tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/election-factcheck-2016-27402/articlesElection FactCheck 2016 – The Conversation2017-03-12T00:45:02Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/743632017-03-12T00:45:02Z2017-03-12T00:45:02ZThe Conversation’s FactCheck granted accreditation by International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160273/original/image-20170310-3703-1wdwwlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook has said being a signatory to Poynter's code of principles is a condition for being accepted as a third-party fact-checker on its network.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/esthervargasc/10948923353/in/photolist-hFw6sz-q8jyMs-5fxik-4rWiK4-39u1L1-4USXkP-pUUqXC-ayMaDJ-pU8X3S-aqykCF-5fxmY-5fxej-5fxq2-MWNqV-4APB4-74Z3Sh-a6PfMX-VsA5F-bBsnwu-dHvtNv-beVk9v-2EsH-6oA9bR-nDEban-oZ5oJ4-4oRBYD-9p9EUk-SLJyBk-dHCMz1-gMKoH2-ntxC6e-oLYSA2-fKqEDR-qu62Qk-mZCEBP-6hdKsq-3K92tp-phyqDt-aMHaiH-oLHdEZ-fUMosn-oLXpj7-4znP1S-nU75Kf-bmpkZL-j7s6pF-ibooom-9qDWdY-gJhdXA-5oSLxP">Flickr/Esther Vargas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit has become the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of only two worldwide <a href="http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">accredited</a> by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. </p>
<p>The only other fact-checking team accredited under this process is the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/">Washington Post’s Fact Checker</a>.</p>
<p>The accreditation process is part of a broader effort by media outlets to restore reader trust in a world where anyone can claim the title FactCheck – whether or not they have approached the task in a fair, rigorous and impartial way.</p>
<p>Facebook has <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/facebook-has-a-plan-to-fight-fake-news-heres-where-we-come-in/442649/">said</a> being a signatory to a code of principles developed by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at Poynter is a condition for being accepted as a third-party fact-checker on the social network. Facebook is partnering with news organisations in an effort to weed out so-called “fake news”.</p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TVH6Xduaz8lYxvnRfMzi85PMTxCseNoUQ-gcdqIsnoI/edit?usp=sharing">The accreditation</a> means The Conversation’s unique approach to fact checking has been assessed by an external panel as compliant with the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">code of fact-checker’s principles,</a> which require non-partisanship, fairness, transparency of funding, sources and methods, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.</p>
<p>Accredited organisations can use the International Fact-Checking Network’s verification badge to demonstrate compliance with the principles.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The verification badge that may only be shown by fact-checking units that have passed the application and accreditation process managed by the International Fact-Checking Network at the Poynter Institute.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Acclaim on behalf of the IFCN</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In its application for verified status, The Conversation described its unique <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">methodology</a>, in which we ask academics with subject expertise to test claims by public figures against the evidence, and seek sources and comment from the person we are fact-checking. The draft is then blind reviewed by a second expert who doesn’t know the identity of the lead author. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYLdaZWt9H8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The external assessor <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-dqYAuRL4RxWWtJSHZpamdzTTU1TEM4UGFsd1NwN2Fwak00/view">described</a> the The Conversation as “a refreshing combination of journalistic writing with academic expertise” and praised the peer-review process, commenting: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This gives it an additional layer of protection in the realm of fact-checking and presenting non-partisan information on a variety of key subjects to a worldwide audience… The Conversation’s experts analyse the claims and then provide a “verdict” about whether the statement(s) was false, overstated or correct, noting the grey areas in how those facts may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented, which is an additional layer I found the public could find useful.</p>
<p>I have to say as a college professor (now) and journalist (then), this combination of fact-checking through an expert and peer-review is one of the more innovative models I have encountered or read about. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Conversation’s verified status is valid for one year, after which it will be reviewed. You can read more about the International Fact-Checking Network’s admissions process <a href="https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/facebook-launches-a-new-disputed-tag-to-combat-fak.html">here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Conversation’s FactCheck has become the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of only two worldwide accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network at the US-based Poynter Institute.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/705932016-12-26T21:54:36Z2016-12-26T21:54:36ZYear in Review: FactCheck and the weasel-words, cherry-picking and overstatements of 2016<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150852/original/image-20161220-24310-1gl71mm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Conversation published 29 FactChecks over the eight week federal election campaign</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>2016 was the year of “<a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">post-truth</a>” politics, of <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/2016-lie-year-fake-news/">fake news</a> and “<a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/rendezview/out-of-the-way-logic-feelpinions-are-taking-over/news-story/6f4d0d5ba933b9a381b4581266fde0d1">feelpinions</a>”. But while facts may have fallen out of fashion abroad, the popularity of The Conversation’s FactCheck articles show that many Australians still expect and demand their politicians stick to some sort of mutually agreed upon reality.</p>
<p>Bald-faced lies are, thankfully, fairly rare in Australian politics. Being caught in an outright fib or blooper is still seen as shameful. The problem in Australia is that facts and statistics are frequently twisted to paint a misleading picture. </p>
<p>Weasel-words, cherry-picking and overstatements are common. Our politicians and lobby groups are masterful at disguising opinion and ideology as fact, and making statements that, ultimately, aren’t checkable. These tactics are harder to spot, but equally dangerous.</p>
<p>Sometimes FactCheck finds politicians and other public figures to be completely correct. We should recognise and commend leaders who use facts accurately, in context and tell the whole story. That’s when Australians have the best chance of making informed decisions about their country.</p>
<p>2016 was a federal election year in Australia, and our academic experts worked harder than ever during the marathon political campaign. We published 29 <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/election-factcheck-2016-27402">Election FactChecks</a> over the eight week campaign, nearly one every two business days – an impressive output from our experts given the rigour of The Conversation’s FactCheck <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">process</a>. </p>
<p>We ask authors to double-check the numbers, scrutinise the fine print, play devil’s advocate, question their assumptions, produce charts, provide links, improve their sourcing, rewrite their copy for clarity – and then all FactChecks are blind reviewed. That means an independent expert academic who doesn’t know the identity of the lead author checks that the story is sound.</p>
<p>Throughout the year, we fact-checked claims about all the key issues making headlines in Australia, and cast a sceptical eye on politicians and public figures of all political stripes. <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/factcheck-qanda-6550">Our Q&A FactChecks</a>, in which we fact-checked comments made on the ABC TV show each week, commanded a large audience.</p>
<p>A few themes came up over and over again: <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-how-much-was-spent-on-the-cambodia-refugee-deal-and-how-many-were-settled-68807">refugees</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-what-are-the-real-numbers-on-refugees-and-other-migrants-coming-to-australia-66912">asylum seekers</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-welfare-recipients-owe-the-australian-government-about-3-5-billion-61906">welfare reform</a>, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-the-job-market-got-so-bad-that-people-have-stopped-looking-for-work-67457">job market</a>, the state of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-what-are-the-facts-on-jobs-and-growth-in-australia-70114">economy</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-labor-planning-to-increase-taxes-by-100-billion-over-ten-years-59159">tax</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-does-australia-have-one-of-the-most-unequal-education-systems-in-the-oecd-58156">inequality</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-eight-of-australias-12-most-emission-intensive-power-stations-closed-in-the-last-five-years-65036">energy</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-australians-with-an-average-seafood-diet-ingest-11-000-pieces-of-plastic-a-year-55145">environment</a> to name a few. </p>
<p>You can read a list of our ten best-read FactChecks of 2016 at the end of this article. Some personal favourites that didn’t make the top ten include our 2016 <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-you-tell-fact-from-fiction-take-the-conversation-2016-factcheck-quiz-to-find-out-70212">FactCheck Quiz</a> produced by Deputy FactCheck Editor Lucinda Beaman; a FactCheck on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-refugees-cost-australia-100m-a-year-in-welfare-with-an-unemployment-rate-of-97-54395">welfare cost and unemployment rate of refugees</a>; a <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-suicide-one-of-the-leading-causes-of-maternal-death-in-australia-65336">handful</a> of FactChecks on <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-lyle-shelton-right-about-transgender-people-and-a-higher-suicide-risk-after-surgery-55573">suicide</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-eating-disorders-have-the-highest-mortality-rate-of-all-mental-illnesses-66495">risk</a>; one on how <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-australia-among-the-only-major-advanced-economies-where-pollution-levels-are-going-up-59731">emissions are tracking around the world</a>; a FactCheck on projected <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-as-the-climate-changes-are-750-million-refugees-predicted-to-move-away-from-flooding-63400">climate change refugee numbers</a>; a FactCheck on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-does-the-government-spend-more-on-negative-gearing-and-capital-gains-tax-discounts-than-on-child-care-or-higher-education-61009">“cost” of negative gearing</a>; an evidence-based analysis of <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-could-a-vote-among-under-30s-in-australia-possibly-deliver-a-greens-prime-minister-60256">whether a vote among under 30s could deliver a Greens prime minister</a>; and a FactCheck on <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-use-of-antibiotics-in-general-practice-20-above-the-oecd-average-68657">antibiotic overuse</a> in Australia. </p>
<p>FactCheck owes a debt of gratitude to our interns, who pore over transcripts, monitor the media and help track down expert authors to write the FactChecks. A special thanks to Jennifer Cooke, who helped coordinate FactCheck coverage as Deputy FactCheck Editor during the federal election and to the generous 3,500 readers who donated to a crowd-funding effort that allowed Lucinda Beaman to be hired as ongoing Deputy FactCheck Editor. </p>
<p>Most importantly, thank you to all our readers, who believed in 2016 that facts still matter.</p>
<h2>Top 10 best-read FactChecks of 2016</h2>
<ol>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-30-of-northern-territory-farmland-and-22-of-tasmanian-farmland-foreign-owned-65155">FactCheck: Is 30% of Northern Territory farmland and 22% of Tasmanian farmland foreign-owned?</a> By Bill Pritchard, University of Sydney, Erin Smith, University of the Sunshine Coast (reviewed by Jeffrey Wilson).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-are-many-refugees-illiterate-and-innumerate-59584">Election FactCheck: are many refugees illiterate and innumerate?</a> By Georgina Ramsay, University of Newcastle (reviewed by Lucy Fiske).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-has-the-nbn-been-delayed-59906">Election FactCheck Q&A: has the NBN been delayed?</a> By Rod Tucker, University of Melbourne (reviewed by Thas Ampalavanapillai Nirmalathas)</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-what-are-the-real-numbers-on-refugees-and-other-migrants-coming-to-australia-66912">FactCheck Q&A: what are the real numbers on refugees and other migrants coming to Australia?</a> Khanh Hoang, Australian National University (reviewed by Sara Davies)</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-the-australian-sex-party-right-about-religious-organisations-tax-and-record-keeping-61427">Election FactCheck: is the Australian Sex Party right about religious organisations, tax and record-keeping?</a> By Bronwen Dalton, University of Technology Sydney (reviewed by Ann O'Connell).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-one-in-three-age-pensioners-living-under-the-poverty-line-65715">FactCheck Q&A: are one in three age pensioners living under the poverty line?</a> By Rafal Chomik, UNSW Australia (reviewed by Ben Phillips).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-global-demand-for-coal-still-going-through-the-roof-60234">Election FactCheck Q&A: is global demand for coal still going through the roof?</a> By Lynette Molyneaux, The University of Queensland (reviewed by John Rolfe).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-it-true-australias-unemployment-payment-level-hasnt-increased-in-over-20-years-59250">Election FactCheck Q&A: is it true Australia’s unemployment payment level hasn’t increased in over 20 years?</a> By Peter Whiteford, Australian National University (reviewed by Gerry Redmond).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-australia-among-the-lowest-taxing-countries-in-the-oecd-59229">Election FactCheck Q&A: is Australia among the lowest-taxing countries in the OECD?</a> By Helen Hodgson, Curtin University (reviewed by Kevin Davis).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-has-the-coalition-presided-over-the-most-sustained-fall-in-australian-living-standards-since-records-began-60327">Election FactCheck: Has the Coalition presided over the most sustained fall in Australian living standards since records began?</a> By Peter Whiteford, Australian National University (reviewed by Roger Wilkins).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You can read all our 2016 FactChecks on our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">FactCheck page</a>.</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/70593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Bald-faced lies are fairly rare in Australian politics but, in 2016, weasel-words and cherry-picking were common. Politicians and public figures are experts at disguising opinion and ideology as fact.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/702122016-12-16T03:31:24Z2016-12-16T03:31:24ZCan you tell fact from fiction? Take The Conversation 2016 FactCheck quiz to find out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150436/original/image-20161216-26056-1pmnjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who got their facts right in 2016?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://urbanlight.net.au/">Chris Zissiadis, urbanlight photography</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>2016 was the year that gave us “post-truth” as the <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year</a>, assurances that people “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA">have had enough of experts</a>”, and an increasingly powerful tide of <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/2016-lie-year-fake-news/">fake news</a>. </p>
<p>Through all this, FactCheck ploughed on. Our experts fact-checked the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/election-factcheck-2016-27402">2016 Australian federal election</a>, claims from lobby groups, and assertions across the political spectrum. All FactChecks are <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">blind reviewed</a> by a second expert to ensure accuracy.</p>
<p>We think facts matter more than ever. So who got it right and who got it wrong in 2016?</p>
<p>Take The Conversation’s 2016 FactCheck quiz to find out. </p>
<iframe width="100%" height="1000" id="enp-quiz-iframe-266" class="enp-quiz-iframe" src="https://engagingnewsproject.org/quiz-embed/266"></iframe>
<p>Read the full FactCheck articles here:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Would backpackers be <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-would-backpackers-be-better-off-working-in-australia-than-nz-england-or-canada-69332">better off working in Australia</a> than NZ, England or Canada?</p></li>
<li><p>Have average out-of-pocket costs for GP visits <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-average-out-of-pocket-costs-for-gp-visits-risen-almost-20-under-the-coalition-66278">risen almost 20%</a> under the Coalition?</p></li>
<li><p>Has the Grand Mufti of Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-has-the-grand-mufti-of-australia-condemned-terrorist-attacks-overseas-62688">condemned terrorist attacks overseas</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Do eating disorders have the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-eating-disorders-have-the-highest-mortality-rate-of-all-mental-illnesses-66495">highest mortality rate</a> of all mental illnesses?</p></li>
<li><p>How unusual is <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-how-unusual-is-compulsory-voting-and-do-90-of-new-zealanders-vote-without-it-62443">compulsory voting</a>, and do 90% of New Zealanders vote without it?</p></li>
<li><p>Are one in three age pensioners <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-one-in-three-age-pensioners-living-under-the-poverty-line-65715">living under the poverty line</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Have eight of Australia’s 12 most emission intensive power stations <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-eight-of-australias-12-most-emission-intensive-power-stations-closed-in-the-last-five-years-65036">closed in the last five years</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Does the government spend <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-does-the-government-spend-3-billion-each-year-on-the-offshore-asylum-seeker-detention-system-61677">$3 billion each year</a> on the offshore asylum seeker detention system?</p></li>
<li><p>Is the Australian Sex Party right about <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-the-australian-sex-party-right-about-religious-organisations-tax-and-record-keeping-61427">religious organisations, tax and record-keeping</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-crime-getting-worse-in-australia-60119">crime getting worse</a> in Australia?</p></li>
<li><p>Is <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-global-demand-for-coal-still-going-through-the-roof-60234">global demand for coal</a> still going through the roof?</p></li>
<li><p>Is Australia among the <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-australia-among-the-lowest-taxing-countries-in-the-oecd-59229">lowest-taxing countries in the OECD</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is a week’s worth of Newstart equal to what a politician can claim for <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-a-weeks-worth-of-newstart-equal-to-what-a-politician-can-claim-for-one-night-in-canberra-64598">one night in Canberra</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-australias-foreign-debt-nearly-1-trillion-up-from-74-billion-last-year-60250">foreign debt nearly $1 trillion</a>, up from $74 billion last year?</p></li>
<li><p>Has the <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-has-the-nbn-been-delayed-59906">NBN been delayed</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is Australia the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-australia-the-world-leader-in-household-solar-power-56670">world leader in household solar power</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Has the level of casual employment in Australia stayed steady for the past <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-the-level-of-casual-employment-in-australia-stayed-steady-for-the-past-18-years-56212">18 years</a>? </p></li>
<li><p>Can foreign seafarers be paid <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-can-foreign-seafarers-be-paid-2-an-hour-to-work-in-australian-waters-under-laws-passed-by-labor-55939">$2 an hour</a> to work in Australian waters, under laws passed by Labor?</p></li>
<li><p>Does Australia run one of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-australia-run-one-of-the-most-generous-student-loan-schemes-in-the-world-52696">most generous student loan schemes</a> in the world?</p></li>
<li><p>Are Australians <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-australians-paying-twice-as-much-for-electricity-as-americans-69980">paying twice as much</a> for electricity as Americans?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>For all our FactCheck coverage, click <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">here</a>.</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/70212/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Who got it right and who got it wrong in 2016? Take The Conversation’s 2016 FactCheck quiz to find out.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/616772016-06-30T01:42:32Z2016-06-30T01:42:32ZElection FactCheck: Does the government spend $3 billion each year on the offshore asylum seeker detention system?<blockquote>
<p>The Greens will reinvest the $3 billion the government spends each year on its cruel offshore detention centre regime. <strong>– The Greens’ leader, Senator Richard Di Natale, <a href="http://greens.org.au/news/vic/beyond-two-party-system">speaking</a> at the National Press Club, June 23, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Greens leader Richard Di Natale used his National Press Club speech to highlight a key area of policy difference between the Greens and the major parties, describing as “cruel” the offshore asylum seeker detention system supported by the Labor and Liberal parties.</p>
<p>Di Natale said the government spends $3 billion each year on the “offshore detention centre regime”. </p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support Di Natale’s figure of $3 billion, a spokesperson for The Greens readily admitted it was an error. She said Di Natale meant to say offshore detention cost about $3 billion over the forward estimates (the next four years).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A good catch by The Conversation. We’ve had a look and that was a genuine error in the speech. It should read “over the forward estimates” not “each year”. We’ll be correcting it online, to reflect our other materials <a href="http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/20160607_A%20Better%20Way%20for%20People%20Seeking%20Asylum_1.pdf">here</a> and <a href="http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/A%20Better%20Way.pdf">here</a>, which have the correct figure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What are the real numbers on the cost of offshore detention each year?</p>
<h2>How much does offshore detention cost?</h2>
<p>For every federal budget, each government department produces a portfolio budget statement outlining its costs and spending plans. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/budget/2016-17-pbs-full.pdf">Portfolio Budget Statements 2016-17 for the Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio</a>, shown in the table below, put estimated actual spending for offshore management of IMAs (illegal maritime arrivals, which is what the government calls asylum seekers who arrive by boat) at $1.078 billion for the 2015-16 financial year.</p>
<p>It is expected to fall to about $880 million in the 2016-17 financial year, the document says.</p>
<p>This table shows how much the department intends to spend (on an accrual basis) on some of the programs involved in achieving what it calls Outcome 1.</p>
<p>Outcome 1 is defined as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Protect Australia’s sovereignty, security and safety by managing its border, including through managing the stay and departure of all noncitizens.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128450/original/image-20160628-7857-1rlkc9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128450/original/image-20160628-7857-1rlkc9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128450/original/image-20160628-7857-1rlkc9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128450/original/image-20160628-7857-1rlkc9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128450/original/image-20160628-7857-1rlkc9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128450/original/image-20160628-7857-1rlkc9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128450/original/image-20160628-7857-1rlkc9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128450/original/image-20160628-7857-1rlkc9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some of the budgeted expenses for Outcome 1.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/budget/2016-17-pbs-full.pdf">Department of Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio Budget Statements 2016-17.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Please note that the above table is just a portion of budgeted expenses for achieving Outcome 1. You can see the full table on page 27 of <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/budget/2016-17-pbs-full.pdf">the report</a>. Total expenses for Outcome 1 for the year 2015-16 are budgeted to be about $4.15 billion.</p>
<p>Adding together the projected cost of offshore detention for the years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 gets you a figure of about $3 billion for the forward estimates. </p>
<p>That is the figure of “$3 billion” Di Natale’s speech referred to, but as his spokesperson points out, he erroneously described it as an annual figure instead of the cost over the forward estimates. </p>
<p>So the real annual cost of offshore detention is currently about $1.078 billion.</p>
<p>That estimate is supported by this Parliamentary Library <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201617/Immigration">document</a>, which shows a figure of around $1.1 billion for offshore management of IMAs.</p>
<p>The latest annual <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/annual-reports/DIBP-Annual-Report-2014-15.pdf">report</a> for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection puts the actual spending for offshore management of IMAs at $1.034 billion in 2014-15.</p>
<h2>Onshore management</h2>
<p>As outlined in the table above, the department also estimates that for the year 2015-16 it will spend about $1.24 billion on <em>onshore</em> management of asylum seekers who arrive by boat.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting that from July 2016 onwards, it will be harder to see at a glance how much the government spends on onshore management of asylum seekers. That’s due to budget restructuring, meaning there will no longer be a separate budget item called “onshore management of IMAs”. As the figure below shows, that funding will now be reported, together with some other costs, under the broader “Program 1.3 Onshore Compliance and Detention”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128791/original/image-20160630-15282-l498l6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128791/original/image-20160630-15282-l498l6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128791/original/image-20160630-15282-l498l6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128791/original/image-20160630-15282-l498l6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128791/original/image-20160630-15282-l498l6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128791/original/image-20160630-15282-l498l6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128791/original/image-20160630-15282-l498l6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128791/original/image-20160630-15282-l498l6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=676&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How the Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio will report slightly differently in the 2016-2017 budget, compared to 2015-2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/budget/2016-17-pbs-full.pdf">Portfolio Budget Statements 2016-17, Budget Related Paper No. 1.11 Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio, page 25</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>You can read more about that change on pages 24-25 of the <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/budget/2016-17-pbs-full.pdf">Portfolio Budget Statement</a>.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>As his spokesperson readily admitted, Richard Di Natale was wrong to say that the government spends $3 billion each year on the offshore detention centre scheme. The figure is closer to $1.078 billion for the year 2015-16. </p>
<p>Spending on offshore management of boat arrivals is estimated to be close to $3 billion over the forward estimates. <strong>– Fabrizio Carmignani</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound analysis of the budget for processing and management of asylum seekers and refugees in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. It is important to note that the government is also spending large amounts of money on other operations falling within <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/about/operation-sovereign-borders">Operation Sovereign Borders</a> such as disruption of people smuggling operations, border patrols, interceptions and boat turnbacks.</p>
<p>Australia also <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/56715cb79.html">contributes</a> <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/575e74567.pdf">to</a> the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has said it is <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2015/12/56711bf96/donors-promise-initial-6872-million-unhcr-operations-2016-highest-amount.html">struggling to cover the cost of assisting</a> high numbers of displaced people. <strong>– Mary Anne Kenny.</strong></p>
<p><em>*Correction and Editor’s note: This article was corrected on July 1 to replace the figure of “$880,509” for offshore detention of IMAs for 2016-17 with the real figure of “$880 million”. We also corrected the figure of offshore cost of offshore management of IMAs in 2014-15 from “$1.034” to at “$1.034 billion”. The Conversation apologises for these editing errors and thanks reader Glenn Wilson for alerting us to them. The verdict remains unchanged. This story was updated on June 30 at 1:20pm to add additional information about how onshore management costs will be reported differently in the federal budget from July 2016 onwards (the section beginning with “It’s worth noting…”).</em></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/61677/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrizio Carmignani receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the estimation of the piecewise continuous linear model and its macroeconomic applications.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary Anne Kenny receives sitting fees from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. She has received grant funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Was Greens leader Richard Di Natale right to say the government spends $3 billion each year on the “offshore detention centre regime”?Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612992016-06-28T04:33:42Z2016-06-28T04:33:42ZElection FactCheck: Has the Coalition invested an average of $5 billion more per year into Medicare than Labor did?<blockquote>
<p>And for the record, despite Labor’s scare campaigns, the Coalition is investing an average of $5 billion more per year into Medicare than Labor did. <strong>– The Liberal Party of Australia’s <a href="https://medium.com/@LiberalAus/three-labor-lies-about-healthcare-a1c02b22541c#.viwfux6xk">Medium page</a>, June 19, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Liberal Party has said that it is investing $5 billion more per year on average into Medicare than Labor did.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>We asked the Liberal Party to provide the sources of the statement but we did not receive a reply before publication. However, we can test this against the available data that tracks Medicare expenditure.</p>
<h2>The meaning of ‘Medicare’</h2>
<p>One major uncertainty in the claim is that there are different definitions of what constitutes Medicare. </p>
<p>The two major areas we are focusing on as representing Medicare expenditure are the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS). The MBS covers expenditure on medical services, and includes things like professional attendances, diagnostics and therapeutic procedures, while the PBS pays for drugs. The government budgetary definition of Medicare spending is only for the MBS. However, we believe the PBS is likely to be contained within the Liberal Party figure of $5 billion. </p>
<p>One area we are assuming is not included is state spending on public hospitals; if we were to include this, it may increase the difference in total spending between the two periods.</p>
<p>Below, the term PBS refers to both the PBS and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (RPBS), which provides for certain classes of Department of Veterans’ Affairs beneficiaries. </p>
<h2>Tracking annual spending on the MBS, PBS and RPBS</h2>
<p>We therefore take the statement by the Liberal Party to mean that the sum of MBS, PBS and RPBS expenditure has increased by an annual average of $5 billion – but note the uncertainty in the definition.</p>
<p>The Department of Human Services provides month by month <a href="http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/mbs_item.jsp">figures</a> on government expenditure for the MBS, PBS and RPBS. </p>
<p>Aggregate figures for this are shown below by quarter since January 2008 until the most recent complete quarter (ending March 2016). The transition point between the second Rudd government and the Abbott one is marked approximately on the graph with the vertical blue line.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127679/original/image-20160622-19783-1xec1co.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127679/original/image-20160622-19783-1xec1co.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127679/original/image-20160622-19783-1xec1co.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127679/original/image-20160622-19783-1xec1co.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127679/original/image-20160622-19783-1xec1co.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127679/original/image-20160622-19783-1xec1co.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127679/original/image-20160622-19783-1xec1co.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127679/original/image-20160622-19783-1xec1co.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Aggregate PBS/MBS/RPBS expenditure by quarter (2008 Q1-2016 Q1)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Medicare spending under Labor</h2>
<p>Labor was in power between December 3, 2007, and September 18, 2013. To approximate this period, we used data from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2013 to represent Medicare expenditure under the Labor government. (We used January 1 rather than the December 1 as some data sources report quarterly data, and January 1 lines up with this.)</p>
<p>Over the period of the Labor government, total PBS/RPBS spending was <a href="http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/do.jsp?_PROGRAM=%2Fstatistics%2Fpbs_group_standard_report&group=0&VAR=BENEFIT&RPT_FMT=1&start_dt=200801&end_dt=201309">$46.577 billion</a>, and total MBS spending was <a href="http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/do.jsp?_PROGRAM=%2Fstatistics%2Fmbs_group_standard_report&DRILL=on&GROUP=all+Medicare+by+MBS+categories&VAR=benefit&STAT=count&RPT_FMT=by+state&PTYPE=quarter&START_DT=200801&END_DT=201309">$93.931 billion</a>. This comes to $140.508 billion, which on an annual basis (based on a figure of 5.75 years to represent the period Labor was in power), is an average spend of $24.436 billion per year. </p>
<h2>Medicare spending under the Coalition</h2>
<p>For the period between October 2013 and May 2016 (representing the period when the Coalition has been in power), total spending under the MBS was <a href="http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/do.jsp?_PROGRAM=%2Fstatistics%2Fmbs_group_standard_report&DRILL=on&GROUP=all+Medicare+by+MBS+categories&VAR=benefit&STAT=count&RPT_FMT=by+state&PTYPE=month&START_DT=201310&END_DT=201605">$54.448 billion</a>, and total PBS/RPBS spending was <a href="http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/do.jsp?_PROGRAM=%2Fstatistics%2Fpbs_group_standard_report&group=0&VAR=BENEFIT&RPT_FMT=1&start_dt=201310&end_dt=201605">$26.713 billion</a>. </p>
<p>This totals $81.161 billion over two years and eight months, or $30.435 billion per year.</p>
<p>So, using our definition of what constitutes Medicare, the difference between the average annual Medicare spend under Labor and the average annual Medicare spend under the Coalition is about $5.999 billion per year.</p>
<p>Using these data, the claim made by the Coalition is true.</p>
<h2>Context matters</h2>
<p>However, it is not clear whether this increase in spending represents either an increase in spending per person, or an increase in service delivery. All we know so far is that the total dollar amount is bigger. </p>
<p>The Australian population has increased between the two time periods, meaning the per capita Medicare expenditure will not have increased at quite the same impressive-sounding rate as the raw figure of an average of $6 billion per year.</p>
<p>The second factor to consider is the rising cost of health care.</p>
<p>After adjusting for inflation and population growth, the average extra Medicare expenditure will be more modest than that indicated by the raw figures. And health costs are rising faster than inflation.</p>
<p>In other words, more Australians than before are accessing Medicare and most unit costs are likely to have, on average, risen. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Without knowing the source for the Liberal Party’s claim, it was difficult to know what its “average of $5 billion more per year” claim was based on.</p>
<p>Assuming the claim refers to the sum of MBS, PBS and RPBS spending, the Liberal Party is correct. </p>
<p>Using our definition of what constitutes Medicare spending, the difference between the average annual Medicare spend under Labor and the average annual Medicare spend under the Coalition is about $6 billion per year.</p>
<p>However, care must always be taken drawing conclusions from the raw dollar amounts, since they do not take into account changing population size and inflation. <strong>– Richard Norman and Rachael Moorin</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The authors have valiantly attempted to fulfil a tricky brief because of the ambiguity of the claim. It is a sign of Australia’s complex health care system when we can’t even be precise about what constitutes Medicare funding. </p>
<p>As noted by the authors, there are different definitions of what constitutes Medicare. Here, the authors have assumed it means spending on the MBS and PBS/RPBS. On this basis they compare average annual MBS/PBS funding during the Gillard/Rudd era with funding during the Abbott/Turnbull era. The authors find that the Liberal Party has underestimated the additional annual spent by around $1 billion.</p>
<p>However, if we restrict the claim to Medicare spending only (excluding PBS/RBS spending), the average annual difference between the Abbott/Turnbull and Gillard/Rudd era is $4.13 billion - which implies that the claim is exaggerated by about 21%. </p>
<p>Under a broader definition of Australian government health spending, <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/fbo/html/index.htm">Budget Outcomes data</a> reveals totals of $62.012 billion (2011-12), $61.302 billion (2012-13), $63.983 billion (2013-14) and $65.696 billion (<a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/fbo/html/index.htm">2014-15</a>). Under this definition, and comparing the last two years of the Gillard/Rudd era with the first two years of Abbott era, the increase in annual health funding is substantially less than $5 billion.</p>
<p>This brings us to the futility of the claim itself. I agree with the authors that the claim needs be considered in the context of population growth and price increases. After taking these two factors into account, expenditure has increased by a modest amount. While funding health care is an important issue, the claim made by the Liberal Party says nothing about whether the additional funding is delivering greater access to better health care. <strong>– Kees Van Gool</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/61299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Norman receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachael Moorin receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Australia.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kees Van Gool receives funding from the Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Health through a Centre for Research Excellence under the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute. The information and opinions contained in it do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute or the Commonwealth of Australia or the Department of Health.</span></em></p>Has the Coalition invested an average of $5 billion per year more than Labor into Medicare?Richard Norman, Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics, Curtin UniversityRachael Moorin, Associate Professor, Health Policy & Management | School of Public Health, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/613602016-06-27T23:53:29Z2016-06-27T23:53:29ZElection FactCheck: has the Coalition cut bulk-billing for pathology and scans ‘to make patients pay more’?<blockquote>
<p>In their first term in office the Liberals … cut bulk-billing payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging to make patients pay more. – <strong>Shadow health minister Catherine King, <a href="http://www.catherineking.com.au/media/malcolm-cannot-be-trusted-on-medicare/">media release</a>, June 20, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The opposition has released political ads accusing the government of planning to privatise Medicare and warning of higher health costs in future – a campaign Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/scare-campaign-could-hamper-attempts-to-boost-medicares-efficiency/news-story/fe9e1ae2b30ee2e2f8ec9aa817448579">called</a> “extraordinarily dishonest.” </p>
<p>As part of Labor’s Medicare campaign, shadow health minister Catherine King said that the government has “cut bulk-billing payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging to make patients pay more”. Incentives worth between $1.40 to $3.40 are paid direct to pathology service providers to encourage them to bulk-bill. </p>
<p>Is King right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>The Conversation asked Labor campaign media for sources to support Catherine King’s statement but did not hear back before deadline. </p>
<p>Health Minister Sussan Ley has <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2016-ley001.htm">argued</a> that bulk-billing incentives are not meant to be used to cross-subsidise other costs of doing business for <a href="https://theconversation.com/true-blood-cutting-through-confusion-about-pathology-cuts-55140">large companies</a> – some of which are owned by private equity firms – at a time when health care costs are growing.</p>
<h2>From ‘Don’t Kill Bulk Bill’ to a deal on rent</h2>
<p>In its December 2015 <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/download/MYEFO_2015-16_Final.pdf">Mid-Year Economic Fiscal Outlook</a>, the Coalition government announced a suite of bulk-billing changes aimed at saving $650 million over four years. It proposed removing bulk-billing incentives for pathology and diagnostic imaging services.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127652/original/image-20160622-19786-1usxxbd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127652/original/image-20160622-19786-1usxxbd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127652/original/image-20160622-19786-1usxxbd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127652/original/image-20160622-19786-1usxxbd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127652/original/image-20160622-19786-1usxxbd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127652/original/image-20160622-19786-1usxxbd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127652/original/image-20160622-19786-1usxxbd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127652/original/image-20160622-19786-1usxxbd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&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.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/download/MYEFO_2015-16_Final.pdf">MYEFO 2015-16</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pathology Australia, which includes big players such as Genea and Sonic Healthcare Group among its members, has been central to how this issue has unfolded. Pathology Australia says its member organisations perform a majority of pathology testing within the private sector.</p>
<p>Pathology Australia collected nearly 600,000 signatures for its “<a href="http://www.dontkillbulkbill.com/">Don’t Kill Bulk Bill</a>” campaign, which warned that patients would face expensive pap smears and other costly tests due to government’s removal of the bulk-billing incentive for pathology services.</p>
<p>In May, Pathology Australia <a href="http://www.pathologyaustralia.com.au/2016/05/13/patients-win-in-pathology-announcements/">closed</a> its Don’t Kill Bulk Bill campaign after striking a <a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2016/05/13/coalitions-plan-access-affordable-pathology-all-australians">deal</a> with the government, aimed at ensuring pathology service providers who co-located their collection rooms inside a GP’s building were charged “fair market value” rents.</p>
<p>The bulk-bill incentive removal is still going ahead, but the idea is that many pathology service providers may now be better able to absorb the cost if they’re getting a cheaper deal on rent – instead of passing the extra cost onto patients. </p>
<p>Nick Musgrave, president of Pathology Australia, told The Conversation that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Decisions regarding billing practices are made by individual pathology providers … The regulatory changes announced by the Coalition to control excessive rents for pathology collection rooms will enable providers to more readily maintain current billing practices as would the maintenance of current funding. In the absence of either of these measures, providers had indicated they would not have been able to maintain current high levels of bulk-billing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Musgrave said the deal to regulate rents for collection rooms will “more readily enable pathologists to maintain current billing practices” whether or not they are members of Pathology Australia. (You can read his full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-pathology-australia-61438">here</a>.)</p>
<p>But some other pathology service providers have said the deal with the government doesn’t take them into account.</p>
<h2>Not all pathologists</h2>
<p>Pathology is no longer a small industry, with the Sonic group reporting annual revenue of about <a href="http://www.sonichealthcare.com/about-us/corporate-overview/">$4 billion</a> – but not all businesses are on this scale.</p>
<p>Catholic Health Australia is one of the service providers that says the deal doesn’t take them into account. This group also represents pathology service providers, including many in regional and rural areas.</p>
<p>According to its spokesman:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Independent and not-for-profit pathology providers may have to adopt co-payments simply in order for their services to remain viable … Turnbull’s deal with ‘the pathology sector’ was made without taking not-for-profit providers into account.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The group said that the rents deal will:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>disproportionately assist the larger corporate providers and will not be sufficient to adequately offset the cuts imposed on smaller providers by removing the bulk-billing incentives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read Catholic Health Australia’s full comment <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-catholic-health-australia-61439">here</a>.</p>
<p>So, whether or not you’ll pay more for pathology tests after July 1 depends mostly on who owns that practice or pathology service provider, and whether they can afford to absorb the cost of the changes themselves or choose to pass on these costs to patients.</p>
<p>Labor has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/federal-election-labor-promises-to-continue-funding-bulkbilling-incentives-for-pathology-radiology-20160618-gpmd3m.html">pledged</a> to reverse cuts to the Medicare Benefits Schedule pathology bulk-billing incentives – which it believes will improve access to bulk-billed pathology services, but would also drive up the cost to taxpayers. </p>
<p>Others, such as the Grattan Institute, <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/935-blood-money.pdf">argue that</a> there are ways save money in pathology, saying that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>patient co-payments for tests should be abolished. Patients aren’t the real consumers of pathology tests – the doctors who order and use them are. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What about scans?</h2>
<p>The rents deal struck between the government and Pathology Australia doesn’t cover scans.</p>
<p>Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association (ADIA), which represents private providers of radiology services, <a href="http://www.adia.asn.au/public/3/system/newsAttachments/ADIA%20Pathology%20Deal%20Response%20May16.pdf">said</a> the rents deal was “cold comfort for the millions of patients needing vital radiology services”. </p>
<p>The government plans to remove bulk-billing incentive payments for radiology services in January 2017. However, ADIA has <a href="http://www.adia.asn.au/public/3/system/newsAttachments/050616_FINAL_ADIA%20welcomes%20Coalition%20commitment%20on%20access%20to%20diagnostic%20i%20....pdf">secured</a> a commitment from the government to “work with the diagnostic imaging sector on structural reforms to provide patients with certainty on affordable access to services”.</p>
<p>The review will happen before January 2017.</p>
<p>ADIA has also said that patient rebates for diagnostic imaging have been frozen since 1998, with patient gaps now averaging <a href="http://www.adia.asn.au/public/3/files/ADIA%20Rebate%20Response%2031May16.pdf">$100</a>, and has voiced concern that Labor’s pledge to reverse the decision to remove the bulk-billing incentive does not go far enough. Labor has said it will restore indexation in January 2017 to all services provided by GPs, allied health and other health practitioners and medical specialists – but that scans are not included.</p>
<p>ADIA has <a href="http://www.adia.asn.au/public/3/system/newsAttachments/100616%20ADIA%20calls%20Labor%20failure%20to%20index%20DI%20a%20broken%20promise%20on%20Medicare....pdf">called</a> on Labor to expand its indexation election promise to include diagnostic imaging service providers too.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Catherine King was right to say that in its first term of office, the Coalition government cut bulk-billing payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging. That is scheduled to come into effect on July 1, 2016, for pathology services and in January 2017 for radiology services.</p>
<p>But the second part of her statement – “to make patients pay more” – didn’t tell the whole story. Pathology Australia’s deal with the government on rent regulation means some pathologists may be able to keep bulk-billing. Others, however, may not. </p>
<p>Whether or not patients will pay more as a result of the bulk-billing incentive removal depends on whether your pathology or radiology service provider passes on the cost to customers. <strong>– Helen Dickinson</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck. I would further note that the Grattan Institute <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/935-blood-money.pdf">reports</a> that almost 99% of pathology tests for out-of-hospital patients are bulk-billed, an increase from 93% a decade ago.</p>
<p>St John of God, a large not-for-profit health group, is <a href="http://www.clinicallabs.com.au/media/1037/australian-clinical-labs-media-statement-22nd-june-2016.pdf">selling</a> its pathology operations to Clinical Labs. The removal of the bulk-billing incentive payment may have put them in a position where they would have passed increased costs onto patients. </p>
<p>The unmentioned driver behind the rising cost to the health budget of pathology bulk-billing is clinicians practising <a href="http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2014/may/we-live-in-testing-times/">defensive medicine</a> – GPs and specialists reasonably ordering tests “to be sure” or “safe”, even where it may not be needed.<strong>– Bruce Baer Arnold</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/61360/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Dickinson receives funding from the federal Department of Health.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold 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>Labor’s shadow health minister Catherine King, said that the government has “cut bulk-billing payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging to make patients pay more”. Is that right?Helen Dickinson, Associate Professor, Public Governance, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/610092016-06-20T06:40:12Z2016-06-20T06:40:12ZElection FactCheck Q&A: does the government spend more on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts than on child care or higher education?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127081/original/image-20160617-11135-1gqbwfi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Was Bill Shorten right about federal government spending on negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions?</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/N2qF9b0VqN0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, June 13, 2016.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>… This nation, when you look at what we give in the form of tax concession, tax subsidy on negative gearing and capital gains tax discount, is spending more at the Commonwealth level on negative gearing and CGT discount than we are on child care or higher education. <strong>– Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4454321.htm">speaking</a> on Q&A, June 13, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Opposition Leader Bill Shorten told Q&A viewers (watch from 6:26 in the clip above) that the federal government spends more on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts than it does on child care or higher education.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support Shorten’s statement, an ALP spokesperson said the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/time-to-fix-australias-unaffordable-capital-gains-tax-and-negative-gearing-policies/">Grattan Institute has estimated</a> the cost of the capital gains tax and negative gearing concessions at $11.7 billion per year.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Treasury’s tax expenditure <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/%7E/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2016/Tax%20Expenditures%20Statement%202015/Downloads/PDF/2015_TES.ashx">statement</a> (TES) lists the cost of the capital gains tax discount as $6.15b for 2015-16. The TES does not list the cost of negative gearing, but using Grattan’s total figure and subtracting the value of the capital gains tax discount, this shows that the cost of negative gearing is around $5.5 billion… this cost exceeds the cost of child care assistance or university education as per the budget papers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the longer response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-labor-spokesperson-61201">here</a>. </p>
<p>So, does federal government spending on child care or higher education outstrip the cost of revenue forgone due to negative gearing and capital gains tax (CGT)?</p>
<h2>How much does the government spend on child care subsidies?</h2>
<p>This year’s budget showed the federal government is estimated to spend about $8.2 billion on child care fee assistance in 2016-17. That’s comprised of about $4.2 billion for the child care benefit and about $3.9 billion for the child care rebate. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126455/original/image-20160614-17209-1gramrh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126455/original/image-20160614-17209-1gramrh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126455/original/image-20160614-17209-1gramrh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126455/original/image-20160614-17209-1gramrh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126455/original/image-20160614-17209-1gramrh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126455/original/image-20160614-17209-1gramrh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126455/original/image-20160614-17209-1gramrh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126455/original/image-20160614-17209-1gramrh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&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.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/download/bp1.pdf">Budget Paper 1, 2016-17 Federal Budget.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Here’s a graph produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office showing how the cost of child care subsidies is projected to change over time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126458/original/image-20160614-29225-1v45yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126458/original/image-20160614-29225-1v45yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126458/original/image-20160614-29225-1v45yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126458/original/image-20160614-29225-1v45yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126458/original/image-20160614-29225-1v45yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126458/original/image-20160614-29225-1v45yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126458/original/image-20160614-29225-1v45yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126458/original/image-20160614-29225-1v45yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=438&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.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Budget_Office/Chart_packs">Parliamentary Budget Office</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How much does the government spend on higher education?</h2>
<p>This year’s budget shows that the federal government is estimated to spend about $9.5 billion on higher education in 2016-17, an amount which is fairly stable over the forward estimates period. It is projected to be about $9.4 billion by 2019-20.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126647/original/image-20160615-22416-5uy7q4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126647/original/image-20160615-22416-5uy7q4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126647/original/image-20160615-22416-5uy7q4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=231&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126647/original/image-20160615-22416-5uy7q4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=231&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126647/original/image-20160615-22416-5uy7q4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=231&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126647/original/image-20160615-22416-5uy7q4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126647/original/image-20160615-22416-5uy7q4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126647/original/image-20160615-22416-5uy7q4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=290&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.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/download/bp1.pdf">Budget paper 1, 2016-17 federal budget.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Here’s a graph produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office showing how the cost of higher education expenses is projected to change over time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126648/original/image-20160615-22411-1qzpsjt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126648/original/image-20160615-22411-1qzpsjt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126648/original/image-20160615-22411-1qzpsjt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126648/original/image-20160615-22411-1qzpsjt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126648/original/image-20160615-22411-1qzpsjt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126648/original/image-20160615-22411-1qzpsjt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126648/original/image-20160615-22411-1qzpsjt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126648/original/image-20160615-22411-1qzpsjt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=420&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.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/54%20Parliamentary%20Depts/548%20Parliamentary%20Budget%20Office/Reports/Research%20reports/Chart%20packs/2016-17%20Budget%20-%20charts/201617%20Budget%20%20charts%20PDF.pdf?la=en">Parliamentary Budget Office</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How much do negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions cost the government in revenue forgone?</h2>
<p><strong>Capital gains tax:</strong> As Labor’s spokesperson says, the Treasury’s 2015 tax expenditure <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/%7E/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2016/Tax%20Expenditures%20Statement%202015/Downloads/PDF/2015_TES.ashx">statement</a> (TES) lists the cost of the capital gains tax discount as $6.15 billion for 2015-16.</p>
<p>According to Treasury’s estimates of tax expenditures, the “cost” associated with the capital gains tax discount for individuals and trusts is estimated to be $6.8 billion in 2016-17, rising to $9.09 billion in 2019-20. Note that this estimate does not include any estimate for the concessional treatment of owner-occupied housing.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126660/original/image-20160615-22398-cw74xm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126660/original/image-20160615-22398-cw74xm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126660/original/image-20160615-22398-cw74xm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126660/original/image-20160615-22398-cw74xm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126660/original/image-20160615-22398-cw74xm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126660/original/image-20160615-22398-cw74xm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126660/original/image-20160615-22398-cw74xm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126660/original/image-20160615-22398-cw74xm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=429&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.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/download/bp1.pdf">Budget Paper 1, 2016-17 federal budget.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Negative gearing:</strong> This is where it gets tricky. Treasury does not regard negative gearing as a “tax expenditure” and thus does not provide any estimates for the “revenue foregone” as a result of it. So we have to look at other sources for estimates.</p>
<p>Labor has inferred from the Grattan Institute’s <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/time-to-fix-australias-unaffordable-capital-gains-tax-and-negative-gearing-policies/">report</a> that the cost of negative gearing is around $5.5 billion ($11.7 billion minus the $6.15 billion cost of the CGT discount).</p>
<p>Labor did not provide The Conversation with any Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates on the cost of negative gearing to The Conversation. Labor’s spokesman said only that the PBO estimated Labor’s plan to restrict negative gearing to new property and to halve the capital gains tax discount could raise $565 million over the forward estimates.</p>
<p>The Greens put the cost of negative gearing at somewhere around <a href="http://greens.org.au/news/wa/budget-abandons-housing-affordability">$4 billion a year</a>.</p>
<p>A 2015 <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/Top%20Gears%20-%20How%20Negative%20Gearing%20and%20CGT%20benefits%20top%2010%20per%20cent.pdf">report</a> by The Australia Institute said that modelling by National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) estimated that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>negative gearing of residential investment property is currently reducing tax revenue by $3.7 billion per year.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ben Phillips, Associate Professor at the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods (who previously conducted the NATSEM modelling quoted by The Australia Institute), <a href="http://rsss.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Distributional_Modelling%20_Negative_Gearing_and_Capital_Gains.pdf">reported</a> in February 2016 that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We estimate that in 2017-18 the total tax savings from negatively gearing properties is $4.3 billion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And I have previously <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=99cfa3f6-858f-467d-91a9-31e384534a5e&subId=31798">estimated</a> that negative gearing costs more than $5 billion per annum in revenue forgone – although that estimate was for the 2010-11 financial year when interest rates were considerably higher than they are today. It was also a “gross” figure that did not allow for the impact of interest expenses being carried forward to be offset against future capital gains tax liabilities. </p>
<p>So what’s the combined cost of negative gearing and CGT? Nobody knows for sure. It could be as high as $11.7 billion, as the Grattan Institute has <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/report/hot-property/">said</a>. It could also be lower.</p>
<h2>So does CGT and negative gearing cost more than child care or higher education?</h2>
<p>This year’s budget showed the federal government is estimated to spend about $8.2 billion on child care fee assistance and about $9.5 billion on higher education in 2016-17.</p>
<p>Using the estimates outlined above, the combined annual effective cost of negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to the public purse in revenue foregone is somewhere between about $9 billion and $11.7 billion (although no-one knows for sure because of differing opinions on the cost of negative gearing).</p>
<p>So Shorten’s statement that Australia is “spending more at the Commonwealth level on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts than we are on child care or higher education” is likely to be somewhere in the ball park – but it’s impossible to say conclusively. </p>
<h2>A word of caution</h2>
<p>It’s worth remembering that none of the major parties are advocating scrapping negative gearing altogether. </p>
<p>And finally, it is worth drawing attention to Treasury’s <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/html/bp1_bs4-04.htm">caution</a> that its estimates of tax expenditures such as the capital gains tax discount assume that taxpayer behaviour is unaffected by the existence of the concessional tax treatment. That assumption that may not be valid in practice, so that these estimates: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>do not indicate the revenue gain to the budget if specific tax expenditures were to be abolished…. care needs to be taken when comparing tax expenditures with direct expenditures as they may measure different things.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Is Australia “spending more at the Commonwealth level on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts than we are on child care or higher education”?</p>
<p>Nobody knows for sure, because of the difficulty in measuring exactly how much negative gearing tax breaks cost the federal government every year in revenue foregone. (Treasury cautions against comparing tax expenditures with direct expenditures as they may measure different things.)</p>
<p>Using available estimates, however, Bill Shorten’s statement is probably in the ballpark. <strong>– Saul Eslake</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>I agree with this assessment of the statement. There are official estimates on the projected spending on childcare, education and the revenue foregone in relation to the capital gains tax discount, although as Treasury notes these figures may not be directly comparable. It is more difficult to estimate the foregone revenue in relation to negative gearing as there are no official estimates. Each model will come up with a different estimate based on the parameters used for the estimate.</p>
<p>I would also caution that the statement by Bill Shorten should be read in conjunction with proposed ALP policies in these areas. In particular, tax concessions on negative gearing and the CGT discount will be pared back but negative gearing will still be available to taxpayers currently holding investment properties, and the CGT discount will be halved but not removed. </p>
<p>Given the difficulties in identifying the cost of negative gearing and the problems inherent in comparing data measured differently, the statement is within reasonable estimates. <strong>– Helen Hodgson</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/61009/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Hodgson receives funding from AHURI. Helen is a member of the Tax Advisory Panel for ACOSS and the Social Polcy Committee of the National Foundation for Australian Women. She was a member of the Legislative Council in Perth from 1997 to 2001, elected as an Australian Democrat. She is not currently a member of any polictical party.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saul Eslake 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>Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said that Australia spends more at a Commonwealth level on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts than it does on child care or higher education. Is he right?Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/611582016-06-16T11:46:28Z2016-06-16T11:46:28ZJust the facts, ma'am: a guide to The Conversation’s FactCheck process<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150844/original/image-20161219-24276-144i22y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">All our FactChecks are blind reviewed by a second expert</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gato-gato-gato/14690786428/in/photolist-oob7Zb-4bBYuk-82GaBd-dQVikx-j6vbuk-9Nus2W-5Jz27p-5uSUAo-KLqgJ-8nynbz-62WnVA-44QJD-7LHQdT-8MExEF-avd5xS-62Sb4n-2oRvhD-7MMrxX-7xWwNm-r7fyRD-7wRY4d-yU2P2-qQiTSo-avd5kU-7rMAZ5-8xRCUN-6NuevW-6DTxEa-chA5ow-5vqAG-6ha58M-9twBci-4HvP2Z-dAUQp1-7MMs2k-31r4RN-6gSMFM-pQpkyi-kncdh-it14QJ-6VKHWz-6PBKsC-6Nfhhu-fBeQEB-4LCLPM-fNBhuh-2oVT8Q-prn8bx-k9CJv3-fbygYa">Tobi Galke/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s now a vast <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2015/fact-checkers-of-the-world-unite/379716/">network</a> of factcheck units around the world, operating in myriad different languages. However, none have a process quite like ours at The Conversation.</p>
<p>I’m The Conversation’s FactCheck Editor, so of course I’d say that. But don’t take my word for it. Ask Alexios Mantzarlis, chief of the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2015/fact-checkers-of-the-world-unite/379716/">International Fact-Checking Network</a> at the prestigious <a href="http://www.poynter.org/">Poynter Institute</a> in the US, who has studied most of the factcheck units operating across the globe. His take on our process? </p>
<p>“The Conversation’s approach is a unique and fascinating model, and one that fact-checkers around the world could benefit from observing,” he said, noting that our blind review process was what made us different.</p>
<p>Alexios asked me to describe The Conversation’s fact checking process in detail for an article he was writing. You can read his write-up <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/should-journalists-outsource-fact-checking-to-academics/391230/">here</a> and Twitter discussion about it <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poynter.org%2F2016%2Fshould-journalists-outsource-fact-checking-to-academics%2F391230%2F&src=typd">here</a>. I’ve reproduced below what I told him about our process (with a few edits for clarity). </p>
<p>I hope you enjoy reading our FactChecks as much as I do editing them. </p>
<hr>
<p>The Conversation has quite a lengthy and structured process. I’ll break it down here, step by step.</p>
<h2>Find the claim</h2>
<p>It must be a quote from a politician, or other influential person in society. We don’t fact check “ideas” or concepts, we fact check quotes from people. We first assess whether the claim is actually checkable (is there a data set or a body of research evidence against which this claim could be checked?) and also whether or not there’s sufficient public interest in it. It’s no use trying to commission a FactCheck on a quote like “Australia has the best maternity leave policy in the OECD”. Phrases like “the best” are not checkable, they’re too subjective. It’s also better to try to avoid, where possible, attempting to fact check the future.</p>
<h2>Find and commission the academic author</h2>
<p>Once you have a claim worth checking, find an academic with the right expertise to research and write it up. This often involves contacting a few academics to find one who can be dispassionate in their approach and chat about how they’d tackle it, how quickly they could do it and what data sets they’d use to test the assertion. Then we commission the story. Our briefs are often quite detailed, and ask the authors to source every assertion they make in their FactCheck and answer specific questions, and steer clear of opinion, commentary and speculation. The FactChecks are not about how things “should” be, they’re about how things are. They’re about testing statements against the evidence and conveying those findings in plain English to a general audience, with a nice short verdict at the end. The verdict doesn’t always have to be “right” or “wrong”. It could be something more nuanced than that. This is about educating the audience, not trying to win a “gotcha” moment. No jargon, no emotive language, and keep it tight – preferably around 800 words. </p>
<h2>Seek sources and comment</h2>
<p>Contact the person whose claim you’re fact checking, or their spokesperson. Best to do this by email so there’s an email trail showing you went to them for comment. Explain you’ve commissioned the FactCheck and ask them a) for a data source to support the assertion you’re fact checking and b) whether there’s any further comment they’d like us to include in the story. Often we cannot include their full answer in the main article because of word length limits but we can include part of it and then tell the reader to click on a link to read the answer in full. Allow the person you’re fact checking sufficient time to reply.</p>
<h2>Find the blind reviewer</h2>
<p>While the academic is working away on the FactCheck, find a second academic with similar expertise to be the blind reviewer. It’s very important the blind reviewer does not know the identity of the author of the main article. This often means not disclosing the gender of the main author and trying where possible to find a blind reviewer academic from a different university or state from the main author. I’ll always impress upon them the importance of them staying naive to the name of the main author. This blind reviewer also needs to be dispassionate, not activist, in their approach to writing the article.</p>
<h2>Edit with a critical eye</h2>
<p>When the main author academic files his or her piece, I will edit it. That usually means putting a nice lead on it, editing out any opinion or jargon that’s crept in. I also put on my “Devil’s Advocate” hat and read the piece with a very critical eye and try to find holes in the author’s argument or weaknesses in their own sourcing. Once I have a version I am happy with, I send it back to the academic to check and hopefully approve. If they want further changes, we workshop those together.</p>
<p>At this point, I’ll often ask the opinion of a senior colleague. I’ll ask them to read over what we have got so far and see if they can identify weaknesses or suggest changes for clarity. This is a valuable step.</p>
<h2>Get it blind reviewed</h2>
<p>Once it’s looking good and the academic has approved it, I’ll take all the names off it and send it to the blind reviewer. They read over the anonymous draft and check the author “got it right”. Have they sourced their assertions properly? Did they cherry-pick the data? Did they accurately convey the evidence-based consensus among experts or have they gone out into fringe territory? Is there a way to communicate these ideas more clearly? If the reviewer sees room for improvement, they convey that to me and I workshop those improvements with the original academic author. If the blind reviewer is happy with the FactCheck, they write a short one-par review at the end saying something like “This is a sound analysis” and adding any further points they feel are needed. </p>
<h2>Get a fresh pair of eyes on it</h2>
<p>Then I ask a senior colleague to copytaste it. That means edit it for errors, look at it with fresh eyes to see if any of it is speculation passed off as fact, find holes in the argument, look for potential legal problems. If they see problems, we go back to the first author and get them to fix it, and then run those fixes past the blind reviewer, then it goes back to the copytaster.</p>
<p>If the copytaster finds no problems, we ask the author and the blind reviewer to have one final, forensic read-through of the whole thing and stress that this is their very last chance to fix any potential problems before publication. If there’s anything they’re not rock-solid, stand-up-in-court-and-say-it certain about, I ask them to delete it: when in doubt, take it out.</p>
<h2>Publish</h2>
<p>After the author and the blind reviewer have approved the final version, we publish and distribute on social media.</p>
<h2>And if something goes wrong?</h2>
<p>If we become aware that a correction is needed, we consult first with the author of the article to find the most accurate wording. We correct the article and note at the foot of the article it has been corrected, and how. Corrections are very rare, but when they do occur the response from readers is generally very positive – readers appreciate an honest and open corrections policy.</p>
<p>What do you think? Please share your thoughts and feedback in the comments section below.</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/61158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
There’s now a global network of factcheck units, operating in myriad different languages. However, none have a process quite like ours at The Conversation. Here’s a step-by-step guide to how we do it.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/608662016-06-15T20:08:15Z2016-06-15T20:08:15ZElection FactCheck: are larger, more frequent storms predicted due to climate change?<blockquote>
<p>Certainly larger and more frequent storms are one of the consequences that the climate models and climate scientists predict from global warming. But you cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming, so let’s be quite clear about that. <strong>– Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, <a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/doorstop-with-premier-hodgman-and-minister-for-justice-latrobe-tasmania">speaking</a> to reporters in Tasmania on June 9, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the aftermath of the deadly East Coast Low that swamped eastern Australia, dumping massive amounts of rain in early June, the prime minister toured flood-affected Launceston and announced emergency relief funding.</p>
<p>Turnbull told reporters that larger and more frequent storms were forecast by climate scientists but cautioned that no individual storm could be attributed to global warming.</p>
<p>Is he right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>The Conversation asked the prime minister’s office for sources to support his statement but did not hear back before publication deadline. Nevertheless, we can test his statement against recent published and peer-reviewed research on this question.</p>
<p>The science shows that, just like real estate, climate change is all about location. Different parts of Australia will be affected in different ways by climate change. </p>
<p>And global warming will have different effects on different types of weather systems.</p>
<p>Let’s break Turnbull’s statement into two parts: is it true that we can expect larger and more frequent storms as a consequence of global warming? And is it possible to attribute a specific storm to global warming?</p>
<h2>Can we expect larger and more frequent storms as a result of global warming?</h2>
<p>Yes – but not for all regions or types of storms.</p>
<p>There are many types of storms that affect different parts of Australia, among them East Coast Lows, mid-latitude cyclones (a category that includes cyclones that happen in the latitudes between Australia and Antarctica), tropical cyclones, and associated extreme rainfall events. Each will be affected in a different way by climate change, and the effect will vary by region and by season. </p>
<p><strong>On East Coast Lows:</strong> Acacia Pepler, who is studying extreme rainfall and East Coast Lows in relation to climate change, recently <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-role-of-climate-change-in-eastern-australias-wild-storms-60552">wrote</a> in The Conversation that her <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067267/full">research</a> showed that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… East Coast Lows are expected to become less frequent during the cool months May-October, which is when they currently happen most often. But there is no clear picture of what will happen during the warm season. Some models even suggest East Coast Lows may become more frequent in the warmer months. And increases are most likely for lows right next to the east coast – just the ones that have the biggest impacts where people live.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For all low-pressure systems near the coast, “most of the models we looked at had no significant change projected in the intensity of the most severe East Coast Low each year,” Pepler wrote.</p>
<p><strong>On mid-latitude cyclones:</strong> Another <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl.341/full">study</a> predicted that the overall wind hazard from mid-latitude cyclones in Australia will decrease – except in winter over Tasmania. </p>
<p><strong>On tropical cyclones:</strong> Northern Australia is <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0129.1">expected</a> to get fewer cyclones in future – but their maximum wind speeds are expected to become stronger. </p>
<p><strong>On rainfall:</strong> Scientists tend to be quite confident that climate change will be accompanied by an increase in <a href="http://www.nature.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2976.html">extreme rainfall for most storms</a> <em>in future</em>. One of the main reasons for this is that increased temperatures will cause increased evaporation. While the total amount of water held in the atmosphere will also increase slightly in future, the total amount of rain has to go up too.</p>
<h2>Is it true you can’t attribute any particular storm to global warming?</h2>
<p>Turnbull is correct. We cannot say for sure that a particular flooding rainfall event was solely “caused” by climate change, any more than we can say for certain that a particular car accident was solely caused by speeding (even if excessive speed was a likely or even major contributing factor).</p>
<p>Evidence for the effects of global warming on extreme rainfall events that have already occurred is <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2976.html">currently equivocal</a> for most regions.</p>
<p>According to a collection of <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00094.1">studies</a> published in 2015:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A number of this year’s studies indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the likelihood and intensity for extreme heat waves in 2014 over various regions. For other types of extreme events, such as droughts, heavy rains, and winter storms, a climate change influence was found in some instances and not in others. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>One recent study in that report <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00094.1">found</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>evidence for a human-induced increase in extreme winter rainfall in the United Kingdom.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull was essentially correct on both points.</p>
<p>It’s true that scientists predict more frequent and intense storms for some parts of Australia as the climate changes. The evidence appears to be strong that extreme rainfall will increase. Some increases in extreme wind speeds are possible – but not in all regions or all seasons. </p>
<p>Turnbull was right to say you cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming. <strong>–Kevin Walsh</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a good FactCheck that summarises the broad conclusions from a range of studies examining the nature of current and likely future storms across Australia.</p>
<p>As the author points out, Australian storms range from tropical cyclones in the northern tropical regions to temperate east coast lows and mid-latitude cyclones. </p>
<p>The consensus regarding tropical cyclones is that they will generally decrease in frequency in the Australian region. In northeast Australia, they are forecast to experience the most dramatic decrease in frequency of any ocean basin globally. Some northern hemisphere ocean basins will see an increase in their frequency. </p>
<p>The intensity of these types of storms is expected to increase. This will not only involve higher wind speeds but also higher storm surges and floods. That will mean greater coastal impacts and damage to coastal developments and infrastructure. </p>
<p>So the prime minister’s statement about more frequent storms resulting from climate change does not apply to tropical cyclones – however, he was right to say that larger and more frequent storms are <em>one of</em> the predicted consequences of climate change. This consequence is predicted to apply to other storm categories, but not tropical cyclones. </p>
<p>And yes, climate scientists are hesitant to attribute the occurrence of any single storm to global warming. <strong>– Jonathan Nott</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/60866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Walsh receives funding from the ARC, Australian government grants and various overseas organisations.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Nott receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p>Was Malcolm Turnbull right to say that larger and more frequent storms are one of the predicted consequences of climate change – but that you can’t attribute any particular storm to global warming?Kevin Walsh, Reader, School of Earth Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/607092016-06-13T20:14:47Z2016-06-13T20:14:47ZElection FactCheck: have 50,000 full-time jobs been lost this year and are over a million people underemployed?<blockquote>
<p>On their watch… 50,000 full-time jobs have been lost this year alone. Over one million Australians are underemployed. – Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, <a href="https://www.laborherald.com.au/politics/hard-work-and-fiscal-discipline-defines-the-labor-alternative/">speech</a> to Queensland Labor Business Breakfast, June 8, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As he launched Labor’s economic plan in Brisbane, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said that under the Coalition government, 50,000 full-time jobs have been lost this year and over one million Australians are underemployed.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support Shorten’s statement, a Labor spokesperson told The Conversation that the source for 50,000 figure is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0Apr%202016?OpenDocument">Labour Force</a> data set. That data showed that between December 2015 and April 2016, full-time employment declined by 49,800 (seasonally adjusted).</p>
<p>For the statement that “over one million Australians are underemployed”, the spokesman directed The Conversation to Table 22 of the same <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0Apr%202016?OpenDocument">data set</a>, which showed the number of underemployed persons totalled 1.06 million.</p>
<p>You can read the Labor spokesman’s full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-labor-spokesman-60860">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Have 50,000 full-time jobs have been lost this year alone?</h2>
<p>As shown by the response above, recent Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) labour force figures do show that there has been a decline in the number of Australians employed full-time since the start of the year. However, the size of the decrease depends on which numbers are selected. And Shorten’s speech selectively zeroed in on a period that showed a big decline. </p>
<p>The ABS collect <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0Main+Features1Apr%202016?OpenDocument">labour force statistics</a> on a monthly basis, but adjustments are made to these estimates to take into account seasonality and previous trends. </p>
<p>Many economists would argue that the better figures to use to judge the underlying behaviour of the labour market are <em>trend estimates</em>. These estimates smooth out volatility in the seasonally adjusted estimates and are <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/6202.0Media%20Release1Dec%202015?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6202.0&issue=Dec%202015&num=&view=">preferred by the ABS</a>. </p>
<p>This chart below shows both the seasonally adjusted and trend estimates data for full-time employees in Australia over the year from April 2015 to April 2016.</p>
<h3>Number of full-time employees – April 2015 to April 2016</h3>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126066/original/image-20160610-10700-1a194cv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126066/original/image-20160610-10700-1a194cv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126066/original/image-20160610-10700-1a194cv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126066/original/image-20160610-10700-1a194cv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126066/original/image-20160610-10700-1a194cv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126066/original/image-20160610-10700-1a194cv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126066/original/image-20160610-10700-1a194cv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126066/original/image-20160610-10700-1a194cv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&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"><span class="source">Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As you can see above, Shorten was right to say that between December 2015 and April 2016, there was a fall of just under 50,000 full-time employees (using the seasonally adjusted data, shown in red).</p>
<p>But looking at the trend estimates, shown in yellow, you can see that there was a smaller decrease of around 12,900 in the number of people employed full-time between December 2015 and April 2016.</p>
<p>There is also more to the story than that.</p>
<h2>Overall, full time employment has risen ‘on the Coalition’s watch’</h2>
<p>To say that “50,000 full-time jobs have been lost this year <em>alone</em>” may suggest to some that the decline is the continuation of a longer term trend. This wouldn’t be correct. </p>
<p>The 50,000 figure is the decrease in full-time employment between December 2015 and April 2016. But if you change the parameters slightly, a different picture emerges.</p>
<p>For example, there has been a net <em>increase</em> in full-time employment between April 2015 and April 2016 of around 83,800 using seasonally adjusted figures, or 89,100 using trend estimates.</p>
<p>Extend back to September 2013 when the Coalition government came to power, and we see that full-time employment up to April 2016 has increased by 166,700 on seasonally adjusted figures or 200,500 on a trend measure. </p>
<h3>Number of full-time employees – September 2013 to April 2016</h3>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126072/original/image-20160610-2603-wnlxqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126072/original/image-20160610-2603-wnlxqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126072/original/image-20160610-2603-wnlxqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126072/original/image-20160610-2603-wnlxqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126072/original/image-20160610-2603-wnlxqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126072/original/image-20160610-2603-wnlxqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126072/original/image-20160610-2603-wnlxqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126072/original/image-20160610-2603-wnlxqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=411&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"><span class="source">Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The change in the number of people employed full-time is a net figure that captures the difference between the number of people moving into full-time employment, and the number leaving full-time employment. And those who leave full-time work may move either into part-time work, unemployment, or withdraw from the labour force altogether. </p>
<p>Between December 2015 and April 2016, the number of people employed part-time grew by 75,800 using seasonally adjusted figures, or 47,600 using the trend measure. </p>
<p>An alternative labour force indicator that captures the combined effects of changes in the full-time and part-time workforce is the total monthly hours worked in all jobs. </p>
<p>This indicator shows both the number of people working and how much they work. We have seen a decline of 14.5 million hours per month since December 2015 on this measure. This represents a fall of just under 1% - albeit after an earlier period of growth.</p>
<p>A government’s influence over the labour market is constrained by what is happening in the wider global economy. Taking credit for positive jobs growth or alternatively, laying blame when the labour market pulls back, is valid only to a certain degree. Employment over time can increase because of growth in the economy and the population, rather than through specific government action.</p>
<h2>Are more than one million Australians underemployed?</h2>
<p>Shorten’s statement that underemployment currently stands at more than one million Australians is correct. According to ABS trend estimates, the total number of underemployed people is currently 1,063,800, around 58% of whom are women.</p>
<p>Underemployment is problematic as it represents lost economic potential, with people currently in part-time employment who would actually like to work more hours but are unable to do so.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-4932.12219/abstract">recent research:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>underemployment is associated with job insecurity, increased casualisation and lower savings, and from a macroeconomic standpoint, underemployment is a signal of inefficiency in the use of skilled labour.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Examining the rate of underemployment, which compares the number of people that are underemployed to the total number of people in the labour force, is a useful assessment of the current state of underemployment in Australia. </p>
<h3>Underemployment rate - 1996 to 2016</h3>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126015/original/image-20160610-5861-y3thc1.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126015/original/image-20160610-5861-y3thc1.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126015/original/image-20160610-5861-y3thc1.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126015/original/image-20160610-5861-y3thc1.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126015/original/image-20160610-5861-y3thc1.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126015/original/image-20160610-5861-y3thc1.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126015/original/image-20160610-5861-y3thc1.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126015/original/image-20160610-5861-y3thc1.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&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"><span class="source">Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Underemployment is higher now than it has been in the last 20 years, higher even than during the Global Financial Crisis. Underemployment is particularly problematic for women, with more than 10% of women working part-time saying that they would like to work more hours.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Shorten’s statement is correct – but he has cherry-picked the data.</p>
<p>His claim that 50,000 full-time jobs have been lost this year is correct if one looks at the ABS seasonally adjusted labour force figures between December 2015 and April 2016. But trend estimates are a better data source and they show a lower fall across the same period. </p>
<p>Overall, full-time employment “on the Coalition government’s watch” has grown by 166,700 on seasonally adjusted figures or 200,500 on a trend measure.</p>
<p>Whichever party is in power, job figures are usually more heavily influenced by global factors than by specific government action. </p>
<p>Shorten’s statement that there are over one million Australians underemployed in Australia is correct. The underemployment rate is the highest that it has been in the last 20 years.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The author has done a good job on this FactCheck and points out the difficulties in comparing monthly Labour Force Survey statistics.</p>
<p>The Australian economy creates and destroys hundreds of thousands of jobs every year. The creation and destruction of jobs result from changes in consumer tastes and technological progress. It also results from the successes and failures of entrepreneurs in responding to the opportunities and challenges of shifting consumer tastes and technological change. The volume of job creation and job destruction helps explain why, during most years, the typical person who loses a job is unemployed for a relatively brief period of time.</p>
<p>When the Australian Bureau of Statistics announces each month the increases or decreases in the number of persons employed and unemployed, these are net figures. That is, the change in the number of persons employed is equal to the total number of jobs created minus the number of jobs eliminated. In <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.NSF/log?openagent&6202001.xls&6202.0&Time%20Series%20Spreadsheet&5220EF9489727EBBCA257FB7001D0359&0&Apr%202016&19.05.2016&Latest">April 2016, the trend estimate of unemployment</a> was 726,600 people or 5.7% of the labour force.</p>
<p>The shortcomings of the unemployment rate as an estimate of excess supply of labour are well known to labour economists but not widely understood by the community as a whole – or even among those regarded as informed commentators. </p>
<p>For instance, in the Labour Force Survey (from which the unemployment estimates are derived) it is only necessary to have worked for one hour in the survey week to be classified as “employed”. In order to be classified as “unemployed”, respondents must pass a number of tests regarding their readiness for work and their efforts to actively seek work. </p>
<p>“Underemployed” means people who are employed part-time but who would like to and are ready to work more hours, including full-time. It also includes those who normally work full-time but at the time of the survey, because of economic circumstances, are working part-time.</p>
<p>In April 2016 an estimated 1.063 million people, or 8.4% of the labour force, were underemployed. </p>
<p>The sum of the unemployed rate and the underemployed rate is the <em>underutilisation</em> rate, which in April 2016 was 14.2%, or about 1.8 million people.</p>
<p>So the extent of the unemployment problem is somewhere between about 700 thousand and 1.8 million people.</p>
<p>This might be interpreted as strengthening Bill Shorten’s argument but the degree of labour market underutilisation is not a new phenomenon. It has been of this order of magnitude for decades under governments of both persuasions. </p>
<p>A combination of external shocks, globalisation, structural and technical change has significantly changed the nature of demand for labour. Meanwhile, inflexibilities in the labour market have prevented adjustment to these demand changes. The month by month fluctuations in the labour market are of little significance compared to these large scale structural problems in the Australian labour market. <strong>– Phil Lewis</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/60709/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Duncan is the Director of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre. The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre is an independent economic and social research organisation located within Curtin Business School at Curtin University. The Centre was established in 2012 with support from Bankwest (a division of Commonwealth Bank of Australia) and Curtin University. The views in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affiliates.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Cassells is Principal Research Fellow at the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre. The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre is an independent economic and social research organisation located within Curtin Business School at Curtin University. The Centre was established in 2012 with support from Bankwest (a division of Commonwealth Bank of Australia) and Curtin University. The views in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affiliates.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phil Lewis does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. He also has no relevant affiliations. During his career he has received funding from many private and public sector organisations including most recently the ARC, NCVER, DEEWR, the AFPC, ABLA and CPA Australia.
</span></em></p>Was Opposition Leader Bill Shorten right about full time job losses and underemployment under the Coalition government?Alan Duncan, Director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and Bankwest Research Chair in Economic Policy, Curtin UniversityRebecca Cassells, Associate Professor, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/607002016-06-10T04:44:13Z2016-06-10T04:44:13ZElection FactCheck: is it true no solely managed Commonwealth fishery is subject to overfishing?<blockquote>
<p>Monitoring of our fisheries’ health has demonstrated that no solely-managed Commonwealth fishery is subject to overfishing <strong>– Senator Anne Ruston, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, <a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2016/06/04/coalition-strengthen-recreational-fishers-voice">media release</a>, June 4, 2016.</strong> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources Anne Ruston said no solely-managed Commonwealth fishery is subject to overfishing. </p>
<p>Is she correct? </p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support her assertion, a spokesperson for Senator Ruston pointed The Conversation the <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications/display?url=http://143.188.17.20/anrdl/DAFFService/display.php?fid=pb_fsr15d9abm_20151030.xml">Fishery Status Reports 2015</a>, which says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In 2014, 65 stocks were assessed across the 9 fisheries managed by AFMA [the Australian Fisheries Management Authority] on behalf of the Australian Government. Of these:</p>
<ul>
<li>55 stocks (85%) were classified as not subject to overfishing, and 46 stocks (71%) were classified as not overfished; of these, 44 stocks were both not subject to overfishing and not overfished</li>
<li><strong>no stocks were classified as subject to overfishing, and 7 stocks (11%) were classified as overfished; this is the second time that no solely Australian Government–managed stocks have been subject to overfishing since 2006</strong></li>
<li>10 stocks (15%) were classified as uncertain with regard to the level of fishing mortality, and 12 stocks (18%) were classified as uncertain with regard to the level of biomass; of these, 3 stocks were uncertain with regard to both fishing mortality and biomass. [Emphasis added]</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<h2>Commonwealth fisheries</h2>
<p>Commonwealth fisheries are managed by the federal government, as distinct from fisheries managed by the states and territories. </p>
<p>Commonwealth fisheries are only a modest player in Australian seafood production so Senator Ruston’s claim shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting there’s no overfishing in Australia.</p>
<p>Commonwealth wild catch commercial fisheries make up about 28% of the Australian <a href="http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aam/afstad9aamd003/2014/AustFishAquacStats_2014_v1.0.0.pdf">production</a> but this is mainly high volume, low value product. </p>
<p>Around 14% of the gross value of Australian commercial seafood production comes from Commonwealth fisheries – less than that of Tasmania, South Australia or Western Australia. And that’s without considering economically important recreational fisheries managed by the states and territories. </p>
<h2>‘Overfishing’ vs ‘overfished’ vs ‘sustainable’</h2>
<p>Defining whether a fishery is overfished or sustainable is not clear cut. There are different definitions from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even within Australia. A recent global <a href="http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0062#.V1Zg8_l95aQ">review</a> of what sustainability actually means in fisheries concluded that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the sustainability of seafood production depends not on the abundance of a fish stock, but on the ability of the fishery management system to adjust fishing pressure to appropriate levels.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is important with regard to Senator Ruston’s claim, because she talked about “overfishing”, not whether Commonwealth stocks are “overfished” – that is, she was referring to the current levels of fishing pressure, not the current levels of stock.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/domestic/hsp.pdf">Commonwealth fisheries harvest policy</a> emphasises this distinction and measures whether a fish stock is “overfished” by the biomass or tonnage of stock, and “overfishing” by the fishing mortality or what proportion of the stock is removed each year. </p>
<p>This draws a line between mistakes that may have occurred in the past versus current management of harvesting that should ideally correct any historical overfishing. </p>
<h2>Is there overfishing of any Commonwealth fisheries?</h2>
<p>The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (<a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares">ABARES</a>) produces <a href="http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aam/fsrXXd9abm_/fsr15d9abm_20151030/00_FishStatus2015_1.1.0_LR.pdf">annual assessments</a> on the status of 92 Commonwealth fish stocks. </p>
<p>It says that 12 stocks or 13% have been overfished, including some well-known species like Orange Roughy. More recently, Orange Roughy has been a management success with catches reduced and stock recovery well-established. So, although they <em>were</em> overfished, there is no longer overfishing. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125829/original/image-20160609-3497-15iestx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125829/original/image-20160609-3497-15iestx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125829/original/image-20160609-3497-15iestx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125829/original/image-20160609-3497-15iestx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125829/original/image-20160609-3497-15iestx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125829/original/image-20160609-3497-15iestx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125829/original/image-20160609-3497-15iestx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125829/original/image-20160609-3497-15iestx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An Orange Roughy ready for sale.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But this isn’t the case for all Commonwealth fisheries. Two Commonwealth fisheries are assessed as currently subject to overfishing – Striped Marlin in the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery, and Bigeye Tuna in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. </p>
<p>Both are covered by Senator Ruston’s caveat around whether the fish stock is <em>solely managed by the Commonwealth</em> because they’re part of larger stocks harvested by other countries. </p>
<p>The Australian Bigeye Tuna catch is only one-third of 1% of the total catch from a huge stock that spans the western and central Pacific. As with many Commonwealth fisheries, the allowable annual quota is rarely taken. This is due to markets and business structures, not stock abundance. Less than half the allowable catch was taken in the most recent year.</p>
<p>There is overfishing of Striped Marlin with around 4,000 tonnes taken by several countries across the Indian Ocean. The Australian catch, however, was less than a single tonne in the last year. So it’s reasonable for Senator Ruston to distance Australian fisheries management from these two fisheries where overfishing is occurring.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125831/original/image-20160609-3492-qrogq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125831/original/image-20160609-3492-qrogq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125831/original/image-20160609-3492-qrogq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125831/original/image-20160609-3492-qrogq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125831/original/image-20160609-3492-qrogq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125831/original/image-20160609-3492-qrogq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125831/original/image-20160609-3492-qrogq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bigeye tuna.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Uncertainty</h2>
<p>There are two issues of uncertainty regarding overfishing of Commonwealth fish stocks. Firstly, there’s uncertainty around classification of 10 stocks managed by the Commonwealth. Their status is not clearly defined. It’s possible some of them are subject to overfishing, although catches are controlled and considered to be conservative. </p>
<p>Secondly, uncertainty surrounds the definition of “overfishing” used by the Commonwealth, which is different from that of some other jurisdictions and from the understanding or expectation of much of the public. The Commonwealth considers that overfishing occurs when the fishery is no longer able to produce its maximum sustainable yield – a very conservative and commercial perspective. Elsewhere, including in nationwide reporting of <a href="http://fish.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx">fish stocks</a>, the bar is set lower and the “overfishing” label only applies when spawning adults are so depleted that future production of juvenile fish is reduced.</p>
<p>If fisheries were a cattle farm, the Commonwealth criteria would say there was a problem if the farm could be managed better and produce more income, whereas many other jurisdictions would only consider there was a problem if the future productivity of the farm was harmed, say by overgrazing. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Senator Ruston has accurately quoted from the Fishery Status Reports 2015. It’s true that “no solely-managed Commonwealth fishery is subject to overfishing”, even by the Commonwealth’s conservative definition of overfishing. </p>
<p>However, there is some uncertainty about the classification of some Commonwealth-managed fish stocks. <strong>– Caleb Gardner</strong> </p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The author’s comments present a sound summary of the current situation in relation to the status of both “overfishing” and “overfished” in Commonwealth managed fisheries. However, there are a few points are worth mentioning.</p>
<p>Current management of harvesting can correct current overfishing and it should be able to correct the impact of historical overfishing, but it cannot correct that that overfishing did occur. So although Orange Roughy were overfished, there is no longer overfishing and the impact of earlier overfishing is being corrected. </p>
<p>It’s true Striped Marlin and Bigeye Tuna are harvested by other countries and this is the cause of the overfishing problem. However, what is more pertinent to the senator’s comment is that the total stocks of these species are managed by international bodies and not the Australian government.</p>
<p>A decade ago there were many Commonwealth fisheries subjected to overfishing as assessed by the same criteria that are currently used; now there are none.</p>
<p>If overfishing is detected, it can be fixed with the traditional fisheries management techniques covered in Australian fisheries legislation. <strong>– Bob Kearney</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/60700/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caleb Gardner is a member of the Small Pelagic Fishery Scientific Committee of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bob Kearney receives funding from the Sydney Fish Market and previously received considerable funding from numerous Commonwealth and state government fisheries and conservation organisations and international fisheries research and management bodies and limited funding from the South Australian lobster fishery.</span></em></p>Was Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources Anne Ruston right to say that no solely-managed Commonwealth fishery is subject to overfishing?Caleb Gardner, Principle Research Fellow, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/607012016-06-09T04:18:34Z2016-06-09T04:18:34ZElection FactCheck: has $100 billion been added to Australia’s national debt under the current government?<blockquote>
<p>On their watch… $100 billion has been added to the national debt. <strong>– Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, <a href="https://www.laborherald.com.au/politics/hard-work-and-fiscal-discipline-defines-the-labor-alternative/">speech</a> to Queensland Labor Business Breakfast, June 8, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>During a speech launching Labor’s economic plan, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said that under the Coalition government, $100 billion has been added to Australia’s national debt. </p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support Shorten’s statement, a Labor spokesperson told The Conversation that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The 2013 <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-2013">Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook</a> statement showed net government debt at the time of the last election was $184 billion. The 2016 Budget, and Treasury’s <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2016/PEFO-2016">independent PEFO</a> which came out three weeks later, showed net debt for 2015-16 will be $285.8 billion – a blowout of more than $100 billion by the Liberals in less than three years.</p>
<p>The Budget papers also show that in 2016-17, on the Liberals’ plans, net debt will reach 18.9% of GDP – the highest level since at least 1970 and higher than under any Labor Government in the last 45 years.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Is the claim accurate?</h2>
<p>Shorten’s comment that “$100 billion has been added to the national debt” is correct, but it doesn’t quite tell the whole story. </p>
<p>$100 billion as a round number is a fair characterisation of the difference between net government debt in 2013 and in 2016.</p>
<p>It’s good that the Labor spokesperson clarified that Shorten was talking about net debt, not gross debt – but that wasn’t immediately clear when Shorten first made the comment. </p>
<p>It is net debt, not gross debt, that really matters. Net debt takes account of the fact that foreigners owe us money, too. Just as you count money in your mortgage offset accounting when figuring out how much you “net” owe the bank, so should we do as a nation when looking at government debt.</p>
<p>This is particularly important since the <a href="http://www.futurefund.gov.au/">Future Fund</a>, Australia’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, is valued at around <a href="http://www.futurefund.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/7319/2016_Portfolio_update_to_31_March_A487158.pdf">$117 billion</a>. The fund has been earning strong returns, so this number has grown over the last three years.</p>
<p>And it is not net debt in total that is relevant, but net debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. That number has been growing, too. </p>
<p>It now stands at 18.3% (shown in the government chart below) up from just over <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2015/April/gov-debt-position">10% in 2013</a>. However, it is low in comparison to other countries, as the following chart illustrates. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=601&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="https://www.austrade.gov.au/images/UserUploadedImages/3766/BM2016-SECTION-1_pg11.jpg">Austrade, www.austrade.gov.au</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Bill Shorten is correct that Australian government net debt has grown by about $100 billion under the Coalition government. But net debt to GDP remains low by international standards. It is getting high by Australian historical standards, which underlines the need to solve the structural budget deficit problem. <strong>– Richard Holden</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>I think that this article provides an accurate check of Shorten’s statement.</p>
<p>The statement can be verified from the Pre-Election Fiscal and Economic Outlook papers of <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-2013">2013</a> (Table 7) and <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2016/PEFO-2016">2016</a> (Table 6). The data show that net debt effectively increased from $184 billion before the 2013 election to the current level of $285.8 billion. Further support for the statement comes from the 2016-17 Budget Paper 1, Statement 10, <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/html/bp1_bs10-03.htm">Table 4</a>, which shows that net debt was $153 billion at the time of the last Labor budget.</p>
<p>The author is also correct in pointing out that as a proportion of GDP, net debt in Australia is low by international comparison. Data from the <a href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/index.aspx">April 2016 issue</a> of the World Economic Outlook Database of the International Monetary Fund indicate that out of 27 advanced economies for which data are available, Australia has the sixth lowest level of debt as a proportion of GDP (19.9%, 2016 estimate). To me, this suggests that the approach to fiscal policy should focus on undertaking <a href="http://www.investorwords.com/1166/countercyclical.html">counter-cyclical</a> measures – meaning reducing spending and raising taxes in boom times, while increasing spending and cutting taxes when the economy slows – rather than reducing debt in itself. <strong>– Fabrizio Carmignani</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/60701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Holden is an ARC Future Fellow.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrizio Carmignani receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the estimation of the piecewise linear continuous model and its macroeconomic applications.</span></em></p>Was Opposition Leader Bill Shorten right to say that $100 billion has been added to Australia’s national debt on the Coalition government’s watch?Richard Holden, Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/603272016-06-08T02:54:39Z2016-06-08T02:54:39ZElection FactCheck: Has the Coalition presided over the most sustained fall in Australian living standards since records began?<blockquote>
<p>If you think the party that has presided over the most sustained fall in our living standards since records began… then the Liberal Party is the party for you. – Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen, Treasurers’ Debate, May 27, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>During the Treasurers’ debate with federal treasurer Scott Morrison at the National Press Club, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said that the Liberal Party had presided over the most sustained fall in Australian living standards since records began. </p>
<p>Bowen has made <a href="http://www.chrisbowen.net/media-centre/allNews.do?newsId=7109">similar</a> <a href="http://www.chrisbowen.net/media-centre/media-releases.do?newsId=7188">claims</a> in the past. </p>
<p>Is he right?</p>
<p>It depends a bit on which dataset you’re looking at.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support his assertion, a spokesman for Bowen supplied a spreadsheet downloaded from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Mar%202016?OpenDocument">Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product</a> data set. He highlighted this column:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125309/original/image-20160606-26010-fgsdq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125309/original/image-20160606-26010-fgsdq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125309/original/image-20160606-26010-fgsdq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125309/original/image-20160606-26010-fgsdq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125309/original/image-20160606-26010-fgsdq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125309/original/image-20160606-26010-fgsdq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1268&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125309/original/image-20160606-26010-fgsdq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1268&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125309/original/image-20160606-26010-fgsdq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1268&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.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Mar%202016?OpenDocument">ABS Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product to Dec 2015, Column AS.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The spokesman said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Living standards (as measured by “real net national disposable income per capita” or more generally referred to as “income per person”) have now fallen for seven consecutive quarters – the first time this has happened since records began. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Is the claim accurate?</h2>
<p>It is true that real net national disposable income per capita fell for seven quarters between June 2014 and December 2015 inclusive, using the seasonally adjusted series. That was the latest data available when Bowen made the comment. </p>
<p>In fact, the latest data (released after Bowen made the claim) shows that real net national disposable income per capita has now fallen for <em>eight</em> consecutive quarters – between June 2014 and March 2016. The chart below shows how it changed between Dec 2007 and March 2016:</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/egHx6/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="556"></iframe>
<p>The ABS started publishing data on household income per capita in the December quarter of 1973. There were two quarters of negative growth starting in December 1981 and four quarters of negative real growth from September 1982 to June 1983, inclusive. These falls were interrupted by one quarter of growth in the June 1982 quarter.</p>
<p>The same pattern recurred between June 1989 and June 1991 – two quarters of real falls, one quarter of growth, and then another four quarters of falling living standards.</p>
<p>There were also real falls in living standards for four quarters at the time of the global financial crisis in 2008-09.</p>
<p>Overall, using this particular measure of household living standards, the shadow treasurer was correct. The period since the June quarter of 2014 has seen the longest uninterrupted period of falls in real household disposable income per capita, on a seasonally adjusted basis.</p>
<h2>Other long periods of sustained falls in living standards</h2>
<p>Chris Bowen’s statement is right if you use the seasonally adjusted numbers – meaning the data that is smoothed out to minimise the effect of seasonal factors such as Christmas.</p>
<p>The ABS also publishes <em>trend data</em> on real net national disposable income per capita. This statistical technique smooths out the data even further to remove the effect of outliers; it’s more signal than noise. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/5206.0Feature%20Article1Mar%202013?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=5206.0&issue=Mar%202013&num=&view">explanatory notes</a> to the National Accounts, the ABS says that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given the qualifications regarding the accuracy and reliability of the quarterly national accounts, the ABS considers that <strong>trend estimates</strong> provide the best guide to the underlying movements, and are more suitable than either the seasonally adjusted or original data for most business decisions and policy advice. [emphasis added]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Looking at the trend series – rather than the seasonally adjusted figures used in the response by Bowen’s spokesman – gives a slightly different picture of different periods.</p>
<p>On these numbers, in addition to the seven quarters of real income falls between June 2014 and Dec 2015 (the latest data available when Bowen made the claim), there were seven quarters of falling living standards between December 1981 and June 1983, and again between December 1989 and June 1991, inclusive.</p>
<p>Some of those periods happened when Labor was in power. </p>
<h2>Living standards have not risen since December 2011</h2>
<p>The trend series also shows that real household living standards have not risen since the December quarter of 2011 – that is 17 quarters ago. This is an unprecedentedly long period in which real living standards have not risen – one that started when Labor was in government, but has not been reversed since the change of government in 2013.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/2Hs0K/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Cumulatively this amounts to a 6.1% reduction in real household disposable income per capita since December 2011. That is slightly greater than the 6.0% real fall in 2008-09 and approaches the 6.4% real fall in the 1990s recession. However, it is still less than the 7.5% real fall in the recession of the early 1980s.</p>
<h2>Is this the only way to measure living standards?</h2>
<p>There are a range of alternative measures of living standards that could be considered. Gross Domestic Product per capita, for example, has not fallen in real terms since the March quarter of 2009.</p>
<p>However, GDP per capita is widely recognised as an inadequate measure of household well being. Indeed, in the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1370.0main+features392013">2013 results for Measuring Australia’s Progress</a>, the ABS said that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Real net national disposable income per capita is considered a good measure of progress for enhancing living standards, because it is an indicator of Australians’ capacity to consume goods and services. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Chris Bowen’s statement was accurate – but it also didn’t tell the whole story.</p>
<p>Looking solely at the “real net national disposable income per capita” figures for Australia, which were the source of Bowen’s claim about a sustained fall in living standards, the shadow treasurer was correct. The period since the June quarter of 2014 has seen the longest uninterrupted period of falls in real household disposable income per capita, on a seasonally adjusted basis.</p>
<p>But according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the <em>trend estimates</em> on real net national disposable income per capita provide the best guide on shifts in Australian society and its economy.</p>
<p>That trend estimates data reveal that real household living standards in Australia have not risen since the December quarter of 2011, or 17 quarters ago. It’s an unprecedentedly long period in which real living standards have not risen – which began when Labor was in government and which has not been reversed since the Coalition took power in 2013. <strong>– Peter Whiteford.</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>There are many potential ways to measure living standards, but the national accounts provide the longest-running and most consistent measures. Real net national disposable income per capita is the ABS preferred measure of average living standards, and it is the seasonally adjusted series of this measure that the shadow treasurer has relied on.</p>
<p>This series has now declined for eight successive quarters, which is the longest sustained decline since September 1959 (the earliest quarter for which the measure can be calculated). If we instead examine the trend series, the current period of decline extends to 17 successive quarters. </p>
<p>Net national disposable income per capita is not, however, a measure of <em>household</em> disposable income per capita. To measure household incomes using the national accounts, one must draw on the household income account (Table 20 in the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Mar%202016?OpenDocument">quarterly national accounts published by the ABS</a>). </p>
<p>The figure below shows quarterly percentage changes in seasonally adjusted real household disposable income per capita. This provides a measure of how average household incomes have changed, which I would argue is a better measure of changes in the living standards of Australian households.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125497/original/image-20160607-31957-124yaf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125497/original/image-20160607-31957-124yaf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125497/original/image-20160607-31957-124yaf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125497/original/image-20160607-31957-124yaf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125497/original/image-20160607-31957-124yaf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125497/original/image-20160607-31957-124yaf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125497/original/image-20160607-31957-124yaf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Household disposable income per capita.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It shows that average household incomes have declined in only four of the last eight quarters. So, tested against this particular data set, the shadow treasurer’s statement would be incorrect. </p>
<p>What’s driving the difference between net national disposable income and household disposable income? In part, it is rising government debt, which is acting to support living standards of households despite falling net national disposable income. National income is declining but household income is not declining quite so much because the government is going into debt. (In the most recent quarters, an increase in corporate debt also helps to explain the gap.) </p>
<p>A further caveat is that the national accounts tell us nothing about the _distribution _of income. For example, if incomes of the rich have been growing strongly in recent years, the median household is likely to have experienced a decline in real income. </p>
<p>Household income surveys are the preferred source for questions of distribution, but these are less regular (especially prior to 1994). They are also less consistent than the national accounts in methods and measures across years. <strong>– Roger Wilkins</strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60327/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council and Jobs Australia. He is an independent member of the Sustainability Committee of the Board of the National Disability Agency and a member of the Inclusive Prosperity Commission of the Chifley Research Centre, as well as a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger Wilkins receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Was Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen right to say that the Coalition presided over the most sustained fall in our living standards since records began?Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/601192016-06-07T01:16:23Z2016-06-07T01:16:23ZElection FactCheck: is crime getting worse in Australia?<blockquote>
<p>I’ve spoken to a lot of Australians who don’t believe they are safe on the streets anymore… We’ve had bombs and stabbings, it is happening. You see murders every night on our TV. The situation is growing worse and I know in Sydney and Melbourne the police won’t go into certain suburbs. <strong>– Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Senate candidate for Queensland, Pauline Hanson, <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/pauline-hanson-her-sa-candidate-spreading-fear-about-terror-attacks-on-australian-soil/news-story/f4d18d1750a65dc6c256e48c8639fe5c">speaking</a> to news.com.au, May 25, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Former federal MP Pauline Hanson is back on the campaign trail for a Senate seat in Queensland. In a recent interview she said a lot of people she had talked to did not believe they were safe and that with regular stories on crime in the media she believes the situation is getting worse. </p>
<p>Is she right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>The Conversation asked Pauline Hanson’s office to provide a source to support her statements. Her spokesperson said by email that:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><p>Reference to Australians not feeling safe on the streets came as a result of speaking directly with people and the recent <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/nearly-a-third-of-young-women-dont-feel-safe-in-public-places/7405434">report</a> from research firm Ipsos who questioned 600 young women aged 15 to 19 across Australia about safety for women on Australian streets at night.</p></li>
<li><p>In relation to the “you see murders every night on our TV” – Ms Hanson refers to her own general observations of the free to air news programs and ABS rates of homicide in Australia.</p></li>
<li><p>Stabbing: <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/woman-found-with-several-fatal-stab-wounds-in-kensington-park/news-story/8832c69ef386f3b8e2cb95807e6265d9">http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/woman-found-with-several-fatal-stab-wounds-in-kensington-park/news-story/8832c69ef386f3b8e2cb95807e6265d9</a> </p></li>
<li><p>Stabbing: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-11/woman-charged-with-stabbing-murder-in-maddington-perth/7316050">http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-11/woman-charged-with-stabbing-murder-in-maddington-perth/7316050</a> </p></li>
<li><p>Stabbing: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/hornsby-restaurant-stabbing-man-charged-murder-attempted-murder/7286652">http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/hornsby-restaurant-stabbing-man-charged-murder-attempted-murder/7286652</a></p></li>
<li><p>Pauline was referring to both the golf ball bomb makers in Ipswich (near where she lives) that seriously hurt a young boy and bomb threats to QLD, VIC and NSW schools back in February. Both incidents are easily found online.</p></li>
<li><p>“Sydney and Melbourne, the police won’t go into certain suburbs” came as a result of meeting with the Victorian Police Association with our Victorian Senate Candidate (a former police officer).</p></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Research shows that Australians’ perceptions of crime and justice aren’t always in line with what crime statistics show. But rather than basing judgements about crime trends on a particular incident or spate of incidents, or on how crime is portrayed in the news, it’s important to look at the trends for all crime – or, at the very least, all reported crime.</p>
<p>Drawing on statistics from the past 15 years, we can fact check many of Hanson’s claims – although not those based only on anecdotal evidence.</p>
<h2>Has the murder rate in Australia gone up?</h2>
<p>No. According to the national recorded crime <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02000?OpenDocument">statistics</a> published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the murder rate in 2000 was 1.6 per 100,000 of population. In 2014 (the most recent year available), the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&45100DO001_2014.xls&4510.0&Data%20Cubes&375241D5E1C66724CA257E89001B1405&0&2014&31.03.2016&Latest">murder rate</a> was just 1.0 per 100,000 of population. </p>
<p>What about attempted murder? That’s declined too. According to the ABS, in <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02000?OpenDocument">2000, the recorded rate of attempted murder</a> was 2.0 per 100,000 of population. <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&45100DO001_2014.xls&4510.0&Data%20Cubes&375241D5E1C66724CA257E89001B1405&0&2014&31.03.2016&Latest">In 2014 the recorded rate of attempted murder</a> was 0.6 per 100,000 of population. </p>
<h2>What about assault?</h2>
<p>The ABS does not publish long-term data on recorded rates of assault. However, it has conducted a representative sample survey of the Australian population over the last few years and asked Australians about personal experiences of crime.</p>
<p>One of the questions in the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0">survey</a> asked respondents whether, in the last 12 months, they had been victims of assault or threatened assault. </p>
<p>The ABS figures suggest that assault is becoming less prevalent, not more prevalent. </p>
<p>In 2008-9, 3.1% of Australians over the age of 15 said they had been victims of assault in the last 12 months. All the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0">figures since then</a> have been lower. </p>
<p>In 2014-15 (the most recent year available) 2.1% of respondents said they had been <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0">victims of assault</a>. </p>
<p>The story is much the same for threatened assault. In 2008-9, 3.9% of respondents said they had been threatened with assault in the preceding 12 months. All the figures since then have been lower. In the last survey the ABS estimated that only 2.6% of those surveyed had been threatened with assault in the preceding 12 months.</p>
<h2>What about bombs, stabbings and police “no go” areas?</h2>
<p>There are no national data on the number of bombings, so I can’t answer that question with any statistical evidence.</p>
<p>As to stabbings, according to the ABS, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0">since 2002</a> both the number and proportion of knives used during the commission of a serious crime like murder, attempted murder, sexual assault or robbery have also declined.</p>
<p>There is no official empirical evidence that police “won’t go into certain suburbs”. Hanson’s evidence to support this point is anecdotal only. </p>
<h2>What about other crimes?</h2>
<p>National <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4510.0Main+Features12015?OpenDocument">crime statistics</a> show that since the year 2000 the recorded rate of:</p>
<ul>
<li>break and enter has declined by 64%,</li>
<li>motor vehicle theft has declined by 69%,</li>
<li>robbery (the classic “street” crime) has declined by 63%; and</li>
<li>general stealing offences have declined by 37%. </li>
</ul>
<p>But some crimes <em>have</em> gone up. We have a growing problem with <a href="https://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/IDDR-201314-ATS.pdf">methamphetamine use</a>. We have a growing problem with <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats%5Cabs@.nsf/0/1FF970676E24FDFECA2574740015CA71?Opendocument">identity theft</a>. </p>
<p>Public perceptions of crime and justice are commonly out of kilter with the facts. <a href="http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb182.pdf">Surveys</a> conducted by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that most people think crime is increasing when it is not.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Pauline Hanson’s statement about violent crimes – including bombings, stabbings and murders – “growing worse” is wrong on the most recent official data.</p>
<p>Some crimes – methamphetamine use and identity theft – are growing worse. But there is no official empirical evidence to support Hanson’s assertion that police won’t go into particular suburbs.</p>
<p>As for people believing they don’t feel safe on Australian streets, <a href="http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb182.pdf">surveys</a> show that most people think crime is increasing when it is not. <strong>– Don Weatherburn</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound analysis that looks at longer-term national crime trends to determine if the above statements are correct. The crime categories mentioned have, in fact, declined nationally. </p>
<p>More recent data also supports this. In New South Wales, the number of incidents and rate of homicide have declined over the last seven years up to and including December 2015. In Victoria, there was a 5% decrease in the homicide rate in 2014-2015, and the number of homicide incidents reported has been stable over the last two years up to and including December 2015.</p>
<p>While some areas in the community may require a different policing response due to perceived threat levels to policing operations, it would be surprising to find that there are police “no go” zones in Australia.</p>
<p>I agree with the author’s verdict. <strong>– Terry Goldsworthy</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/60119/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Weatherburn receives funding from the NSW government, the ARC and the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Goldsworthy 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>Was Pauline Hanson right to say that crime is getting worse in Australia?Don Weatherburn, Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research; Adjunct Professor, School of Social Science, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/602562016-06-06T04:39:21Z2016-06-06T04:39:21ZElection FactCheck: could a vote among under 30s in Australia possibly deliver a Greens prime minister?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124708/original/image-20160601-1425-141hay7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Was Richard Di Natale right about voting intentions among under 30s?</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/3Y9fXRjzhzg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, May 30, 2016. Watch from 2:24 for the statement being fact checked.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>If there was a vote amongst people who are under 30 in Australia, there’d possibly be a Greens prime minister. – Greens leader Richard Di Natale, speaking on Q&A, May 30, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Greens leader Richard Di Natale told Q&A that if there was a vote among people aged under 30 in Australia, there would possibly be a Greens prime minister.</p>
<p>Is he right?</p>
<h2>Checking the poll data</h2>
<p>Asked for a source to back up Di Natale’s statement on Q&A, a spokeswoman said</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Published Ipsos polling regularly shows our vote matching it with the other parties amongst young voters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The spokeswoman pointed to two Fairfax Ipsos polls released over the past few months: one <a href="http://ipsos.com.au/fairfax/turnbull-continues-to-haemorrhage-support/">from April</a> and another <a href="http://ipsos.com.au/fairfax/the-turnbull-honeymoon-fades-but-shorten-makes-little-progress/">from February</a>.</p>
<p>(You can view the Greens’ spokeswoman’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokeswoman-for-richard-di-natale-60544">full response to The Conversation here</a>.)</p>
<p>Those April and February poll results are shown below in tweets from poll-watcher <a href="https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes">Ghost Who Votes</a>.</p>
<p>The April poll did show the Greens doing well among 18-24 year olds, scoring 32% of the vote in this age group. Labor, in this poll, had 33%.</p>
<p>However, these polls have a total sample of about 1,400, and the 18-24 subset is very small. In any case, Di Natale’s claim was about those <em>under 30</em>, not under 25. </p>
<p>In the 25-39 year old range in the April poll cited by Di Natale’s spokeswoman, the Greens vote is 17%.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"721833060640038912"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"698980485880373248"}"></div></p>
<p>However, subsequent poll data from both Fairfax-Ipsos and Newspoll (some of which was released before and some just after this episode of Q&A aired) indicates that Di Natale has exaggerated the level of support for the Greens among younger voters. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ci8BhyYUgAEp9LI.jpg">May 17-19 Fairfax-Ipsos</a> poll has a high Greens vote (14%) relative to other polls, but Labor is clearly in first place among young voters, with the Coalition second and the Greens a distant third. </p>
<p>Even among 18-24 year olds, the Greens have only 25% in the May 17-19 Fairfax-Ipsos poll (below), with Labor on 36% and the Coalition 32%.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"733806945904140288"}"></div></p>
<p>April-May <a href="http://resources.news.com.au/files/2016/05/30/1227888/172704-160531analysis.pdf">Newspoll breakdowns</a> show the same thing; the Greens in Newspoll are at only 16% among 18-34 year olds, with Labor on 38% and the Coalition 33%.</p>
<p>A June poll by Fairfax Ipsos (released <em>after</em> Di Natale made the statement on Q&A) puts support for the Greens among 18-24 year olds at 27%.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"738867732968443904"}"></div></p>
<p>For the Greens to be in an election-winning position among the under 30s, they would need to be ahead of Labor. But both Ipsos and Newspoll have Labor ahead of the Greens among young voters.</p>
<h2>Using Newspoll data to calculate Greens support among under 30s</h2>
<p>The Ipsos breakdowns are for only one poll, with a total sample of 1,500. The Newspoll breakdowns have a much larger total sample of over 6,800. Newspoll has the Greens at 16% for the 18–34 age group.</p>
<p>However, Di Natale’s claim relates to those below 30 (that is, the 18–29 group). We cannot directly calculate the Greens percentage for 18–29 year olds, but we can assume a Greens percentage for 30–34 year olds, and calculate the 18–29 vote from
that assumption.</p>
<p>There are 17 total years in the 18–34 range. I have assumed that any age is as
likely to be interviewed as any other within that group. There are then 12
years in the 18–29 group, and 5 in the 30–34 group.</p>
<p>Let <em>x</em> be the Greens percent among 18–29 year olds, and <em>y</em> be the Greens
percent among 30–34 year olds. We know that the overall figure must sum to
16%.</p>
<p><em>x</em> is multiplied by (12/17), and <em>y</em> by (5/17) to get the correct weights
of these percentages.</p>
<p>We have:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124910/original/image-20160602-1951-11kpebx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124910/original/image-20160602-1951-11kpebx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124910/original/image-20160602-1951-11kpebx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124910/original/image-20160602-1951-11kpebx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124910/original/image-20160602-1951-11kpebx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124910/original/image-20160602-1951-11kpebx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124910/original/image-20160602-1951-11kpebx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124910/original/image-20160602-1951-11kpebx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=356&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>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rearranging to make <em>x</em> the subject gives:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124911/original/image-20160602-9732-159wtso.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124911/original/image-20160602-9732-159wtso.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124911/original/image-20160602-9732-159wtso.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124911/original/image-20160602-9732-159wtso.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124911/original/image-20160602-9732-159wtso.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124911/original/image-20160602-9732-159wtso.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124911/original/image-20160602-9732-159wtso.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124911/original/image-20160602-9732-159wtso.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&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>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the highly unrealistic case that the Greens have zero support among those
aged 30–34, their support among 18–29 year olds would still only be 23%. </p>
<p>A more realistic figure is that the Greens have 10% support among those aged
30–34. If that is used, they have 19% among those aged 18–29.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Given the data above on the latest poll numbers, Richard Di Natale’s claim that “if there was a vote amongst people who are under 30 in Australia, there’d possibly be a Greens prime minister” is exaggerated. <strong>– Adrian Beaumont</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Editor’s note to readers:</strong> The Conversation’s <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/should-journalists-outsource-fact-checking-to-academics/391230/">standard FactCheck process</a> is to ask an academic expert to test claims, and then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. But this FactCheck involved both political and mathematical calculations. So in the interests of fairness and accuracy, we sought two blind reviews of this verdict: one from a political lecturer, the other from a mathematician.</em></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>Senator Di Natale has a highly idiosyncratic reading of the polls, to say the least.</p>
<p>If going by the numbers supplied by the Greens spokesperson, the Greens sit on 32% behind Labor on 33% for the 18-24. </p>
<p>Senator Di Natale’s must assume either (1) the Greens were in a 1% range of beating Labor in a first-past-the-post (or plurality) fight; or (2) that Liberals of this age group would tend to send their preferences to the Greens rather than to Labor. We don’t have a first-past-the-post system (which Di Natale knows).</p>
<p>So presumably, he was thinking Liberal preferences would break his way. But many Liberals are very antagonistic to preferencing the Greens over Labor. </p>
<p>The Greens have <a href="http://greens.org.au/no-deal">denied</a> existence of a preference deal with the Liberals and there’s no hard evidence of a Liberal decision across the nation to preference the Greens over Labor.</p>
<p>ABC election analyst Antony Green has <a href="http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/05/liberal-preferences-and-green-prospects-at-the-2016-election.html">shown</a> that Liberal preferences went 67% to Labor and only 33% to the Greens at the 2013 election. </p>
<p>Overall, my argument concurs with that of the fact checker. Di Natale’s statement is unrealistic. <strong>– Mark Rolfe</strong></p>
<hr>
<p>I have reviewed the article and I find the author’s conclusions to be reasonably supported by available evidence. The calculations assume equal voter population for each year of age. I have performed my own calculations using Australian Bureau of Statistics population data and this assumption seems reasonable. </p>
<p>Even if we do not assume equal population size for each year of age, the calculations change very little. I would also add the statement cannot be fully confirmed or refuted as there is no data solely for 18-29 year old voters, although this analysis suggests confirmation is unlikely. <strong>– Jake Olivier</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/60256/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Greens leader Richard Di Natale told Q&A that if there was a vote among people who are under 30 in Australia, there’d possibly be a Greens prime minister. What do the polls say?Adrian Beaumont, PhD Student, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/602342016-06-03T01:19:36Z2016-06-03T01:19:36ZElection FactCheck Q&A: is global demand for coal still going through the roof?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124752/original/image-20160601-1951-1all0vg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trade Minister Steven Ciobo, speaking on Q&A.</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/zYcA9OlO4e8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, May 30, 2016.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Global demand for coal is still going through the roof. – Trade Minister Steven Ciobo, <a href="https://twitter.com/QandA/status/737263445553254400">speaking</a> on Q&A, May 30, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Trade Minister Steve Ciobo told the Q&A audience that global demand for coal is still going through the roof. (Watch from 2:38 in the clip above.) Is that correct?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support his statement, a spokesman for Steven Ciobo said the minister had addressed the issue in a tweet sent the day after the Q&A program aired. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"737440267280617472"}"></div></p>
<p>Ciobo’s tweet refers to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) <a href="https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTCMR2014SUM.pdf">2014 Medium-Term Coal Market Report</a>.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTCMR2014SUM.pdf">report</a> said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In 2013, coal added more primary energy than any other fuel and was the fastest-growing fossil fuel. 2013 coal demand grew 2.4% on a tonnage basis, more than oil and gas, enhancing its position as the second-largest primary energy source and closing the gap with oil.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTCMR2014SUM.pdf">report</a>, however, goes on to note that coal prices in 2014 were low due to significant global oversupply, saying that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In 2014, coal oversupply persists and very low coal prices continued to dominate. For a few years, the focus of coal producers was to expand production. New capacity was constantly added and demand led by China consumed every additional tonne. However, since 2011, oversupply and low prices have dominated. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fast-forward one year, and the IEA’s <a href="https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTCMR2015SUM.pdf">2015 Medium-Term Coal Market Report</a> says that global coal demand growth has “halted”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For the first time since the 1990s, global coal demand growth halted in 2014. This was the result of a combination of some structural and temporal factors, mostly in China, where half of global coal is used… Given the economic
rebalancing in China and ongoing structural decline in OECD countries, even with the continuation of growth in India and ASEAN countries, a downward trend in global coal consumption in 2015 is likely. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Declining coal consumption in China is reducing global demand</h2>
<p>The decrease in coal consumption in China was effectively an overhang from the global financial crisis (GFC). </p>
<p>During the GFC, China sought to avoid economic decline by a significant <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/lectures/yongding/2009-yongding.pdf">domestic stimulus program</a>. </p>
<p>The stimulus program bolstered investment in construction and manufacturing in the years following, but is now petering out. Reports point to a worsening situation in 2015, as <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-13/china-coal-imports-crash-as-economy-slows-amid-clean-power-shift#media-1">coal imports declined sharply from 2014</a>. </p>
<p>Further evidence of declining global coal demand is the fall in coal prices out of Newcastle. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124749/original/image-20160601-1951-1phjxl8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124749/original/image-20160601-1951-1phjxl8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124749/original/image-20160601-1951-1phjxl8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124749/original/image-20160601-1951-1phjxl8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124749/original/image-20160601-1951-1phjxl8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124749/original/image-20160601-1951-1phjxl8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124749/original/image-20160601-1951-1phjxl8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124749/original/image-20160601-1951-1phjxl8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=401&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"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A good indication of coal demand is the share prices for coal miners. In the US and in Australia, coal mining companies’ share prices are not showing evidence of high expectations of growth in demand. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124751/original/image-20160601-1955-1d2sid4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124751/original/image-20160601-1955-1d2sid4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124751/original/image-20160601-1955-1d2sid4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124751/original/image-20160601-1955-1d2sid4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124751/original/image-20160601-1955-1d2sid4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124751/original/image-20160601-1955-1d2sid4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124751/original/image-20160601-1955-1d2sid4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124751/original/image-20160601-1955-1d2sid4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=365&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"><span class="source">Author provided.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Can India fill the gap?</h2>
<p>The IEA’s 2015 <a href="https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTCMR2015SUM.pdf">Medium-Term Coal Market Report</a> noted that India is the only major economy with strong coal growth.</p>
<p>However, the report found that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>India is not the new China. As forecast in former editions of this report, India will become the second-largest coal consumer in the world, bypassing the United States, and the largest importer of thermal coal… [However], growth in
India and ASEAN countries will not compensate for the new trajectory of Chinese coal demand. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The situation in India is fluid. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is reported to be a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/30/india-set-to-unveil-global-solar-alliance-of-120-countries-at-paris-climate-summit">champion of solar energy</a> and the country is pursuing <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5956cf62-a4b5-11e5-a91e-162b86790c58.html#axzz4AHj73g8t">significant investment in solar</a> (as well as coal).</p>
<p>India’s Energy Minister Piyush Goyal is committed to <a href="http://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/energy/power-minister-piyush-goyal-on-power-surplus-electricity/story/218807.html">eliminate costly coal imports of thermal coal for use in electricity generation</a>. </p>
<h2>IEA modelling gives clues about future global coal demand</h2>
<p>The IEA makes projections into the future in a report called the <a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/">World Energy Outlook</a>. </p>
<p>Last year’s projections provided three scenarios: a current policies scenario, a new policies scenario (also known as the medium scenario) and a 450 scenario.</p>
<p>The 450 scenario models energy demand based on policies required to cap the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 ppm (parts per million). That’s the level needed to stand a chance of keeping global warming to 2°C. </p>
<p>The IEA’s new policies (or “medium”) scenario and subsequent <a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energyandclimatechange/">modelling</a> of global leaders’ commitments to carbon reduction assume that “climate ambition is not raised progressively” and warming will most likely be in the 2.7 to 3.5 degree range.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124750/original/image-20160601-3253-1ae4ymk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124750/original/image-20160601-3253-1ae4ymk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124750/original/image-20160601-3253-1ae4ymk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124750/original/image-20160601-3253-1ae4ymk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124750/original/image-20160601-3253-1ae4ymk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124750/original/image-20160601-3253-1ae4ymk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124750/original/image-20160601-3253-1ae4ymk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124750/original/image-20160601-3253-1ae4ymk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=667&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"><span class="source">Author provided.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Global leaders <a href="http://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/cop21-paris/summary">reaffirmed at the Paris Climate Conference</a> the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2°C. </p>
<p>On that basis, the IEA’s 450 scenario may give us a clue about future energy demand in a world committed to avoiding dangerous climate change.</p>
<p>The IEA’s 450 scenario shows a very significant decline in consumption of coal in the decades ahead. That also calls into question the minister’s claim that coal demand is still going through the roof.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Steven Ciobo’s statement that global coal demand is “going through the roof” is inaccurate. <strong>– Lynette Molyneaux</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The FactCheck is correct, but the author could place more emphasis on the central scenario from the International Energy Agency, rather than its 450 scenario.</p>
<p>The latest predictions for the future of coal demand from the <a href="http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/WEO2015SUM.pdf">International Energy Agency</a> have highlighted that the massive growth in demand for coal over the past 15 years will not continue, and the fuel faces more uncertain times. </p>
<p>Consumption of coal across OECD countries is predicted to fall 40% by 2040. Yet the central scenario of the IEA still has coal meeting 10% of future increases in energy needs to 2040. </p>
<p>This is driven in particular by Southeast Asia, where primary energy demand for coal is predicted to <a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2015_SouthEastAsia.pdf">triple</a> between 2020 and 2040.</p>
<p>This means that the most likely IEA scenario is that global consumption of coal will continue to increase but at a much slower rate than before, noting that there is still uncertainty about how China’s and India’s consumption may change over time. <strong>– John Rolfe</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/60234/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Rolfe receives funding from the Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP) for a research project on mine closures and land use change back to agriculture.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lynette Molyneaux 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>Was Trade Minister Steven Ciobo right to say on Q&A that global demand for coal is still going through the roof?Lynette Molyneaux, Researcher, Energy Economics and Management Group, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/602502016-06-01T06:27:27Z2016-06-01T06:27:27ZElection FactCheck Q&A: Is Australia’s foreign debt nearly $1 trillion, up from $74 billion last year?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124718/original/image-20160601-1425-bbhs8r.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Was Nick Xenophon right about debt?</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/a37PHXbJ0tM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, May 30, 2016.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Our foreign debt is approaching $1 trillion, which is extraordinary. Last year it was $74 billion. <strong>– Independent senator for South Australia Nick Xenophon, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4449977.htm">speaking</a> on Q&A, May 30, 2016.</strong> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Independent Nick Xenophon issued a warning about Australian debt levels on Q&A (watch from 2:44 in the clip above), saying that foreign debt is approaching $1 trillion, up from $74 billion the previous year. </p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the data</h2>
<p>The Conversation asked a spokesperson for Nick Xenophon for a source to support his assertion. The spokeswoman told The Conversation that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He mixed up net foreign debt with the current account deficit, which are closely related but actually different things.</p>
<p>According to an ABC report on ABS figures, the December result left Australia’s net foreign debt at $1.006 trillion – an increase of 2.8% on the previous quarter’s $971 billion.</p>
<p>The source for that particular sentence was an ABC <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/australia's-net-foreign-debt-tips-over-$1-trillion/7210622">report</a> of the ABS figures.</p>
<p>The current account deficit for the calendar year of 2015 was in the vicinity of $74 billion. The source for this was <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/current-account">Trading Economics,</a> which draws on ABS stats.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Let’s set the record straight on foreign debt data.</p>
<h2>What’s the real picture on foreign debt?</h2>
<p>Net foreign debt data is collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and published in Table 2 of its <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5302.0Mar%202016?OpenDocument">Balance of Payments and International Investment Position</a> data set.</p>
<p>Here’s what the latest ABS data shows on Australia’s net foreign debt position at end of period (by year and quarter) from December 2007 to the March 2016 (the latest data available):</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/xVmLN/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="533"></iframe>
<p>The data shows that:</p>
<ul>
<li>Australia’s net foreign debt in March 2016 was over $1 trillion.</li>
<li>Australia’s net foreign debt in 2015 hovered between $900 billion and $1 trillion.</li>
<li>This data set goes back to September 1988, when net foreign debt was at around $102 billion. </li>
</ul>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Nick Xenophon was wrong to say net foreign debt was $74 billion last year. It was over $900 billion.</p>
<p>As his spokeswoman said, Xenophon mixed up net foreign debt with the current account deficit.</p>
<p>He was broadly correct about current net foreign debt levels (although the level is not <em>approaching</em> $1 trillion, the level is already more than $1 trillion). <strong>– Graeme Wells</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The facts presented above are correct, and show that Senator Xenophon was clearly wrong in multiple ways on Q&A. </p>
<p>Mixing up the current account deficit and net foreign debt is not a simple mistake – it shows a real lack of feel for basic economics.</p>
<p>It is also important to note that the $1 trillion figure is total debt, not just government debt. Private debt – such as that issued by corporations – is not something to be overly concerned about. It is net government debt that is important to focus on – and to measure it relative to Gross Domestic Product. </p>
<p>Australia’s net government debt as a share of GDP <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2015/April/gov-debt-position">is around 17% or 18%</a>, far lower than many other OECD countries, as the chart below shows. <strong>– Richard Holden</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124710/original/image-20160601-2812-xklxkm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=601&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="https://www.austrade.gov.au/images/UserUploadedImages/3766/BM2016-SECTION-1_pg11.jpg">Austrade, www.austrade.gov.au</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<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/60250/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Holden is an ARC Future Fellow.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graeme Wells 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>Independent senator Nick Xenophon told Q&A that foreign debt is approaching $1 trillion, up from $74 billion the previous year. Is that right?Graeme Wells, University Associate, School of Economics and Finance, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/602422016-06-01T02:22:14Z2016-06-01T02:22:14ZElection FactCheck Q&A: has Australia had 25 years of continuous economic growth?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124720/original/image-20160601-25573-oohdou.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Was Steven Ciobo right about Australia's economic growth?</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/5Y21t1oRXsY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, May 30, 2016.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>We’ve had 25 years of continuous economic growth, the only country in the world with a period of growth that long. – Trade minister Steven Ciobo, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4449977.htm">speaking</a> on Q&A, May 31, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Economic management is shaping up as a key election battleground, and the Coalition has been especially keen to keep the focus on the economy. </p>
<p>Trade minister Steven Ciobo told Q&A viewers that Australia has had 25 years of continuous economic growth, and is the only country in the world with a period of growth that long.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>A spokesman for Steven Ciobo told The Conversation that Ciobo misspoke on Q&A. The spokesman said by email that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr Ciobo omitted the world developed, he meant to say “developed country”. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>That clarification does improve the accuracy of his statement quite considerably. Let’s test his two statements separately. </p>
<h2>25 years of continuous economic growth?</h2>
<p>Australia entered a period of low and sometimes negative economic growth in 1989. The last period where growth was negative was June 1991 (for the quarter-over-quarter growth), and December 1991 (for the year-over-year growth). </p>
<p>I would argue that the weak growth through 1991 means that you can’t say that the economy recovered and was growing until 1992. </p>
<p>So on that definition, we have had about 24.5 continuous growth – which is close enough to the Ciobo’s figure of 25 years.</p>
<p>It is true we are <em>in</em> our 25th year of consecutive economic growth. That’s how it was phrased in Austrade’s 2016 <a href="https://www.austrade.gov.au/International/Invest/Why-Australia/Growth">Why Australia Benchmark Report</a>, which noted that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia is not only entering its 25th year of consecutive growth, the country is expected to realise annual real GDP growth of 2.9% between 2016 and 2020 – the fastest of any major advanced economy in the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The only country in the world?</h2>
<p>As the minister’s spokesman said, Ciobo accidentally omitted the word “developed” from his statement. </p>
<p>It is true that all of the other 33 <a href="http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/#d.en.194378">member countries</a> in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (<a href="http://www.oecd.org/">OECD</a>) have had a period of negative GDP growth since 1991, with most going into recession during the Global Financial Crisis.</p>
<p>It is notable that the dip in growth during the GFC was smaller for the Group of 20 (<a href="http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/international-organisations/g20/pages/the-g20.aspx">G20</a>) major economies than for the OECD, and the reason for this is that many emerging markets did not go into recession. </p>
<p>It is not true to say, as the minister accidentally did, that Australia is the only country in the world with a period of growth that long. The chart below shows Australia’s growth next to the G20, OECD, India and China. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124535/original/image-20160531-13810-hgnto5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124535/original/image-20160531-13810-hgnto5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124535/original/image-20160531-13810-hgnto5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=326&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124535/original/image-20160531-13810-hgnto5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=326&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124535/original/image-20160531-13810-hgnto5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=326&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124535/original/image-20160531-13810-hgnto5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124535/original/image-20160531-13810-hgnto5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124535/original/image-20160531-13810-hgnto5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=410&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"><span class="source">Author provided. Source: OECD Main Economic Indicators and Emerging Markets database in DX database.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The chart shows that China and India, the two most important emerging economies, also have had positive growth in GDP in the past 25 years. It is now more than 25 years since both countries began their economic reform programs, and both countries have enjoyed very strong economic growth over this period.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The statement that Australia has had 25 years of continuous economic growth is mostly correct.</p>
<p>The statement that Australia is the only country <em>in the world</em> to have had such a period of unbroken growth is incorrect. But it’s true Australia is the only one out of 34 OECD member countries to have had positive economic growth since 1991. <strong>– Mark Crosby</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The FactCheck takes the right approach of first confirming the Australian data, which show that there was effectively 25 years of uninterrupted positive growth in real GDP on a quarter-to-quarter basis.</p>
<p>Then it takes the right approach of looking at obvious counter-examples to the statement about Australia being the “only country in the world” with such a long period of uninterrupted positive growth. China immediately came to my mind too.</p>
<p>China is an important counter-example because it addresses the potential caveat that developed economies account for most of world’s economic activity and, therefore, “in the world” might somehow be approximately correct. China may be an emerging economy, but its GDP is now almost two-thirds the size of US GDP. So ignoring it would be a mistake.</p>
<p>It is also worth noting that positive real GDP growth is not the be-all and end-all when evaluating the state of the economy. We might well care more about growth in real GDP per person: on that measure, Australia has had a number of quarters of negative growth during the last 25 years. Also, the Australian unemployment rate increased dramatically by almost two percentage points during the GFC. So a strict focus on quarterly real GDP growth is probably too narrow when thinking about how the overall economy did over the past 25 years.</p>
<p>All in all, I agree with the verdict. <strong>– James Morley</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/60242/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Crosby 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>Trade Minister Steven Ciobo told Q&A viewers that Australia has had 25 years of continuous economic growth, and is the only country in the world with a period of growth that long. Is that true?Mark Crosby, Associate Professor of Economics, Melbourne Business SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595332016-05-31T00:08:50Z2016-05-31T00:08:50ZElection FactCheck: Has public infrastructure investment fallen 20% under the Coalition?<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"727435682839298052"}"></div></p>
<p>Infrastructure spending is never far from the headlines, especially during an election campaign.</p>
<p>But was Labor right to say in a tweet that public sector infrastructure investment has fallen 20% under the Abbott-Turnbull government? </p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources on this claim on Twitter, a Labor spokesperson referred The Conversation to engineering construction data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics between the September quarter of 2013 (when the Coalition government was elected) and September 2015. </p>
<p>The Labor spokesperson said of the ABS <a href="http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8762.0Explanatory%20Notes1Sep%202015?OpenDocument">data</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The relevant table in Table 1 is A1831482J – value of work done for the public sector. We compare the September 2015 quarter with September 2013 quarter when the Coalition was elected. This includes infrastructure work done for the public sector by both the private sector and the public sector. This shows a fall from $7666 million to $6121 million – a fall of 20.2%. </p>
</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/secIa/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>Is a 20% fall accurate?</h2>
<p>To start with, this claim is out of date. </p>
<p>The number quoted in a press release issued by the shadow minister for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, was correct when he first went public with this claim, in <a href="http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/new-figures-highlight-coalitions-ongoing-infrastructure-failure">January 2016</a>.</p>
<p>At the time of the above <a href="https://twitter.com/australianlabor/status/727435682839298052">tweet</a>, it reflected figures from the ABS’ <a href="http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/8762.0Sep%202015?OpenDocument">September 2015 report</a> (released 13 January). But those figures were out of date by the time the tweet was issued on May 3. The <a href="http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/8762.0Dec%202015?OpenDocument">December 2015 report</a> was released on March 30.</p>
<p>The most recent figures have revised the September 2015 number. Now the data show that between September 2013 and September 2015 there was only a 17% drop in real terms. Using the newer data, the September 2013 to December 2015 comparison shows an even smaller drop of 15%.</p>
<h2>Is the decrease attributable to the Coalition?</h2>
<p>The second question is whether this is really driven by the Coalition government, as the tweet implies.</p>
<p>For one thing, it could be argued there is a lag between a new government being sworn in and a significant impact on infrastructure work done. The Coalition government didn’t release a <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/">budget</a> until May 2014, but from the chart we have constructed below it is clear that engineering work had begun to decline in late 2012. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124522/original/image-20160530-7715-cltc7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124522/original/image-20160530-7715-cltc7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124522/original/image-20160530-7715-cltc7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124522/original/image-20160530-7715-cltc7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124522/original/image-20160530-7715-cltc7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124522/original/image-20160530-7715-cltc7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124522/original/image-20160530-7715-cltc7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124522/original/image-20160530-7715-cltc7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&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"><span class="source">Author provided.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By September 2013, public sector engineering work had already declined 9% over the past year. The change of government has certainly not halted the decline in infrastructure spending, but the decline began under Labor.</p>
<h2>Who else is responsible for public sector infrastructure?</h2>
<p>It’s also inaccurate to lay the full decline in infrastructure investment at the door of the federal government of the day. </p>
<p>The engineering activity includes <a href="http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8762.0Explanatory%20Notes1Dec%202015?OpenDocument">spending by state and local governments</a>, as well as federal money. State governments mostly have the ultimate decision on major infrastructure, and <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/869-Roads-to-Riches.pdf">state spending on infrastructure</a> is more than double that of the federal government. While the amount of federal funding, and the projects to which it is directed, will certainly influence the level of state spending on infrastructure, it is far from being the only factor.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp3/download/BP3_consolidated.pdf">Federal budget papers</a> show changes in the level of federal infrastructure investment. The majority of federal infrastructure spending is in the form of payments to support state infrastructure services. The chart below shows that these payments are very lumpy from year to year, and it is difficult to determine any clear trends. Federal infrastructure spending is weighted towards larger projects, so these jumps up and down from year to year are to be expected.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124521/original/image-20160530-7706-nrc35l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124521/original/image-20160530-7706-nrc35l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124521/original/image-20160530-7706-nrc35l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124521/original/image-20160530-7706-nrc35l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124521/original/image-20160530-7706-nrc35l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124521/original/image-20160530-7706-nrc35l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124521/original/image-20160530-7706-nrc35l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124521/original/image-20160530-7706-nrc35l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&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"><span class="source">Author provided.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An alternative assessment of infrastructure trends under the Coalition government is to look at the first two Coalition budget years (2014-15 and 2015-16) against the two preceding financial years. This gives an overall increase of 9% in real terms. </p>
<p>Given the lumpiness of spending, however, it is difficult to make any sensible conclusion about the trend in federal infrastructure investment based on this number alone.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Labor’s tweet was inaccurate. The ABS figures on which Labor had sourced its information were up to date in January 2016 but out of date by the time the tweet was issued in May.</p>
<p>It is also an exaggeration to link an overall decrease in public infrastructure investment to the federal government, given its relatively small share of spending in this area. <strong>– Marion Terrill and Owain Emslie</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>I agree with the findings and the thrust of this fact-finding mission. It’s probably true to say that the ALP statement may not have been meant to be misleading but was indeed an error based on not having the most recent data.</p>
<p>However, it’s also true that most people in the industry would know that the federal government are never the biggest player in this space and so can’t take the blame for the bad news – or the fame for the good news – on infrastructure spending.</p>
<p>Infrastructure is an issue for all three levels of government. Urban rail infrastructure, for example, requires partnership between all three levels of government, and the private sector. It’s a bit much to ask during an election campaign, but I look forward to the time when we are ready to advance Australia in this way. <strong>– Peter Newman</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/59533/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labor says that public sector infrastructure investment has fallen 20% under the Abbott-Turnbull government. Is that right?Marion Terrill, Transport Program Director, Grattan InstituteOwain Emslie, Associate, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/601912016-05-30T06:51:49Z2016-05-30T06:51:49ZElection FactCheck: will Australia’s big banks reap $7.4 billion over ten years from company tax cuts?<blockquote>
<p>We are not convinced that giving the largest banks in Australia $7.4 billion over the next ten years is good for the budget. – Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, leaders’ debate <a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/leaders-debate-at-the-national-press-club-canberra">speech</a>, May 29, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s line of attack during the leaders’ debate focused squarely on the Coalition’s long-term plan to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-full-story-on-company-tax-cuts-and-your-hip-pocket-59458">cut the company tax</a> rate from 30% to 25%.</p>
<p>Twice during the debate Shorten said the proposed tax cuts equated to giving A$7.4 billion over ten years to Australia’s big four banks (National Australia Bank, the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ and Westpac).</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support that assertion, a Labor spokeswoman referred The Conversation to modelling conducted by think-tank <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/content/big-4-banks-74-billion-budget-gift">The Australia Institute</a>. </p>
<p>The Labor spokeswoman said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Bill was emphasising the clear point of contrast in this election campaign, which is that Malcolm Turnbull wants to spend $50 billion giving huge companies a tax cut while Labor wants to invest in schools, Medicare and growing good jobs.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The Australia Institute modelling</h2>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/content/big-4-banks-74-billion-budget-gift">press release</a>, The Australia Institute <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/content/big-4-banks-74-billion-budget-gift">said</a> that for their economic modelling:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The value of company tax provisions was derived from 2015 full year annual reports for the big four banks. That figure summed to $11,123 million. That figure was projected forward to 2026-27 to give the no-change scenario.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To arrive at the figure of $7.4 billion, The Australia Institute modelling assumed bank profit would increase in line with <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nominalgdp.asp?layout=infini&v=5D&orig=1&adtest=5D">nominal Gross Domestic Product</a>. Under this assumption, the amount of tax payable would also increase in line with nominal GDP. This would give nominal increases of:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>2.5% in 2015-16;</p></li>
<li><p>4.25% in 2016-17; and</p></li>
<li><p>5% in 2017-18 and subsequent years.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>As the think tank noted in its press release, the company tax cuts would not affect the big banks until 2024-25. That’s when the 30% company tax rate will fall to 27% for all companies with further reductions of 1% per year, hitting 25% in 2026-27.</p>
<p>The Australia Institute calculated the following results:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124449/original/image-20160530-7713-8cr5ue.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124449/original/image-20160530-7713-8cr5ue.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124449/original/image-20160530-7713-8cr5ue.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=129&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124449/original/image-20160530-7713-8cr5ue.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=129&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124449/original/image-20160530-7713-8cr5ue.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=129&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124449/original/image-20160530-7713-8cr5ue.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=162&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124449/original/image-20160530-7713-8cr5ue.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=162&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124449/original/image-20160530-7713-8cr5ue.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=162&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.tai.org.au/content/big-4-banks-74-billion-budget-gift">The Australia Institute</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A reasonable guesstimate – but not a fact</h2>
<p>On these calculations, the “$7.4 billion over the next ten years” claim is not a fact. But it’s also not an unreasonable guesstimate – although it is, of course, really over the <em>three</em> years from 2024-25 through 2026-27. There is no advantage to the big banks over the first seven of the next ten years.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://data.gov.au/dataset/corporate-transparency/resource/237d7ede-3a63-4b9b-9434-2f79b9d70ce8">Australian Taxation Office</a>, the four big banks paid a total of $9.5 billion in company tax in the 2013-14 financial year.</p>
<p>The government has proposed increasing the turnover threshold below which the rate of company tax payable is 27.5%, from $10 million in 2016-17 to $1 billion in 2022-23.</p>
<p>The government’s <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp2/download/bp2_consolidated.pdf">proposed policy</a> says that the company tax rate for all companies (including the four big banks) with turnover exceeding $1 billion will fall from 30% to 27% in 2024-25, and then by a further one percentage point in 2025-26 and another percentage point (to 25%) in 2026-27.</p>
<p>So, on that basis, The Australia Institute’s maths checks out.</p>
<h2>A grain of salt</h2>
<p>As with all economic modelling, this modelling and any claims based on it should be taken with a large grain of salt. </p>
<p>Any assumption about the banks’ profit growth over the next ten years is entirely arbitrary, and I have no idea whether it is at all justified. Only time will tell. </p>
<p>If the banks’ profits grew by only 2% per annum over this period, then the benefit to them from the cut in the company tax rate proposed by the Coalition would be “only” $4.8 billion; if they grew by 10% per annum the benefit to them would be $12 billion (over the three years from 2024-25 to 2026-27).</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Shorten’s statement relies on modelling assumptions made by The Australia Institute think-tank about bank profit growth. It is not a statement of fact but rather a guesstimate. It is not an unreasonable guesstimate, but depends entirely on whether the think tank’s assumptions about bank profit growth come true or not. <strong>– Saul Eslake</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This article correctly reflects the analysis of The Australia Institute upon which the claim of a “windfall” for the large banks has been based. As the author notes, the baseline figure is a guesstimate based on not unreasonable assumptions about the growth of the economy and the impact of the proposed business tax cuts upon bank profits, albeit seven years out. <strong>– Pat McConnell</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/60191/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Are proposed tax cuts giving Australia’s largest banks $7.4 billion over the next decade?Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/599062016-05-30T04:18:48Z2016-05-30T04:18:48ZElection FactCheck Q&A: has the NBN been delayed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124254/original/image-20160527-22060-1bhju09.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Was Christopher Pyne right about the NBN?</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/ORmCk6OEOn4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, May 23, 2016.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>And there has not been a delay of the NBN … Because of Malcolm Turnbull’s management of the NBN, it will all be finished by 2020, not 2024 as Labor was promising, with speeds that people want and need. – Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Christopher Pyne, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4445605.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, May 23, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The election campaign has brought national broadband network (NBN) policy back into the spotlight, particularly as the incumbent prime minister was responsible for the NBN in his previous role as communications minister. </p>
<p>Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Christopher Pyne told Q&A there has not been a delay of the NBN. Is that right?</p>
<h2>2013: the year of election promises and reviews</h2>
<p>The Conversation contacted a spokesperson for Christopher Pyne seeking comment and sources to support his statement, but did not hear back before deadline. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, most of the documents on the recent history of the NBN can be found online. </p>
<p>As acknowledged in <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/file/315/download?token=8OjaNaNc">this Coalition document</a>, the previous Labor government promised to deliver an NBN by a deadline of 2021 (not 2024 as Pyne stated on Q&A).</p>
<p>Prior to the 2013 federal election, the nbn co under the then-Labor government <a href="http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/documents/nbn-co-3-year-gbe-corporate-plan-final-17-dec-10.pdf">said</a> it planned to deliver a predominantly fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) network by 2021. </p>
<p>But there were <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/telecommunications/telstra-boss-says-nbn-deal-delayed-to-2015-20141014-11cpmp">delays in negotiating with Telstra</a> for access to ducts and pits, the discovery of asbestos in some of Telstra’s network and other <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-the-nbn-take-another-20-years-to-complete-16962">teething problems</a>.</p>
<p>In its 2013 pre-election promises, the Coalition said its <a href="http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/NBN/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Plan%20for%20Fast%20Broadband%20and%20an%20Affordable%20NBN.pdf">goal</a> was to provide everyone in the nation with access to broadband with download data rates of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by 2016. The Coalition also planned to deliver between <a href="http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/NBN/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Plan%20for%20Fast%20Broadband%20and%20an%20Affordable%20NBN.pdf">50 and 100 megabits per second</a> to 90% of the fixed-line footprint by the end of 2019. That election commitment, the Coalition said, “assumes the current NBN Co satellite and fixed wireless networks are deployed on schedule”.</p>
<p>But after the election, the Coalition <a href="http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/malcolm_turnbull/news/strategic_review_of_the_national_broadband_network#.V0UKJPl96Wi">dropped</a> its promise to deliver 25 to 100 megabits per second to everyone in the nation by 2016. </p>
<p>Then communications minister Malcolm Turnbull <a href="http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2013/12/12/strategic-review-national-broadband-network">said</a> that a December 2013 <a href="http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/documents/NBN-Co-Strategic-Review-Report.pdf">Strategic Review</a> of the NBN commissioned by the new government had found that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the NBN is in a fundamentally worse position than the Labor Government at any time disclosed to Parliament or the Australian public.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The strategic review also said that Labor’s NBN would not have been completed until 2024.</p>
<h2>2015: New plans</h2>
<p>In 2015, nbn co issued its 2016 <a href="http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/nbn-corporate-plan-2016.pdf">corporate plan</a>.</p>
<p>In this document, the company now estimated that Labor’s plan for </p>
<blockquote>
<p>an all-FTTP fixed-line rollout could be completed by 2026 but possibly as late as 2028.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, former nbn co CEO Mike Quigley has <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/quigley-pins-turnbull-nbn-cost-blowout-on-mtm-delays-report/">challenged</a> this revised estimate. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/6907464/data/mike-quigley-article-data.pdf">In a 2015 article</a>, he wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For that to be correct, one has to assume that, for the next 13 years, nbn co will roll out just 12,300 premises per week on average. Fewer premises than it regularly passes each week today. It is almost certainly true that an all-FTTP NBN would take longer to complete than its inferior MTM counterpart [the Multi-Technology Mix proposed by the Coalition]. But it would likely only be longer by one to three years…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In late 2015, an nbn co spokesman was <a href="https://delimiter.com.au/2015/08/24/nbn-co-delays-fttn-rollout-for-further-testing/">reported as</a> saying that the company had </p>
<blockquote>
<p>deliberately chosen to take a more gradual approach to [fibre to the node or FTTN] activations than was originally flagged.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The 2016 leaks</h2>
<p>Early in 2016, internal nbn co <a href="https://11217-presscdn-0-50-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Scale-the-Deployment-Weekly-Sponsor-Meeting_19Feb2016.pdf">documents</a> were leaked to the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/nbn-malcolm-turnbulls-faster-cheaper-rollout-falters-20160228-gn5l0s.html">media</a>. </p>
<p>These and other leaked documents – which were at the centre of a recent <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/election-2016-why-did-australian-federal-police-raided-labor/7432210">Australian Federal Police raid on Labor offices</a> and a staffer’s home in an effort to find the leaker – were reported as showing bottlenecks and delays in the fibre to the node (FTTN) and hybrid fibre coax (HFC) components of the rollout.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/media-releases/response-to-media-reports-today-monday-29-February-2016.html">response</a>, nbn co said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>NBN has met or exceeded every key target for six quarters in a row.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Current nbn co chair Ziggy Switkowski <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/nbn-co-makes-no-apologies-for-reporting-document-theft-to-the-afp-20160527-gp5g2g.html">wrote</a> on May 28, 2016, that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The company will meet its targets for the ninth quarter in a row … There are no “cost blowouts” or “rollout delays” to the publicly released plans.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s beyond the scope of FactCheck to say with any certainty whether the leaked documents accurately reflect the full picture. </p>
<p>It’s important to note that as any technical and other teething problems are resolved, nbn co should be able to ramp up the roll-out rate to improve its chances of meeting a 2020 project completion date.</p>
<p>Internet access speeds around the world are <a href="https://content.akamai.com/PG5679-Q4-2015-SOTI-Connectivity-Report.html?gclid=CJqs-fOr9MwCFQGbvAodRUQI0Q">growing rapidly</a> and this growth is <a href="http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/ip-ngn-ip-next-generation-network/white_paper_c11-481360.html">expected to continue</a> for the foreseeable future. Australia’s internet speeds are <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/nbn/as-australias-global-internet-ranking-slips-critics-of-fttn-grow-louder/news-story/179031f43ad8053b959ca92177996ee8">slow</a> compared to other developed countries.</p>
<p><em>Infographic: <a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-how-fast-is-the-nbn-54392">How fast is the NBN?</a></em></p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Christopher Pyne’s assertion that there have been “no delays” in the implementation of the NBN is inaccurate. Some delays occurred under the Labor government, and the early stages of the FTTN rollout under the current government have been slower than the Coalition originally envisaged. </p>
<p>Leaked documents and reported statements by an nbn co spokesperson also suggest delays occurred under the Coalition government. However, nbn co rejects that, saying it has met or exceeded its key targets.</p>
<p>Labor promised a completion date of 2021, not 2024 as Pyne said. It was the December 2013 <a href="http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/documents/NBN-Co-Strategic-Review-Report.pdf">strategic review</a> of the NBN commissioned by the Coalition government that said Labor’s NBN would not have been completed until 2024. <strong>– Rod Tucker</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This article is factual and correct. As stated in the article, delays in nbn co’s rollout is also self-evident by comparing the original deployment date promises made before the 2013 federal election with the revised schedule outlined in the December 2013 strategic review of the NBN, initiated by the Coalition government. <strong>– Thas Ampalavanapillai Nirmalathas</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/59906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Tucker has received funding from the ARC and a number of telecommunications companies. He was a member of the Panel of Experts that advised the Labor Government on the establishment of the original FTTP-based NBN.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thas Ampalavanapillai Nirmalathas receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Nokia Bell Labs, Google and the Victorian State Government and leads an interdisciplinary institute - Melbourne Networked Society Institute which has received funding from both state and federal governments as well as a range of industry partners. </span></em></p>Was Christopher Pyne right to say that “there has not been a delay of the NBN”?Rod Tucker, Laureate Emeritus Professor, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/600542016-05-27T10:19:51Z2016-05-27T10:19:51ZFactCheck: did boat arrivals spike around the same time Australia suspended live cattle exports to Indonesia in 2011?<blockquote>
<p>Might I remind you that when we closed down the live animal export industry, it was around about the same time that we started seeing a lot of people arriving in boats in Australia. <strong>– Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/asylum-seeker-influx-coincided-with-live-ex-halt-joyce-suggests/7446456">speaking</a> at the Regional Leaders’ Debate in Goulburn, May 25, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce caused a ripple when he linked asylum-seeker arrivals to Australian shores with the previous government’s decision to ban live cattle exports over animal welfare concerns. </p>
<p>The day after the debate, Joyce sought to clarify his comments, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/election-live-blog-may-26/7446556">saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What I’ve said is quite clear. That basically we already had 14,000 people that had come in through boats. Another 40,000 came in afterwards. But you don’t fix the problem of people coming in illegally by creating another problem, which was banning live cattle trade.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has quashed any suggestion of a connection between the two issues, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-malcolm-turnbull-steps-in-on-debate-over-barnaby-joyces-asylum-seekers-and-live-exports-comments-20160526-gp470z.html">saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Let me be quite clear about this: there is no link between the Indonesian government and people smuggling.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In any case, it is beyond the scope of FactCheck to say whether diplomatic problems between Indonesia and Australia led to an increase in boat arrivals. The factors driving migration are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/interactives/operation-sovereign-borders-the-first-6-months/">multifaceted</a> and <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/research/global-irregular-maritime-migration.pdf">complex</a>.</p>
<p>But what does the data say about the number of boat arrivals before and after the live export ban? </p>
<h2>What happened after the 2011 live export suspension?</h2>
<p>The previous Labor government announced a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-31/live-exports-to-shamed-abattoirs-suspended/2738896">suspension of live animal exports</a> to certain facilities in Indonesia on May 31, 2011, after an ABC Four Corners <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110530/cattle/">program</a> about animal cruelty to Australian cattle exported to Indonesia. </p>
<p>In early June, 2011, the government <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/live-cattle-ban-to-stay-20110607-1fr8b.html">suspended all live cattle</a> exports to Indonesia.</p>
<p>The suspension was <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/54888/20130602-0000/www.maff.gov.au/media_office/media_releases/media_releases/2011/july/government-lifts-live-cattle-export-suspension.html">lifted around a month later</a> in early July 2011 after new conditions were written into export permits.</p>
<p>The Conversation asked Joyce’s office for a source to support his assertion that more asylum seekers arrived “around about the same time” as the June 2011 ban on live animal exports to Indonesia. A spokesperson referred to Australian Parliamentary Library <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/QG/BoatArrivals">figures</a> for calendar-year boat arrivals between 2009 and 2013:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124268/original/image-20160527-867-pv3ac6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124268/original/image-20160527-867-pv3ac6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124268/original/image-20160527-867-pv3ac6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124268/original/image-20160527-867-pv3ac6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124268/original/image-20160527-867-pv3ac6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124268/original/image-20160527-867-pv3ac6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124268/original/image-20160527-867-pv3ac6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124268/original/image-20160527-867-pv3ac6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Parliamentary Library figures on boat arrivals between 2009 and 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/QG/BoatArrivals">Parliamentary library</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The numbers of people arriving by boat were fairly steady over the late 2000s, with <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-10/scott-morrison-not-telling-full-story-asylum-seeker-arrivals/5119380">the numbers increasing</a> toward the end of 2011.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124239/original/image-20160527-22080-17u4q0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124239/original/image-20160527-22080-17u4q0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124239/original/image-20160527-22080-17u4q0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124239/original/image-20160527-22080-17u4q0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124239/original/image-20160527-22080-17u4q0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124239/original/image-20160527-22080-17u4q0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124239/original/image-20160527-22080-17u4q0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124239/original/image-20160527-22080-17u4q0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=448&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.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/Quick_Guides/BoatTurnbacks">Parliamentary Library</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fffbfa9-f782-4307-af2c-9d0125c602a4&subId=351269">submission</a> to a Senate committee, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection said that between December 2007 and June 2011 (around the time the live export ban was introduced) about 11,500 asylum seekers arrived by boat.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/J5pJn/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="445"></iframe>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fffbfa9-f782-4307-af2c-9d0125c602a4&subId=351269">data</a> <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/QG/BoatArrivals">show</a> there wasn’t an immediate marked increase in arrivals after June 2011 (around the time of the live export suspension). The ban lasted little over a month and the number of arrivals remained relatively flat over that period. </p>
<p>The number of arrivals did increase markedly toward the last quarter of 2011, and dropped again in early 2012 during the monsoon season. The numbers increased in 2012 and 2013.</p>
<h2>Did 14,000 people arrive by boat before mid-2011 and 40,000 after the live export ban?</h2>
<p>Joyce didn’t specify what time period he was referring to when he contrasted the pre-live-export-ban arrival numbers with the post-ban figures.</p>
<p>Government <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/QG/BoatArrivals">statistics</a> show that:</p>
<ul>
<li>From the financial years July 2007 to June 2011, <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/Quick_Guides/BoatTurnbacks">11,607</a> people arrived by boat, including 565 crew (Rudd came to power in December 2007).</li>
<li>From financial years July 2011 to June 2013, an additional 33,769 people arrived by boat, including 613 crew. The peak was during the financial year 2012-2013 when just over 25,000 people arrived by boat.</li>
<li>From July 2013 to the end of August 2013, 5,736 people (excluding crew) <a href="http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=4280">arrived by boat</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>It is possible Joyce calculated the pre-ban figure of 14,000 by adding up arrivals from the calendar years 2007 to 2011. However, this methodology would include boat arrivals from the second half of 2011 (after the ban). </p>
<p>It is an exaggeration to say that 14,000 people came prior to the banning of live cattle exports in May 2011. The figure is closer to 11,500, if you count arrivals from when Rudd took power in 2007 to June 2011 (when the live export ban was announced).</p>
<p>It is roughly correct to say 40,000 asylum seekers arrived by boat between July 2011 and September 2013. However, the significant increase in numbers came in the latter part of 2012.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>There was no immediate increase in the number of people arriving by boat “about the same time” as the cessation in live cattle exports. The ban lasted little over a month and the number of arrivals remained relatively flat over that period. An increased number of arrivals did commence toward the end of that year. </p>
<p>It is an exaggeration to say that 14,000 people came prior to the banning of live cattle exports in May 2011. The figure is closer to 11,500, if you count arrivals from late 2007 to June 2011 (when the live export ban was announced).</p>
<p>Joyce’s figure of 40,000 arrivals is roughly correct, if you count from July 2011 to September 2013. However, the most significant increase in arrivals occurred in the second part of 2012 – not immediately after June 2011. <strong>– Mary Anne Kenny</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This FactCheck has accurately set out the number of boat arrivals to Australia from 2007 based on Department of Immigration and Border Protection figures. In relation to Joyce’s comments, it is important to emphasise that although about 40,000 asylum seekers arrived between July 2011 and September 2013, the numbers were consistently below 500 from June to October 2011. The number of boat arrivals reached over 1000 for the first time in December 2011, and the most significant spike in numbers occurred from April 2012 to September 2013 – well after the live export ban was lifted. *<strong><em>– Alex Reilly *</em></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/60054/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary Anne Kenny receives sitting fees from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. She has received grant funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Reilly is on the management committee of the Refugee Advocacy Service of South Australia.</span></em></p>What does the data say about the number of boat arrivals around the time of the 2011 live export ban?Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/597312016-05-25T04:57:58Z2016-05-25T04:57:58ZElection FactCheck: is Australia among the only major advanced economies where pollution levels are going up?<blockquote>
<p>Australia is now pretty much the only major advanced economy where pollution levels are going up, not coming down. – Labor shadow minister for the environment, climate change and water, Mark Butler, <a href="http://markbutler.alp.org.au/news/2016/05/18/opening-remarks-to-the-national-press-club">speech</a> to the National Press Club, May 18, 2016. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>During a debate with environment minister Greg Hunt, Labor’s shadow environment minister Mark Butler said that Australia is “pretty much” the only major advanced economy where pollution levels are rising. </p>
<p>Is he right?</p>
<h2>Checking the sources</h2>
<p>When asked for data to support his assertion, a spokesperson for Butler referred The Conversation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (<a href="http://unfccc.int/2860.php">UNFCCC</a>), the UN agency that oversees international climate negotiations. The spokesperson also referred us to the website of the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>, which suggests that by pollution he meant “greenhouse gas emissions”. However, the spokesperson did not specify what data set the statement was based upon, nor what Butler defined as a “major advanced economy”.</p>
<p>The IMF defines a “major advanced economy” as the G7 nations (and Australia is not among its members). In this FactCheck, we aim to compare Australia’s emissions with a range of <a href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/groups.htm">advanced economies</a> including the G7 member countries, the EU bloc and a selection of others such as Iceland, Korea and New Zealand. </p>
<p>The Conversation also asked over what time period pollution levels were “going up” according to Butler, but didn’t hear back before deadline. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, there are some obvious data sets against which Butler’s statement can be tested. </p>
<h2>How are Australia’s emissions trending?</h2>
<p>Greenhouse gas emissions inventory data <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7c0b18b4-f230-444a-8ccd-162c8545daa6/files/nggi-quarterly-update-dec-2015.pdf">released in May by the Department of Environment</a> show that Australia’s emissions (excluding land use, land use change and forestry or LULUCF) rose by 0.4% between December 2014 and December 2015. Emissions rose 1.1% if land-use and forestry emissions are included.</p>
<p>The report included the following graph:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123330/original/image-20160520-4466-1elh6a1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123330/original/image-20160520-4466-1elh6a1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123330/original/image-20160520-4466-1elh6a1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123330/original/image-20160520-4466-1elh6a1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123330/original/image-20160520-4466-1elh6a1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123330/original/image-20160520-4466-1elh6a1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123330/original/image-20160520-4466-1elh6a1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123330/original/image-20160520-4466-1elh6a1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (excluding Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry), annual, ‘unadjusted’ emissions, 2005 to 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7c0b18b4-f230-444a-8ccd-162c8545daa6/files/nggi-quarterly-update-dec-2015.pdf">Department of Environment</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The graph shows that Australian emissions have essentially stagnated over the past decade. The data shows a slight decrease from 2012 to 2014 and then an <em>increase</em> from 2014 to 2015. </p>
<p>So Butler was right to suggest that Australia’s emissions are on the rise, based on the latest 12-month snapshot. But is Australia the only advanced economy where that’s happening?</p>
<h2>How are other countries’ emissions trending?</h2>
<p>It turns out it’s not so easy to see if other advanced economies had an emissions rise between 2014 and 2015. There simply isn’t enough accurate global data available to do that comparison for such a recent and short time period.</p>
<p>To compare the most recent greenhouse gas emissions data (excluding land-use and forestry for which accounting rules vary) between countries, we used the <a href="http://pmd.gfz-potsdam.de/pik/showshort.php?id=escidoc:1504004">PRIMAPHIST</a> data set produced by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. </p>
<p>This composite data set uses widely recognised data sources, including data from the UNFCCC and other UN agencies. It contains greenhouse gas data (aggregated in a <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html">standardised way</a>) for all countries.</p>
<p>For <a href="http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.php">developed countries</a>, the data is extracted from national <a href="http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/9492.php">reports</a> to the United Nations. For other countries, sources of data vary and more details are available <a href="https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/johannes/primaphist-dataset-description">here</a>. </p>
<p>As we said, there’s not enough recent data available to see if Australia is the only country where emissions rose between 2014 and 2015. However, we can compare Australia’s emissions trends with other countries’ emissions trends over a longer time interval – between 2000 and 2014 (the latest credible data available). </p>
<p>When we check what the PRIMAPHIST data shows about how Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions compare over that time frame with some of the other advanced economies (with the 28 European Union member states included as a bloc), here’s how it looks:</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Xv3zn/5/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="701"></iframe>
<p>Don’t be deceived by what may appear to be a low level of Australian emissions (the blue line). It’s an illusion. In fact, Australia is among <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/new-report-reveals-that-australia-is-among-the-worst-emitters-in-the-world">highest per capita emitters</a>.</p>
<p>A more telling way to determine how greenhouse gas trends have changed over time is to look at emissions as a percentage of 2000 levels. Crunched this way, here’s how Australian emissions between 2000 and 2014 look when compared with a selection of advanced economies. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/msDyA/9/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="596"></iframe>
<p>Australian emissions in 2014 were at 110.1% of the level they were in 2000. EU emissions in 2014 were at 82.43% of the level they were at in 2000. Calculations exclude emissions resulting from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) because there is no sufficiently reliable standardised accounting of LULUCF.</p>
<p>Our analysis of the PRIMAPHIST data shows that:</p>
<ul>
<li>Australia’s emissions rose fairly steadily until 2008 and have more or less stagnated since then. </li>
<li>Overall emissions for the G7 economies (with the EU member states grouped together) have been decreasing, mostly since 2007, and in 2014 were 8.9% below 2000 levels. </li>
<li>EU emissions show a strong decreasing trend.</li>
<li>Emissions from Canada, Japan and the United States show large fluctuations since 2008.</li>
<li>Australia’s emissions in 2014 were above those in 2000 – and this is unusual among advanced economies, but not unique. </li>
<li>Emissions from Korea, Iceland and New Zealand were also higher in 2014 than they were in 2000.</li>
</ul>
<p>What is most relevant, however, is what Australia’s emissions will do between now and 2030 and whether each nation is doing its <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054005">fair share</a> to limit global warming.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Whether or not Butler was right really depends on what time frame you’re looking at.</p>
<p>Government data shows that from 2014 to 2015, Australia’s emissions increased but we can’t say for sure if Australia was “pretty much” the only major advanced economy that experienced a rise that year. There’s not sufficient reliable comparative data available for that year.</p>
<p>Zooming out to check longer-term trends, we know that Australia’s emissions in 2014 were above those in 2000. This is unusual among advanced economies – but Australia was not alone in this regard.</p>
<p>Comparing Australia’s emissions trend with the <a href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/groups.htm">major advanced economies</a> (the G7 countries with the EU bloc) between 2000 and 2014, Australia is the only one that had growing emissions over that time period. <strong>– Yann Robiou du Pont and Anita Talberg.</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The authors of this FactCheck are correct. Mark Butler’s statement is suitably vague, such that depending on the definition of “major economy” and the time frame that is examined, the claim is probably true. Plus, the caveat of “pretty much” gives the statement a bit of leeway. The lack of solid, comparable data from all developed countries as well as major developing countries for the most recent time period also makes the claim difficult to confirm with absolute certainty.</p>
<p>The fact that Australia’s emissions are increasing is worthy of mention in itself, especially in the light of the pledges made at the Paris CoP21 meeting. <strong>– Roger Dargaville</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/59731/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yann Robiou du Pont receives funding from the Melbourne International Engagement Award (MIEA) scholarship.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anita Talberg receives an Australian Postgraduate Award PhD scholarship.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger Dargaville receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) </span></em></p>Labor’s shadow environment minister, Mark Butler, said Australia is now “pretty much the only major advanced economy where pollution levels are going up, not coming down.” Is that right?Yann Robiou du Pont, PhD student at the Australian-German Climate & Energy College., The University of MelbourneDr Anita Talberg, PhD student in the Australian-German Climate and Energy College, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595312016-05-19T03:14:20Z2016-05-19T03:14:20ZElection FactCheck: did the Coalition cut $105 million from Australia Council funding?<blockquote>
<p>The real effects of the Liberals’ devastating $105 million cuts to the Australia Council are now becoming apparent as arts organisations across the country have learnt that they’ve lost funding and will have to cut projects, jobs and potentially even close their doors. – Greens MP Adam Bandt, <a href="http://greens.org.au/news/vic/greens-will-reverse-cuts-australia-council-arts">media release</a>, May 13, 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Arts funding is back in the headlines, as grant lists published by the federal government and the Australia Council emerge just as political parties are throwing themselves headlong into election campaign mode.</p>
<p>The Greens MP Adam Bandt has promised his party would push to reverse cuts to Australia Council and the arts, saying the Coalition made $105 million worth of cuts to the Australia Council.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked to provide sources to support that assertion, a spokesman for Bandt told The Conversation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The $105 million was cut from the Australia Council in the <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/bp2/download/BP2_consolidated.pdf">2015 budget</a>, which is what the statement was referring to. Funding cuts to any organisation will have impacts on its forward planning. Having $105 million cut from the Australia Council would have had real effects both on its own operations, but also the expectations and planning of the artists and organisations that depend on the Australia Council for grants to fund their work, projects and staffing. Returning only $32 million to the Australia Council after six months may lessen these effects somewhat, but it hasn’t negated them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As this clarification shows, Bandt’s original statement skips an important point: $32 million was later returned to the Australia Council in November 2015.</p>
<p>It’s true that the 2015-16 budget included a plan to cut <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/bp2/download/BP2_consolidated.pdf">$104.7 million</a> over four years from Australia Council funding to pay for the creation of the National Programme for Excellence in the Arts (later renamed <a href="http://arts.gov.au/catalyst">Catalyst</a>). This was a separate structure to deliver arts funding. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122803/original/image-20160517-15899-edfvvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122803/original/image-20160517-15899-edfvvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122803/original/image-20160517-15899-edfvvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122803/original/image-20160517-15899-edfvvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122803/original/image-20160517-15899-edfvvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122803/original/image-20160517-15899-edfvvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122803/original/image-20160517-15899-edfvvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122803/original/image-20160517-15899-edfvvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&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.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/bp2/download/BP2_consolidated.pdf">Budget Papers 2015-16</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, the situation changed slightly after Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister in late 2015. In the ensuing cabinet reshuffle, George Brandis was replaced as arts minister by Mitch Fifield.</p>
<h2>Some money was put back</h2>
<p>In November 2015, incoming arts minister Mitch Fifield <a href="http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/mitch_fifield/news/guidelines_released_for_new_arts_fund#.Vzq9pKN96i4">announced that</a> $32 million would be put back into the Australia Council over four years. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As a result of consultations and feedback on the draft guidelines for the proposed National Program of Excellence (which Catalyst will be in the place of), the government has decided to return $32 million over the forward estimates to the Australia Council. This will take the total Australia Council funding to $783 million over the four years.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition to the funding amount changes, the government has placed restrictions on the Australia Council on how they should deal with this cut. Under the restrictions, any organisation funded under the Australia Council’s major performing arts companies board (such as the Australian Ballet and the Australian Opera Company) would <a href="https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2015/SecondQuarter/12-May-2015-Attorney-General%27s-Portfolio-Budget-measures-2015-16.aspx">not be affected by the Council’s own reduction in funding</a>.</p>
<p>This meant that any subsequent cuts the Australia Council might have to make would be borne solely by the small to medium arts sector and individual artists. </p>
<p>On May 13, 2016, the Australia Council <a href="http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/news/media-centre/media-releases/australia-council-announces-112m-investment-over-four-years-in-small-to-medium-arts-organisations/">announced</a> that of 262 small to medium arts organisations’ applications for four-year funding, 128 were successful. In other words, fewer than half of the applicants were funded. </p>
<p>It also emerged that <a href="http://www.artshub.com.au/news-article/news/grants-and-funding/deborah-stone/62-arts-organisations-lose-funding-from-australia-council-251271">more than 60</a> already existing small to medium arts organisations had not been successful in getting ongoing funding. A loss of existing arts organisations of this scale has never occurred previously in the Australian arts sector. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Bandt’s original statement was not accurate. It didn’t accurately convey the fact that while $105 million was identified in the 2015-16 budget for cuts over four years from Australia Council funding, the government later put back about $32 million of that money.</p>
<p>It’s true, though, that the overall level of Australia Council funding has been reduced. Small to medium arts sector players have <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/australia-council-slashes-funding-as-110m-budget-cuts-bite/news-story/160bfe71126257ca605965215f3e1202">said</a> and the government decision to take the funding from the Australia Council and set up a separate ministerial arts fund has caused major problems for them. <strong>– Jo Caust</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound article. The FactCheck author correctly points out that even though $105 million was taken out of the Australia Council funding in the 2015 budget, $32 million was later put back with the change in leadership from Abbott to Turnbull and with the new minister for the arts, Mitch Fifield. </p>
<p>However, as the author points out, it is also correct to say that small to medium arts organisations will be most affected. Some will be losing funding for the first time in decades. </p>
<p>Australia Council CEO Tony Grybowski has said that some of the unfunded companies could be successful in project funding rounds with the Australia Council later, as well as from other sources like <a href="http://arts.gov.au/catalyst">Catalyst</a>. However, project funding is one-off and is not the same as organisational funding, which allows a company or organisation to plan ahead. Thus, small to medium organisations feel very uncertain about their future.<strong>– Maria Miranda</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/59531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jo Caust has consulted to the Australia Council. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Arts Industry Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Miranda receives funding from The Australian Research Council to research artist run initiatives in Australia.</span></em></p>Was Greens MP Adam Bandt right to say that the Liberals made $105 million worth of cuts to the Australia Council?Jo Caust, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow (Hon), The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595842016-05-18T10:39:41Z2016-05-18T10:39:41ZElection FactCheck: are many refugees illiterate and innumerate?<blockquote>
<p>For many people, they won’t be numerate or literate in their own language, let alone English … – Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/peter-dutton-says-illiterate-and-innumerate-refugees-would-take-australian-jobs-20160517-goxhj1.html#ixzz48xl7yz5X">interview</a> with Sky News presenter Paul Murray, May 17, 2016. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Immigration Minister Peter Dutton caused instant headlines when he told Sky News many refugees are illiterate and innumerate.</p>
<p>Dutton was responding to comments made by presenter Paul Murray about a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/peter-dutton-says-illiterate-and-innumerate-refugees-would-take-australian-jobs-20160517-goxhj1.html#ixzz48xl7yz5X">Greens policy proposal</a> to boost the annual refugee intake to 50,000.</p>
<p>It’s not possible to fact-check the future, so we can’t say with any certainty what would or would not happen if the Greens’ refugee proposal became government policy.</p>
<p>However, we can test Dutton’s statement against what the evidence shows about literacy and numeracy among refugees.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support his assertion, a spokesman for Dutton referred The Conversation to data produced by the longitudinal Building a New Life in Australia <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/bnla-fs1-settlement-experiences.pdf">study</a>.</p>
<p>This study, conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), aims to gather data over five years on close to 2,400 people and families living around Australia, who have been granted a permanent humanitarian visa in the previous three to six months.</p>
<p>The study began in 2013. Data from the first wave of the study are now available.</p>
<p>The study found of the individual study participants that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Amongst the adult females, 67% have never undertaken paid work (24% for adult males), 44% did not understand spoken English prior to arrival (33% of males), 23% are illiterate in their own language (17% of males) and 20% have never attended school (13% of males). As a comparison, less than 1% of the total Australian adult population has never attended school.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122971/original/image-20160518-13496-1nnydsu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122971/original/image-20160518-13496-1nnydsu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122971/original/image-20160518-13496-1nnydsu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=146&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122971/original/image-20160518-13496-1nnydsu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=146&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122971/original/image-20160518-13496-1nnydsu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=146&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122971/original/image-20160518-13496-1nnydsu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122971/original/image-20160518-13496-1nnydsu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122971/original/image-20160518-13496-1nnydsu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=183&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="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/09_2015/data-highlight-no-2-2015-bnla_pdf.pdf">Building a New Life in Australia study</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So data from this study show that 23% of the female participants and 17% of the male participants were illiterate in their own language. </p>
<p>Is that “many”, as Dutton puts it? It’s a matter of interpretation, but note that this particular refugee study found that a <em>majority</em> of study participants were literate in their own language.</p>
<p>The study also found very high rates of engagement in English language classes and other kinds of study.</p>
<h2>What do other sources say?</h2>
<p>Most refugees in Australia do not arrive by boat. Most come via a resettlement program administered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). </p>
<p>Some refugees arriving in Australia have low levels of literacy and education prior to being resettled in Australia – but many will have at least a primary school education.</p>
<p>The Refugee Council of Australia recognises that refugees resettled in Australia <a href="http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/fact-sheets/settlement-issues/education-and-training/">may arrive with minimal or no English</a> and may have had a “very limited or different experience of education overseas”.</p>
<p>However, when selecting refugees for resettlement, government and UNHCR officers are confronted with a pool of applicants that massively exceeds the available quota. So Australia has the luxury of being quite <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-how-are-the-12-000-extra-refugees-coming-to-australia-chosen-51324">choosy</a> about which refugees it selects under the UNHCR program, which may favour more educated refugees. </p>
<p>Before these refugees even make it to Australia, some will have been through UNHCR educational programs. An <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendocPDFViewer.html?docid=4af7e71d9&query=education">education strategy</a> developed by the UNHCR in 2012 sets out goals of increasing the literacy rates of refugee adults by 50% and expanding opportunities for educational access at both primary and secondary levels for refugee children.</p>
<p>Many refugees were also educated in their home country before they left. It is difficult to accurately say how educated they are because they often travel without identification documents and academic transcripts.</p>
<h2>A note on Syrians</h2>
<p>A big chunk of Australia’s future refugee intake <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-how-are-the-12-000-extra-refugees-coming-to-australia-chosen-51324">may be Syrians</a>. According to the UNHCR, the largest group of refugees currently displaced across the globe <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/56701b969.html">are from Syria</a>.</p>
<p>A Swiss study of the educational backgrounds of Syrian refugees living in Lebanon from 2012 found that <a href="https://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=607">91% were literate</a>. About 30% of respondents had a secondary school qualification or university degrees and 61% had attended primary school. Only 9% were illiterate.</p>
<p>More recent OECD <a href="https://www.oecd.org/migration/Is-this-refugee-crisis-different.pdf">evaluations</a> of refugees being resettled in Europe estimate that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>15% of asylum seekers had a tertiary degree</p></li>
<li><p>16% had upper secondary education</p></li>
<li><p>35% had lower secondary education</p></li>
<li><p>24% had attended primary school</p></li>
<li><p>11% had not attended primary school.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Refugees originating from African nations, Burma, Afghanistan and Iraq have had their education <a href="http://www.alea.edu.au/documents/item/551">disrupted</a> by conflict.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Data from the Building a New Life in Australia refugee <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/09_2015/data-highlight-no-2-2015-bnla_pdf.pdf">study</a> show that 23% of the study’s female participants and 17% of the study’s male participants were illiterate in their own language. </p>
<p>That study found that a <em>majority</em> of study participants were literate in their own language.</p>
<p>It is true that refugees experience disrupted education and limited literacy prior to resettlement in Australia and may arrive with minimal or no English.</p>
<p>However, the available evidence suggests that many refugees – particularly Syrians – have been educated to a primary level or higher in their own language, with some educated at tertiary levels. <strong>– Georgina Ramsay</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This analysis is sound. It points to the significant diversity of educational backgrounds of refugees, who can range from highly educated doctors, lawyers or engineers, through to people who have never been to school. </p>
<p>The number of refugees in need of resettlement (<a href="https://theconversation.com/where-does-the-magic-number-for-australias-refugee-intake-come-from-47204">estimated by the UNHCR</a> to be about 1.15 million in 2016) is vastly higher than the number of resettlement places available globally. That means resettlement countries are able to apply additional screening criteria in deciding to whom they will give visas. </p>
<p>This typically involves reviewing criteria that seek to predict refugees’ capacity to settle successfully in the new country. It looks at education, employment skills, language ability and pre-existing links to the resettlement country. This tends to favour more educated refugees in the UNHCR program. </p>
<p>Additionally, many studies have shown that the children and grandchildren of refugees are more likely than their skilled migrant and Australian-born contemporaries to complete university qualifications and to work in managerial and professional roles.</p>
<p>Finally, while refugees may well demonstrate a strong commitment to literacy and education, refugee resettlement is a humanitarian program of which protection of human life is a central component. <strong>– Lucy Fiske</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/59584/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Georgina Ramsay is a Board Member for Northern Settlement Services. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lucy Fiske has received funding from the DFAT Australia Development Research Awards Scheme (2013-2015).</span></em></p>Was Immigration Minister Peter Dutton right about refugees’ literacy and numeracy?Georgina Ramsay, Research associate, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.