Council of Australia. It is not alone. In 2016, one of Australia’s largest emitters of greenhouse gas, <a href="https://www.agl.com.au/residential">AGL</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/19/bhp-agrees-to-rethink-its-links-to-minerals-council-of-australia">left</a> the Minerals Council, citing material differences in their respective policies on climate change and energy. </p>
<h2>Environment groups should be allowed to do their work</h2>
<p>At a time when we are facing a rapidly transitioning energy landscape – with the acceleration of climate change, renewable energy production, new technologies for unconventional gas extraction, and increasing concerns regarding groundwater depletion and contamination - environmental protection is a major public concern. </p>
<p>It’s hardly surprising that in a democratic framework, environmental organisations have become more politically active. They are striving to ensure that the research and education they conduct with respect to the environment is appropriately reflected within the Australian legal framework. </p>
<p>This work ultimately benefits all Australians. These organistions are constantly seeking to improve and protect the natural habitat in which we all live. In a democracy like ours, the work of these groups should not be drained of funding through changes to the taxation system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87093/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samantha Hepburn 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>BHP has distanced itself from moves to strip environment groups of their tax deductibility status. Why does the Big Australian see value in defending them?Samantha Hepburn, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/859722017-10-19T19:03:06Z2017-10-19T19:03:06Z‘Identity politics’ have not taken over university history courses<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191022/original/file-20171019-1062-qnalw5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anzac Day, a celebration of the Anzac soldiers, pictured, has become a contentious issue in the "history wars".</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent <a href="https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/research-papers/rise-identity-politics">report</a> from the Institute of Public Affairs on history teaching in Australian universities is the latest salvo in the “history wars”. Left-liberal “elites” have been accused for decades of undermining the nation and its roots by indulging in fanciful or biased history teaching by focusing on “identity politics” instead of the “canon”. For conservative or right-wing critics, teaching the “canon” means telling the story of Western civilisation and its successful implantation in Australia.</p>
<h2>A short history lesson</h2>
<p>Australia’s history wars peaked around the turn of the century. They are usually understood as a phenomenon of broader “<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-claims-victory-in-culture-wars/2006/01/25/1138066861163.html">culture wars</a>” identified with the Howard era. John Howard is often seen as launching the history wars, most famously in his <a href="http://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-10171">1996 statement</a> that Australia’s historians were bent on peddling a miserable view of the past. The reality, he contended, was that there was much more cause for pride than shame. </p>
<p>The next few years saw much public contention about the reality or otherwise of the <a href="http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/sorry-day-stolen-generations">Stolen Generations</a>, the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990231026.html">design and content of the National Museum of Australia</a>, the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-05/new-map-plots-massacres-of-aboriginal-people-in-frontier-wars/8678466">frontier wars in Tasmania</a>, and the content of history curricula in schools.</p>
<p>Howard was not the sole combatant in the history wars, but he led the charge for many individuals and institutions. <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/636/1/ianziti_gary.pdf">Keith Windschuttle</a>, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990230177.html">David Barnett</a>, <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/">Quadrant</a> and News Corp papers – especially <em>The Australian</em> and conservative commentator Andrew Bolt – were all behind him.</p>
<p>Much of the heat went out of the history wars when Howard lost the 2007 federal election, but never entirely. These arguments tend to resurface around Anzac Day, when contrary voices are condemned (witness the treatment of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/ww1/sbs-presenter-scott-mcintyre-sacked-over-inappropriate-anzac-day-tweets-20150426-1mtbx8.html">Scott Macintyre</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/newsmaker3a-marilyn-lake/3925520">Marilyn Lake</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/abc-axes-yassmin-abdelmagieds-australia-wide-program-20170524-gwc3ot.html">Yassmin Abdel-Magied</a>), when the Prime Minister’s History Awards are handed out, when school curricula are discussed, and on many other occasions. </p>
<p>The most recent skirmishes have been around <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/labor-greens-will-unite-to-not-hold-citizenship-ceremonies-on-australia-day/news-story/b69d13f1374faedd5980d2c91e0aef08">the appropriateness of January 26 as Australia Day</a>, and statues of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-26/australia-day-argument-intensifies-as-vandals-hit-captain-cook/8845064">Cook</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clover-moore-refers-concerns-about-macquarie-statue--to-indigenous-panel-20170822-gy1jn4.html">Macquarie</a>.</p>
<h2>Number of “identity politics” courses not an accurate indicator</h2>
<p>The authors of the IPA report attribute the supposed flowering of “identity politics” courses to the politics of the historians who teach them. This ignores the fact that historians (and their Heads of School) are under constant pressure to maximise enrolments. Undergraduate enrolments are the primary driver of an academic unit’s resourcing. Academics and their managers are acutely aware of areas of student interest, and tend to respond to student demand rather than shaping it.</p>
<p>The authors of the report also ignore that history programs offer a mix of broad and narrow courses. Typically, larger and broader courses are offered at first-year level, and a greater number of specialised courses at upper-level. There is a clear pedagogical logic behind this curriculum structure, but it appears to have led the IPA astray. </p>
<p>Broader first-year courses – more closely aligned to what the IPA and <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/history-students-deserve-better-than-identity-politics/news-story/256172cffe463ec5e0ba4eab50771037"><em>The Australian</em></a> would consider the “canon” – attract higher enrolments because there are fewer of them, and one or more are usually compulsory for a history major. More than 40% of the total history student cohort in any one semester at the University of Adelaide, for example, take the courses <a href="https://access-cbs.adelaide.edu.au/courses/details.asp?year=2017&course=107189+1+3710+1">Empires in World History</a> or <a href="https://access-cbs.adelaide.edu.au/courses/details.asp?year=2017&course=107212+1+3720+1">Revolutions that Changed the World</a>. These courses pay plenty of attention to the foundations of parliamentary democracy, and the changes brought about by clever inventions and “great ideas”. These fit within the foundations of Western civilisation. </p>
<p>Counting the number of courses based on “identity politics” is not a realistic way of identifying what most students are studying or how they are being taught about the past.</p>
<h2>A different result</h2>
<p>In early 2017, under instruction from the Heads of History and the <a href="http://www.theaha.org.au/">Australian Historical Association</a>, we conducted a comprehensive survey of the history discipline in Australian and New Zealand universities. We gathered data on every history course taught in the previous two years, including student enrolments. We accounted for the fact that courses are often taught on a biennial basis, which the IPA failed to do. Our data produced findings quite different from the conclusions reached by the IPA.</p>
<p>We counted and classified more than 1,220 different history courses taught in 2015 and 2016. They were categorised into 47 content areas, such as “Australian history”, “Early Modern European history”, “history of race” and so on. </p>
<p>The graph below shows which content areas were most commonly taught at undergraduate level. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190940/original/file-20171019-32370-vdmy4a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190940/original/file-20171019-32370-vdmy4a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190940/original/file-20171019-32370-vdmy4a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190940/original/file-20171019-32370-vdmy4a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190940/original/file-20171019-32370-vdmy4a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=675&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190940/original/file-20171019-32370-vdmy4a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=675&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190940/original/file-20171019-32370-vdmy4a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=675&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most commonly taught undergraduate History courses in Australian universities by content area.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>The next graph shows which types of courses were most commonly taken by Australian students. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190941/original/file-20171019-32378-sv2vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190941/original/file-20171019-32378-sv2vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190941/original/file-20171019-32378-sv2vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190941/original/file-20171019-32378-sv2vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190941/original/file-20171019-32378-sv2vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190941/original/file-20171019-32378-sv2vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190941/original/file-20171019-32378-sv2vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">most popular undergraduate History courses in Australian universities by content area.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>This shows the most commonly taught and most popular content areas align with the traditional historical “canon”. They consist of broad-scope courses, often centred on the nation state or traditional themes such as “war/conflict”, “the Renaissance”, or the “history of ideas”. Courses that focus primarily on histories of race, imperialism/post-colonialism, sexuality, and popular culture do not make the cut. Such topics might be studied as part of broader courses, and be the focus of one or two tutorials or lectures, but they are not the primary focus. </p>
<p>Only nine courses concerned primarily with the history of imperialism/post-colonialism were offered by Australian universities in 2015 and 2016, making this the 29th most commonly taught content area out of 47 possible areas. A total of 508 students were enrolled in these courses across the nation, making them the 29th most popular. </p>
<p>In terms of the number of course offerings, those in the history of sexuality ranked 33rd. Histories of popular culture ranked 26th, and history of race/ethnicity courses (excluding Aboriginal history) ranked 23rd. </p>
<p>In terms of total student enrolments, history of sexuality courses ranked 36th. History of popular culture courses ranked 25th, and history of race/ethnicity courses (excluding Aboriginal history) ranked 18th.</p>
<p>Besides differences in findings, the IPA assumes that specialised “identity politics” courses that focus on questions of race, gender, class, ethnicity, and sexuality are intrinsically less valuable than the study of the European Renaissance or Medieval periods. In a nation that is currently debating gay marriage, apparently unable to resolve Aboriginal disadvantage or counter the appalling rates of domestic violence against women, and in which nearly half of the population have a parent born overseas, we would suggest that such questions are vital. </p>
<p>It is little wonder that our students are interested in exploring these questions in different historical contexts, and that this interest might rival student enthusiasm for studying Renaissance art, the English Civil War or the French Revolution. </p>
<p>They know, as we do, that one of the primary purposes of studying history is to inform the present, and to enable us to apply insights gleaned from the past to debates about issues that affect us here and now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85972/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Sendziuk receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He serves on the executive committee of the Australian Historical Association.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Crotty serves on the executive committee of the Australian Historical Association. </span></em></p>The most popular history courses taught in Australian universities are still broad courses focused on significant historical events and periods, contrary to the recent IPA report.Paul Sendziuk, Associate Professor in History, University of AdelaideMartin Crotty, Associate Professor in Australian History, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/730492017-02-16T19:12:22Z2017-02-16T19:12:22ZAustralians believe 18C protections should stay<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156873/original/image-20170215-19613-1gllito.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">Author</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>While debate over the merits of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act continues to rage, new research shows that an overwhelming majority of Australians support legislation that prevents insults on the basis of race, culture or religion. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia/Additional_Documents">We found</a> that just 10% of Australians believe people should have the freedom to “insult” and “offend” people on the basis of race, culture or religion. Over 75% are opposed. The poll, conducted by Essential Research for the Cyber Racism and Community Resilience (CRaCR) and <a href="https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/challengingracism/challenging_racism_project">our other Challenging Racism research projects</a>, undermines <a href="http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/2017/01/poll-australians-value-freedom-of-speech/">other claims</a> that nearly 50% of Australians want the key words removed from Section 18C.</p>
<p>A parliamentary <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia">inquiry into 18C</a> is moving towards its climax, with the committee due to report by February 28. It has been a mammoth task for the committee members, with thousands of submissions and dozens of witnesses.</p>
<p>Section 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone on the basis of race and culture. It has been under attack from conservative commentators and politicians after News Ltd columnist Andrew Bolt <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918">was found to have breached</a> 18C without an acceptable defence under the related Section 18D.</p>
<p>In the 2013 election, then prime minister <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-22/racial-discrimination-act-promise-check/5364682">Tony Abbott pledged</a> to get rid of the section. Attorney-General George Brandis <a href="https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2014/First%20Quarter/25March2014-RacialDiscriminationAct.aspx">attempted to do this</a> in 2014. A strong push-back by community groups forced Abbott to abandon the changes. </p>
<p>After the 2016 election, conservatives such as Cory Bernardi, in tandem with the Institute for Public Affairs, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/cory-bernadi-leads-coalition-push-to-change-18c-race-hate-laws/7796356">reactivated the campaign</a> to remove section 18C, though limiting their reach to excising the words “insult” and “offend”. </p>
<p>As we <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-did-galaxys-poll-tell-us-about-freedom-of-speech-and-18c-not-what-the-ipa-said-it-did-72197">reported on February 1</a>, the “truth” about what Australians think of and want to happen with 18C has been a matter of critical interest. The Australian newspaper has been a sustained campaigner for removing 18C. It <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/the-racism-at-the-core-of-18c/news-story/ac7e4a21b410bef42cb3c9ad9729ce99">argues the law is too great a threat to freedom of speech</a>.</p>
<p>CRaCR commissioned Essential to include four questions in its February 8 omnibus poll. We asked whether people agreed or disagreed with the propositions that “people should be free to offend/ insult/ humiliate/ intimidate someone on the basis of their race, culture or religion”. The finding is that Australians do not support this proposition. Only 5 to 10% champion such “freedoms”.</p>
<p>Our simple question formats eschewed any prelude points concerning “competing freedoms” or double-barrel questions as in the <a href="https://www.ipa.org.au/portal/uploads/IPA_Media_Release_Free_Speech_Not_A_Fringe_Issue_Poll_170131.pdf">Galaxy poll</a>.</p>
<p>After <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2Fa4a748b7-be67-4d2d-a0f0-5fe751327781%2F0008;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2Fa4a748b7-be67-4d2d-a0f0-5fe751327781%2F0000%22">we gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry</a>, and were questioned on the apparently conflicting findings, we set out to generate transparent and valid data. We developed a simple test to discover the extent to which Australians believe that people should be free to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate others on the basis of race, culture or religion. This would be the consequence of removing Section 18.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-australian-internet-users-think-about-racial-vilification-24280">Our research in 2014</a> asked if people thought it should be unlawful to do what 18C covered. On the insult and offend questions, support for the law was 72% and 66%, while on humiliate and intimidate it rose to 74% and 79%. The <a href="http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/2017/01/poll-australians-value-freedom-of-speech/">IPA claimed since</a> then there had been a major shift towards accepting the removal of these first two conditions of vilification. </p>
<p>Our new research demonstrates this is not the case. Our Essential sample was representative (by age, gender, region and so on). Our four questions were aimed to test whether people supported removing insult and offend from 18C. We found that Australians have increased their support for protections from insulting and offensive attacks on the basis of race, culture and religion. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZFva7/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="350"></iframe>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8dKgA/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="350"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>Only 5 to 10% of Australians support the right to offend on the basis of race, culture or religion. Those who are younger, and males, are more likely to support these freedoms. </p>
<p>In our <a href="https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/challengingracism/challenging_racism_project">other surveys over the past decade</a>, we have found that about the same proportion of Australians (one in ten) hold negative views about diversity and “races”. For example, around 10-12% believe that some races are superior to others, and that groups should not intermarry. These are indicators of racial supremacism and racial separatism. </p>
<p>There may well be those who support these freedoms from a Voltaire-inspired conviction about the right to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate. However, analysis of the 2014 CRaCR survey data has found statistical associations between authors of online racism, racist dispositions and a preference for the freedom to offend. Authors of racism, with racist views, most want the right to be racist.</p>
<p>The political implications are also of interest. Focusing just on “offend” and “insult”, the spread confirms that the left of the political spectrum is more opposed to licensing hate than the right. </p>
<p>Support for the freedom to offend ranges from 7% (ALP and Greens) to 11% (LNP) and up to 16% with Others and Independents. Opposition to the freedom to offend peaks with the Greens (86%), but still sits at 70% for Independents.</p>
<p>Support for the freedom to insult ranges from 5% (ALP) and 8% (Greens) to 12% (LNP) and up to 13% with Others and Independents. Opposition to the freedom to insult peaks with the Greens (88%), but still sits at 72% for Independents.</p>
<p>This evidence suggests that over the past three years, despite incessant campaigning by pro-vilification proponents, Australians’ appetite for the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/race-act-changes-are-what-you-get-when-you-champion-bigotry-24782">right to be bigots</a>” has declined.</p>
<p>The impression we gain is that civility remains a high value. Whatever peoples’ valuing of freedom of speech, which is very high, they do not think that such a freedom should encompass the insulting and offending of people on the basis of race, culture or religion.</p>
<p>Moreover, this trend reverberates with the finding of <a href="http://www.essentialvision.com.au/abuse-and-violence">another Essential poll in late 2016</a>, where Australians worry that insulting people on the basis of race and religion is rising. </p>
<p>Now it’s over to the committee, parliament and the people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73049/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Jakubowicz has been funded by the Australian Human Rights Commission for a Linkage ARC project on cyber-racism. He was part of the research team that gave evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry into 18C (freedom of speech). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Dunn receives research funding for related survey work from the Australian Research Council and SBS.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Sharples 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>How do we know what we think we know? Accuracy, care and rigorous method gets us somewhere there, especially on issues like racism.Andrew Jakubowicz, Professor of Sociology, University of Technology SydneyKevin Dunn, Dean of the School of Social Science and Psychology, Western Sydney UniversityRachel Sharples, Research Assistant, Challenging Racism Project, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721972017-01-31T22:39:55Z2017-01-31T22:39:55ZWhat did Galaxy’s poll tell us about freedom of speech and 18C? Not what the IPA said it did<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154921/original/image-20170131-13257-1ue838c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Liberal MP Ian Goodenough is chairing a parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech on Tuesday, the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) think-tank tendered a statement based on a survey it had commissioned from Galaxy Research. The Australian newspaper covered this polling <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pc-culture-muzzling-free-speech-says-poll/news-story">as a front-page “exclusive”</a>.</p>
<p>The second paragraph in the <a href="https://www.ipa.org.au/portal/uploads/IPA_Media_Release_Free_Speech_Not_A_Fringe_Issue_Poll_170131.pdf">IPA’s media release</a> claimed – without evidence – that there was set to be much surprise among the media and the political class that 95% of Australians think “free speech matters”.</p>
<p>The release then reported that 48% of people supported removing the words “insult” and “offend” from <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act</a>.</p>
<p>The IPA actually wants the <a href="http://freespeech.ipa.org.au/">whole of 18C removed</a>. But the way forward since then-prime minister Tony Abbott <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-how-abbott-united-the-greens-and-the-institute-of-public-affairs-30290">baulked at the gate</a> on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/race-act-changes-are-what-you-get-when-you-champion-bigotry-24782">changes proposed by his attorney-general, George Brandis</a>, in 2014 has been this apparently minor surgery to the less serious end of the unlawful quartet (the others being “humiliate” and “intimidate”).</p>
<p>But is the IPA’s statement a fair reading of the Galaxy polling? And was the research fair to start with?</p>
<h2>Questions of methodology and polling</h2>
<p>According to a Galaxy spokesperson whom I spoke with on Tuesday, no attempt was made to ensure the sample included a representative component of Indigenous and non-Anglo or overseas-born Australians. </p>
<p>Such data was not collected as part of the study as the client (the IPA) had not asked for it, so the results could not be profiled on these criteria. Yet these are the people 18C is <a href="https://theconversation.com/repealing-18c-would-leave-jews-exposed-as-muslims-already-are-36131">mostly designed to protect</a>.</p>
<p>Chances are that an average online panel (the Galaxy polling was done mainly online) won’t include many Indigenous people, people with poor English, or people from minority refugee communities – that is, the primary targets of race hate speech. We had to work hard to ensure <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-australian-internet-users-think-about-racial-vilification-24280">our online survey</a> on a similar issue included enough minority-group Australians to ensure statistical accuracy.</p>
<p>The IPA research was two questions in the regular Galaxy omnibus survey, which seeks to control only for age, gender and region. It also looks at shopping patterns.</p>
<p>The first question was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How important is freedom of speech to you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was designed to position the respondent positively to the question and its point of view.</p>
<p>The second question was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Do you approve or disapprove of the proposal to change the Racial Discrimination Act so that it is no longer unlawful to “offend” or “insult” someone because of their race or ethnicity? It will still be unlawful to “humilitate” or “intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This aims to deliver the coup de grâce that reinforces the desired outcome. </p>
<p>So, more than 95% of those polled thought freedom of speech was important. This is a no-brainer. Had the question been – as other surveys <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-australian-internet-users-think-about-racial-vilification-24280">have put it</a> – “Is freedom of speech more important than freedom from hate?”, the percentage of those in favour may well have come down significantly. Or if that question were to be reversed, even more so. But we will never know.</p>
<p>Then the question of removing “insult” and “offend” was put. Less than half of any group supported this. Given the preparatory question and the lack of information about the implications or impact, this is less than one might have predicted.</p>
<p>However, neither Galaxy nor the IPA discussed the most interesting data.</p>
<h2>Youth responses show IPA conclusions invalid</h2>
<p>In the Galaxy poll, the 18-24 age group had the highest commitment to freedom of speech but the lowest support for removing “insult” and “offend” from 18C – by a long way. </p>
<p>So, a suggestion that a commitment to freedom of speech necessarily carries with it support for amending 18C is simply false. There is no simple correlation. They appear to be independent variables, though mediated by some other factor – probably social media use. </p>
<p>There is a much better explanation which neither Galaxy nor the IPA evoked.</p>
<p>The 18-24 age bracket comprises the true digital natives; a very high proportion are regular users of social media. <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-australian-internet-users-think-about-racial-vilification-24280">Our research</a> shows they have the highest rate of encounters with racist hate speech. They are usually witnesses, though sometimes are targets. Most encounters with online hate happen on Facebook (40%), YouTube (20%) and in comment threads on news media site (15%). </p>
<p>Digital natives value freedom. But they also want vulnerable people protected and civility enhanced. And they don’t trust sites like Facebook, YouTube or Google to do that – nor, it must be said, government. </p>
<p>In our research, young people were among the least likely to want offending someone on the basis of race to be lawful, just like those surveyed by Galaxy for the IPA. However, they were more likely to hold a neutral position than older people; they were more reluctant to force regulation, but more aware of what racism <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-racism-make-us-sick-63641">did to its targets</a>.</p>
<p>The people most in support of retaining 18C in our study but not in Galaxy’s were the older group, who are far less likely to use social media and thus encounter cyber-racism. In our study, the people most likely to want the right to offend people were those who identified themselves as authors of racist material. </p>
<p>So, it follows that the less racism you encounter that you don’t want to see, the less likely it is that you’ll worry about it. The more you want to freely offend people, the more likely it is you author racist material. </p>
<p>Lucky I read the report – or you’d never have known quite what the IPA was selectively trying to slip through to the inquiry and the press. Be sure, though, that the claim most Australians want 18C gutted in the name of freedom of speech simply is not supported by evidence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72197/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Jakubowicz has partnered with the Australian Human Rights Commission on research into cyber racism. The AHRC is the target of the IPA attack on Section 18C. His joint ARC research project has received funds from the AHRC. The submission by the Cyber racism and Community resilience Research Group is at <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia/Submissions">http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia/Submissions</a> sub. 54, with the IPA at 58. </span></em></p>Neither Galaxy Research nor the Institute of Public Affairs think-tank discussed the most interesting data they garnered from polling on free speech and reform to Section 18C.Andrew Jakubowicz, Professor of Sociology, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/604422016-06-07T03:29:48Z2016-06-07T03:29:48ZWith friends like these: just how close are the Liberal Party and IPA?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125289/original/image-20160606-8272-rb1hm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tony Abbott promised the IPA that his government would repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – only to renege on this when in government.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the latest in a long line of hyperbolic statements, Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) director John Roskam <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/02/institute-of-public-affairs-likens-coalition-to-bernie-sanders-over-superannuation">recently likened</a> the Turnbull government’s language on superannuation to that of two self-declared socialists: US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. </p>
<p>Roskam believes that Malcolm Turnbull, he of the <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/malcolm-turnbull-the-member-for-net-worth-20150917-gjou0j">A$200 million net worth</a>, would rather attack the wealthy than cut government spending.</p>
<p>Though not formally linked to the Liberal Party, the IPA is generally sympathetic to its aims and has shared many key personnel over the years. The dispute over superannuation is an interesting development in a relationship that can alternate between constructive and tense.</p>
<h2>Shared history</h2>
<p>A group of prominent Melbourne businessmen founded the IPA in 1943 in the wake of the United Australia Party-Country Party coalition’s devastating <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_1943">election loss</a>. </p>
<p>Inaugural chairman G.J. Coles (founder of the Coles supermarket chain) outlined the IPA’s approach. He <a href="http://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1210645977_document_review1968_vol.22no.2.pdf">said it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… did not wish to be directly involved in politics, but it wanted to help create a modern political faith, which would be constructive and progressive and which would receive a large measure of public support.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Concerned the Labor Party was leading Australia down a path of central planning and socialism, the IPA set out to develop and promote an alternative vision. To that end it published a 70-page pamphlet titled <a href="http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/182154">Looking Forward</a>: “a post-war policy for Australian industry”.</p>
<p>One person paying close attention was Robert Menzies, who in 1944 <a href="http://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1210645977_document_review1968_vol.22no.2.pdf">described the pamphlet as</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the finest statement of basic political and economic problems made in Australia for many years. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Many of the policies outlined in Looking Forward were incorporated into the platform of the Liberal Party, founded the following year.</p>
<p>Though the IPA and the Liberal Party were characterised in their early decades by a mildly <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html">Keynesian</a>, interventionist approach to the economy, since the 1980s both have switched to a more hardline neoliberal philosophy – embracing free markets, lower taxes and trickle-down economics. </p>
<h2>Shared personnel</h2>
<p>David and Rod Kemp, sons of the IPA’s founder and driving force C.D. “Ref” Kemp, became key figures in both the IPA and the Liberal Party. </p>
<p>David wrote his honours thesis on the founding of the IPA, then combined an academic career with stints advising Malcolm Fraser before entering parliament in 1990. Rod took over and revitalised the IPA in 1982 before he was elected to the Senate, also in 1990. Both were ministers in the Howard government.</p>
<p>Former Liberal MP and leading economic <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-28/berg-the-dries-have-it:-the-past-and-future-of-economic-reform/7056060">“dry”</a> John Hyde ran the IPA from 1991 to 1995, before being replaced by Mike Nahan, who is now treasurer in the Western Australian Liberal government. </p>
<p>Roskam took over from Nahan in 2005, and remains in the job despite harbouring ambitions to be a Liberal MP. Having failed to win Senate preselection in 1997 and <a href="http://fddp.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/16/1065917549026.html?from=storyrhs">2003</a>, Roskam dipped his toe in the water for the blue-ribbon seats of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/howard-backs-former-aide-20090525-bktn.html">Kooyong</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/costello-to-endorse-liberal-activist-as-higgins-candidate-20090703-d7ut.html">Higgins</a> in 2009, but pulled out of both races prior to the final ballots. He also nominated for the Victorian state seat of Hawthorn <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/john-roskam-misses-liberal-party-preselection-for-victoria-seat/story-e6frgczx-1227048182102">in 2014</a>, but was again unsuccessful.</p>
<p>Roskam has overseen the recruitment of a cohort of young, media-savvy libertarians to engage more forcefully in ideological debates. Examples include <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/03/07/ipa-s-james-paterson-wins-lib-senate-spot.html">James Paterson</a>, now in Canberra having recently taken up a casual Senate vacancy, and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-19/tim-wilson-wins-liberal-preselection-goldstein-election/7260762">Tim Wilson</a>, the former Human Rights Commissioner who is almost certain to be elected to the lower house as a Liberal in July.</p>
<h2>Embarrassed on 18C</h2>
<p>When Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt was found to have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918">breached</a> Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in 2011, the IPA was outraged and immediately launched a campaign to repeal the offending section. </p>
<p>A full-page <a href="http://support.ipa.org.au/wp-content/IPA-Statement_web.pdf">advertisement</a> was taken out in The Australian. It included the names of senior Liberals such as Jamie Briggs, Michaelia Cash, Mathias Cormann, Mitch Fifield, Nick Minchin and Andrew Robb.</p>
<p>In 2013, then-opposition leader Tony Abbott <a href="https://ipa.org.au/publications/2273/coalition-failure-to-restore-free-speech">promised</a> Bolt and the IPA that, if elected, his government would repeal Section 18C. But faced with concerted opposition from ethnic communities, Abbott backed down. The IPA was <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-party-members-threaten-to-quit-party-after-tony-abbotts-backdown-on-changes-to-race-hate-laws-says-institute-of-public-affairs-20140806-3d8i7.html">furious</a> and raised funds for another full-page <a href="https://twitpic.com/e9paf9">advertisement</a>, but to no avail. </p>
<p>This odd fixation on the “<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-24/brandis-defends-right-to-be-a-bigot/5341552">right to be a bigot</a>”, combined with Abbott’s political demise, led at least one commentator to <a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/10/03/the-ipa-and-other-losers-the-tony-abbott-guard/14437944002456">conclude</a> the IPA has been relegated to the fringes of political debate.</p>
<h2>Reverting to type</h2>
<p>Since Turnbull’s elevation to the prime ministership, the IPA has shifted its focus to an issue fundamental to its membership: protecting wealth. Roskam’s Financial Review <a href="http://www.afr.com/john-roskam-j7gdt">columns</a> have become increasingly strident about the threat posed by higher taxes and the likelihood that tax rorts for the rich may be reined in.</p>
<p>This can be seen as a reversion to type for the IPA. It was founded by rich men with rich men’s interests at its core, albeit with obligatory nods to the national interest. In recent years it has become a more libertarian organisation, focused on cultural issues such as freedom of speech, civil liberties and the incursions of the “nanny state”. </p>
<p>But amid the embarrassing failure of its campaign against 18C, the IPA has discovered an old threat from a new, surprising enemy: a Liberal Party that wants to “<a href="http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/the-coalition-is-joining-labor-as-a-soak-the-rich-party-with-super-policy-20160519-goypbd">soak the rich</a>” with changes to superannuation. </p>
<p>Though Roskam <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/10/institute-of-public-affairs-plans-aggressive-superannuation-campaign">claims</a> to be fighting on a “matter of principle”, ordinary voters are likely to view this blatant attempt by the wealthy to avoid fair taxation as just as baffling as Tim Wilson’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-rights-commissioner-tim-wilson-says-race-hate-laws-are-bizarre-unequal-20140329-35qeb.html">musings</a> on the freedom to use the n-word.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominic Kelly 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 Institute of Public Affairs was founded by rich men with rich men’s interests at its core, albeit with obligatory nods to the national interest.Dominic Kelly, PhD Candidate in Politics, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.