tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/david-leyonhjelm-11475/articlesDavid Leyonhjelm – The Conversation2018-07-06T04:05:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/995092018-07-06T04:05:50Z2018-07-06T04:05:50ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Leyonhjelm’s incivility and the government’s need to appease on GST and energy<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8P90avaFtqY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Michelle Grattan speaks with the Director of the University of Canberra’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis Mark Evans about the week in Australian politics. They discuss Senator David Leyonhjelm’s offensive comments to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, the government’s planned GST reform, and Tony Abbott’s calls for Australia to withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99509/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan speaks with Mark Evans about the week in Australian politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/992222018-07-04T02:44:00Z2018-07-04T02:44:00ZSexist abuse has a long history in Australian politics – and takes us all to a dark place<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226094/original/file-20180704-73326-1nw7pbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With some foul-mouthed words to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator David Leyonhjelm has turned a debate about the safety of women into a sleazy political sideshow.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas/Sam Mooy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In one foul-mouthed phrase, Senator David Leyonhjelm has turned a debate about the safety of women into a sleazy political sideshow.</p>
<p>Claiming – without a shred of factual support – that he had interpreted Senator Sarah Hanson-Young as having said words to the effect of “all men are rapists”, Leyonhjelm called across the chamber that she should “stop shagging men”. Confronted by her afterwards, he told her to “fuck off”.</p>
<p>It is one more example of the debasement of political debate in Australia, aided and abetted by elements of the media, in this case Sky News. Its Outsiders panel of Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron gave Leyonhjelm a platform on which he repeated his offensive remarks, and sat back obligingly while he did so.</p>
<p>Only when the network was deluged with complaints did Cameron apologise for the pair of them, and the network took its own action – suspending not Dean and Cameron but the nameless and faceless <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/02/sky-news-presenters-apologise-hanson-young-leyonhjelm">young female producer</a> who put up a caption at the foot of the screen bearing Leyonhjelm’s words.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/madonna-or-whore-frigid-or-a-slut-why-women-are-still-bearing-the-brunt-of-sexual-slurs-99292">Madonna or whore; frigid or a slut: why women are still bearing the brunt of sexual slurs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Sexism and sexual innuendo are nothing new in politics. Cheryl Kernot, one-time leader of the Australian Democrats who <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/03/1025667007922.html">had an affair</a> with Labor’s foreign affairs minister, Gareth Evans, and defected to Labor in the late 1990s, was the butt of some crude slanging on the floor of the parliament.</p>
<p>But since June 24 2010, when <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-24/gillard-ousts-rudd-in-bloodless-coup/879136">Julia Gillard deposed Kevin Rudd</a> as Labor prime minister, these phenomena seem to have got palpably worse.</p>
<p>The reasons are necessarily speculative, but a series of developments over the intervening eight years might help to explain it.</p>
<p>One has been the explosive arrival of social media and its adoption as a tool of propaganda by all who want to make themselves heard, regardless of taste, harm or substance. Facebook, launched in 2004, went global in 2006, the same year that Twitter was launched. YouTube appeared in 2005, Instagram in 2010 (acquired by Facebook in 2012) and Snapchat in 2011.</p>
<p>Whatever benefits they have brought – and there are many – they have also brought trolling.</p>
<p>During Gillard’s prime ministership, a vast amount of trolling was directed at her. It was gross in its extremism and vulgarity. Much of it was crude pornography. There was incitement to violence and unbridled misogyny. <a href="http://www.annesummers.com.au/speeches/her-rights-at-work-r-rated-version/">Research by Anne Summers</a>, for her 2012 Human Rights and Social Justice Lecture at the University of Newcastle, revealed just how vile this online assault became.</p>
<p>The poison seeped out into the wider public discourse, where inevitably elements of the mainstream media magnified it.</p>
<p>Notable contributors to this were commercial radio talkback shock jocks Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and Chris Smith. Their depictions of, and remarks about, Gillard were disgustingly offensive. Not only were they sexist, extremist and malicious, but in Jones’s case involved encouragement of the idea that the prime minister should be dumped at sea.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hsaVpepMyA8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And then, of course, there was the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flAJmIs1d1I">infamous question</a> about the sexual orientation of the prime minister’s partner.</p>
<p>Portrayals of Gillard by other elements of the mainstream media, especially the newspapers, were generally less grotesque, but raised important ethical issues just the same.</p>
<p>The most common, and in some ways the most difficult to pin down, concerned the passively neutral way in which they covered the grossly disrespectful public attacks on her, just as Dean and Cameron did on Sunday.</p>
<p>An egregious example was the coverage of the rally outside Parliament House in 2011 when the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, gave legitimacy to sentiments such as “ditch the witch” and “bitch” by allowing himself to be photographed in front of placards bearing those words.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226088/original/file-20180704-73312-ttchdn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Opposition Leader Tony Abbott addresses a crowd in front of crude signs referring to Prime Minister Julia Gillard in March 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A more recent development, also made possible by the internet, has been the rise of the <a href="https://metoomvmt.org/">#metoo movement</a>, in which women who previously felt powerless to speak out about sexual harassment are now doing so, bringing down some powerful men such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html">Harvey Weinstein</a> in the process.</p>
<p>This has produced a backlash consisting of a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-rising-pressure-of-the-metoo-backlash">complicated mix</a> of male dubiety about the exact nature of sexual harassment and irritation by some feminists at what they see as an apparent weakening of women’s agency.</p>
<p>The fact there is a backlash at all doubtless encourages those who wish to say that attention to sexual harassment is overdone, and we should get back to a bit of good old-fashioned slagging of the kind epitomised by Leyonhjelm’s remarks.</p>
<p>A further factor might be that the boundaries of privacy have shifted. Sexual references that would have been deemed off-limits a decade ago are now shared on social media. Perhaps this is having a desensitising effect on standards of public taste.</p>
<p>Trends in public standards influence editorial decision-making. Stories are published that previously might not have been, or might have been toned down.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-parliament-should-care-about-its-reputation-even-if-leyonhjelm-doesnt-value-his-99225">View from The Hill: Parliament should care about its reputation even if Leyonhjelm doesn't value his</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As professional mass media try to keep pace with developments in social media, editors may feel they will be left behind if they don’t swiftly adapt to these changing mores and become more libertarian in their decision-making.</p>
<p>In these ways, boundaries in public taste and decency shift over time. However, Leyonhjelm has clearly put himself beyond the pale. Sky News obviously recognised this and felt an apology was necessary, even if Leyonhjelm himself does not.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, it is sobering to reflect on the worst consequences of disrespectful attitudes to women. The shocking rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon in Melbourne last month – which gave rise to the debate in which Leyonhjelm made his disgraceful interjection – has rightly led to an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/18/eurydice-dixon-vigil-silence-and-song-as-mourners-come-to-remember-and-reclaim">outpouring of community outrage and grief</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/2018/06/04/report-australian-domestic-and-family-violence-death-review-network-data-report-2018">2018 report</a> of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, which draws on data from all the coroners’ courts in Australia, stated that between July 1 2010 and June 30 2014 there were 152 intimate partner homicides across Australia that followed an identifiable history of domestic violence.</p>
<p>Of these, 121, or 79.6%, <a href="http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/e7964843-7985-4a25-8abd-5060c26edc4d/website+version+-+adfvdrn_data_report_2018_.pdf">were women killed by men</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99222/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many female politicians have had to endure sexist abuse, from Cheryl Kernot to Julia Gillard to Sarah Hanson-Young. And it is not a matter that should simply be brushed aside.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/992922018-07-03T06:33:11Z2018-07-03T06:33:11ZMadonna or whore; frigid or a slut: why women are still bearing the brunt of sexual slurs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225869/original/file-20180703-116139-1j6vdus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sarah Hanson-Young on David Leyonhjelm: "He is — for lack of a better word ... slut-shaming me".</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Senator David Leyonhjelm’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-parliament-should-care-about-its-reputation-even-if-leyonhjelm-doesnt-value-his-99225">sexist slur</a> on Senator Sarah Hanson-Young during parliamentary debate raises many issues about how women’s credibility can be undermined by implications that they are sexually more active than is deemed “acceptable”. </p>
<p>This is a long-standing tactic, based on sexist assumptions that women can be classified as either Madonna or whore, frigid or slut: something Australian feminist Anne Summers wrote about so powerfully in her book <a href="http://www.annesummers.com.au/books/damned-whores-and-gods-police/">Damned Whores and God’s Police</a>. In it, Summers quoted Caroline Chisholm’s belief that the colony needed “good and virtuous women”. The misuse of female sexuality has more recently been rebadged as “slut shaming”, which in turn created its own feminist protests by women engaging in “slut walks” as a means of reclaiming the term as a positive. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-parliament-should-care-about-its-reputation-even-if-leyonhjelm-doesnt-value-his-99225">View from The Hill: Parliament should care about its reputation even if Leyonhjelm doesn't value his</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As academic and author Jessalynn Keller <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming">has written</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The phrase [slut-shaming] became popularized alongside the SlutWalk marches and functions similarly to the “War on Women,” producing affective connections while additionally working to reclaim the word “slut” as a source of power and agency for girls and women.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this spirit, Hanson-Young has hit back. Leyonhjelm has refused to apologise for his comments, and Hanson-Young is now seeking further action. “I have a responsibility now, I have a responsibility to call this for what it is,” <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-03/david-leyonhjelm-sarah-hanson-young-slut-shaming-shagging-men/9934114">she told ABC radio</a>. She said Leyonhjelm had suggested she was “sexually promiscuous”. She continued:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He is — for lack of a better word, and I really apologise for this, I’m thankful that my daughter is home in bed still and not up for school — he’s slut-shaming me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This conflict arose from one of the many debates raised by the astounding successes of the #metoo movement, which has exposed women’s widespread experiences of sexual harassment and bullying. </p>
<p>The wider debate records what are obviously very long-standing differences of criteria applied to women’s behaviour as opposed to men’s. Despite it being nearly 70 years since publication of another classic feminist tome, Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, women are still seen as Other, and defined by powerful male criteria. </p>
<p>Whereas men’s virtues are often seen as multiple and universal, those seen as relating to women are still tied to outdated moral codes that assume our sexual behaviour is the primary indicator of who we are.</p>
<p>While sexual prowess and multiple “conquests” may be indicators of men’s approved masculinity, women may lose legitimacy if they are deemed promiscuous by having multiple partners. </p>
<p>There is no doubt men’s active sexuality is deemed acceptable and often excused as driven by physical needs, but women are still criticised for leading men on or astray. In other words, not only can’t women win in terms of their own sexuality and how it is somehow tied to their moral character, they are often asked, implicitly or explicitly, to take responsibility for men’s sexual behaviour too.</p>
<p>The so-called sexual revolution, catalysed by the availability of reliable female contraception in the 1960s, does not seem to have freed women in the same way it freed men. Interestingly, there is still no male pill that would reduce the risks for women, so we still carry that responsibility far too often.</p>
<p>All of this raises questions of how far real equality for women has come. I often quote a 1970s badge that read “women who want equality with men lack ambition”. We wanted to change what was valued and by whom, to balance the emphasis on macho material goals, tastes, attitudes and ambitions.</p>
<p>Current evidence suggests that, despite having more women in the senior ranks of most institutions, these are still there as parvenus, subjected to male criteria of what they think matters.</p>
<p>So women who do not fit the designated behaviour of Madonnas or whores are likely to be targeted for sledging. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard copped it and there is no evidence the culture has improved.</p>
<p>For his part, Leyonhjelm is unrepentant. When asked whether his reaction was too personal, regardless of what he thought Hanson-Young, <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/senator-sarah-hansonyoung-hits-out-at-david-leyonhjelm-over-sexist-slurs/news-story/b7a35ed9996899e610636857961bf156">he said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think you’re being way too precious. If you’re a woman of 36, unless you’re celibate, it might be a reasonable assumption that you’re shagging men occasionally. It’s a legitimate assumption and I simply made that assumption.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This just reinforces the idea that she is promiscuous, which he must know will reduce her wider credibility. It is an oddly puritanical comment, given he claims to be libertarian. </p>
<p>Many politicians have taken issue with Leyonhjelm’s comments, though it is perhaps in part a result of the general debasing of parliamentary debate in recent years. Let’s hope the public outrage over this particular incident will create some push-back against vocal sexist slurs against women, in parliament and in broader society.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99292/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The stoush between Senators Sarah-Hanson Young and David Leyonhjelm harks back to age-old - not to mention nonsense and deeply sexist - dichotomies about women’s sexuality and moral character.Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow, Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/992252018-07-02T10:06:56Z2018-07-02T10:06:56ZView from The Hill: Parliament should care about its reputation even if Leyonhjelm doesn’t value his<p>If David Leyonhjelm hasn’t apologised to Sarah Hanson-Young by the time parliament resumes next month, the Senate should tell him to do so.</p>
<p>The recalcitrant Liberal Democrat senator might tell his upper house colleagues to go jump, but the Senate needs to take a stand for the sake of its own reputation.</p>
<p>The outraged Greens have already flagged they’ll move a censure over Leyonhjelm’s smearing of their senator.</p>
<p>This matter goes beyond the actual stoush between the two. It raises the issue of when parliament should call out unacceptable behaviour by its members. It has also triggered questions about the media’s role.</p>
<p>Let’s go back to the start. Last Thursday Hanson-Young told the Senate that during a motion relating to violence against women, “senator Leyonhjelm yelled an offensive and sexist slur at me from across the chamber.</p>
<p>"After the vote on the motion was complete, I walked over to the senator and confronted him directly. I asked whether I had heard him correctly. He confirmed that he had yelled, ‘You should stop shagging men, Sarah.’</p>
<p>"Shocked, I told him that he was a creep. His reply was to tell me to ‘f… off’,” she said.</p>
<p>Earlier, Greens leader Richard Di Natale had approached Senate president Scott Ryan about the incident. Ryan spoke to Leyonhjelm. Leyonhjelm wouldn’t apologise.</p>
<p>Subsequently, Leyonhjelm gave his version in a <a href="https://medium.com/leyonhjelm/media-statement-on-senator-hanson-young-c16a134b56bb">media statement</a>, saying during the debate Hanson-Young had interjected “something along the lines of all men being rapists. [She says her interjection was ‘putting more tasers on the streets would not make women more safe from men’].</p>
<p>"I responded by suggesting that if this were the case she should stop shagging men.”</p>
<p>Adding more provocation, Leyonhjelm said in his statement that while not prepared to apologise “I am prepared to rephrase my comments. I strongly urge senator Hanson-Young to continue shagging men as she pleases.”</p>
<p>The incident has blown up especially because of what followed at the weekend. Leyonhjelm was interviewed on Sky and on 3AW on Sunday morning. On each program he cast a particular slur on Hanson-Young’s reputation.</p>
<p>On 3AW he was challenged by the presenters. On <a href="https://medium.com/leyonhjelm/senator-david-leyonhjelm-on-outsiders-3043f9b1af39">Sky’s Outsiders</a> it was a different story. He fitted the vibe of a program, that stretches to breaking point the limits of the permissible. A strap line was put up of his words, “SARAH HANSON-YOUNG IS KNOWN FOR LIKING MEN THE RUMOURS ABOUT HER IN PARLIAMENT ARE WELL KNOWN”.</p>
<p>Then, all hell broke loose.</p>
<p>Within hours Sky <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/1013293086493949952">apologised</a> to Hanson-Young for “broadcasting appalling comments … and for highlighting them in an on-screen strap”. It said a producer had been suspended, ahead of an internal investigation.</p>
<p>Multiple Sky presenters distanced themselves in tweets. Hanson-Young <a href="https://twitter.com/sarahinthesen8/status/1013595816856940544">announced</a> on Monday that she was seeking legal advice. Letters <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-02/david-leyonhjelm-refuses-to-apologise-sarah-hanson-young/9931386">have been</a> sent to Sky, 3AW and Leyonhjelm. She could only sue in relation to what happened outside parliament. </p>
<p>Ryan - who did his best on the day - has explained that he doesn’t have power to force an apology.</p>
<p>He <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorRyan/status/1012524143084953602">said</a> on twitter on Friday: “As the comments were not part of the formal proceedings of the Senate, they are not recorded in Hansard and therefore I have no authority to require a withdrawal, nor do I have the power to demand an apology from any senator or apply a sanction such as suspension.”</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm, who is railing against misandry (hatred of men) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelkoziol/status/1013622100475559936">told</a> Fairfax Media it would be easier to apologise but that would be “insincere… because I don’t think I have anything to apologise for”.</p>
<p>If Leyonhjelm really believes that, he is totally out of touch with reasonable standards of behaviour, let alone how ordinary people think their representatives should conduct themselves, whatever their disagreements.</p>
<p>His conduct is at the extreme end of the discourteous, sometimes boorish, discourse that too often is characterising political exchanges. And politicians then wonder why so many people are angry at them.</p>
<p>As for Sky, its response has been less than convincing – some might say it is hiding behind a petticoat.</p>
<p>Di Natale opined that Sky’s “apology rings hollow when the man who made the offensive comments goes unpunished, the male producers who booked him go unpunished, the male executives who set the tone and pay their salaries go unpunished and the only one held accountable is a junior producer who also happens to be a female member of staff.”</p>
<p>Suspending a producer, over the strap line, is tokenism. The fact the strap line “highlighted” what was said is hardly the point. Leyonhjelm himself said on Monday “the producer was not responsible for my comments” and pointed to Sky fears about losing sponsorship.</p>
<p>Forget the producer - wasn’t it for the the hosts, Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron, to challenge, or stop, Leyonhjelm? Yet Cameron wound up the segment with the words, “senator David Leyonhjelm, we appreciate your advocacy of the individual to be defended against the sludge of the collective”. (Later in the program - presumably after someone twigged - Dean started the damage control, saying Leyonhjelm’s views “are not the views of Sky News”.)</p>
<p>There was not a word about the presenters in the Sky apology - which was not issued in anyone’s name.</p>
<p>As for an internal investigation, is that needed? Aren’t things pretty obvious? Leyonhjelm was invited on to be controversial. He did exactly what was wanted but when it didn’t work out too well, Sky failed to confront the real issue for the network – a low rent program.</p>
<p>Cameron and Dean on Monday night <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/1013727258316402688">admitted</a> that a line had been crossed and they disassociated “ourselves from the use of unverified rumour and innuendo”. Pity they didn’t see the line when Leyonhjelm crossed it in their plain sight.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99225/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Leyonhjelm’s conduct is at the extreme end of the discourteous, sometimes boorish, discourse that too often is characterising political exchanges.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/699752016-12-08T19:08:35Z2016-12-08T19:08:35ZYou say ‘elite media’, I say real journalism. And now more than ever we must fight to keep it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149166/original/image-20161208-18032-ye1976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What critics call the 'elite media' is actually journalism that serves the public interest.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A word, if I may, on this nasty new term of abuse “elite media” – they who perpetrate “elite journalism”.</p>
<p>This is the journalism said by those who use the term to be out of touch with so-called “ordinary people” and their everyday concerns.</p>
<p>It is the journalism said to be done by people living inside the “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/28/david-leyonhjelm-deal-to-force-abc-and-sbs-from-behind-goats-cheese-curtain">goat’s cheese curtain</a>”, in the chic inner suburbs of our cities, who are dismissed as having no idea what it is like to live in the outer suburbs, much less in regional or remote areas.</p>
<p>The phrase was invoked recently by Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm in his irrational proposition that he could generate a “freedom offset” against the impositions of the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation by forcing the ABC to conduct community forums after its board meetings.</p>
<p>This, he argued, would force its people to receive knowledge from those who lived beyond the “curtain” and so help broaden the ABC’s collective mind.</p>
<p>A variant on the theme is the phrase “black skivvy”, to denote people who likewise live in the inner city.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-turns-fire-onto-abc-and-the-elite-media-for-distracting-people-20161114-gspbem.html">used the term “elite media”</a> with a curl of the lip during an interview a fortnight ago with Leigh Sales on ABC TV’s 7.30 program, when she asked him about his government’s preoccupation with amending Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.</p>
<p>Was this, Sales asked, really the main everyday concern of the voting population and, if it wasn’t, why was his government spending so much time and energy on it?</p>
<p>Turnbull replied that she would have to put that question to her colleagues in the “elite media”, specifying the ABC but neglecting to mention The Australian, which is the media outlet that has been pushing the hardest on 18C.</p>
<p>His use of “elite media” was a piece of copycat rhetoric that had suddenly become the height of fashion in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump winning the US presidential election. The “elite media” had got it all wrong. They were so out of touch that they had failed to see what was really going on in the minds of the American people.</p>
<p>That seems to be true. The US media did seem to miss the story comprehensively, but, in the process of debating why this happened, the word “elite” came to be used to describe a professional media that had lost democratic legitimacy.</p>
<p>In the US, at least, there has developed a so-called “alt media” – meaning an alternative media. It is derived from the term “alt right”, the alternative or extreme right wing of American politics.</p>
<p>Using online platforms – basically Facebook – the “alt media” proclaims that it will tell you information the mainstream media – the professional journalists – won’t tell you, because they are part of The Establishment and not to be trusted.</p>
<p>On this assertion, then, rests the “alt media’s” claim to democratic legitimacy.</p>
<p>It is a dangerous development because the “alt media” gives the impression of doing journalism when what it really does is a melange of gossip, propaganda and hate. It is part of the “fake news” phenomenon. It has nothing to do with the fourth-estate function of the media on which democratic politics depend.</p>
<p>Yet it is a development for which professional journalists in some parts of the mainstream media – and more especially their employers – have to share the blame.</p>
<p>When the internet burst into everyday life in 2006, big newspaper companies and their journalists became hooked on it as a source of cheap thrills and easy access to information. They republished material from the internet without doing anything like enough to verify it beforehand.</p>
<p>I know this because journalists I interviewed after the Black Saturday bushfires told me about it. That was seven years ago. They told me that they had this mantra: “If it’s wrong, it won’t be wrong for long.” The readers would see the mistakes, tell the newspaper and then it might be fixed.</p>
<p>As a result, professional journalism became cheapened, and the distinctions between professional journalism and online <em>ersatz</em> journalism became blurred.</p>
<p>Australia’s two biggest newspaper companies either didn’t see the risks or chose to ignore them.</p>
<p>Now we have reached the situation where real journalism is being dismissed as “elite”.</p>
<p>Real journalism involves collecting and verifying facts before publishing them. It involves adherence to legal and ethical standards concerning due process at law, avoidance of wrongful harm, and respect for public taste.</p>
<p>It involves the unfashionable function of gatekeeping – call it editing.</p>
<p>It involves shining a light in dark places to reveal things that people in power want concealed. That is how we know, for instance, about sexual abuse of children by clergy, and about bad behaviour by the insurance arm of the Commonwealth Bank.</p>
<p>Journalism like this involves accumulating evidence to a standard of proof commensurate with the gravity of the wrongdoing. It is a complex exercise demanding skill and experience.</p>
<p>Yes, professional journalism has many flaws and neither the practitioners nor the media industry they work for are as accountable as they should be for the way they use their power. But there is some accountability, including some serious legal consequences.</p>
<p>Moreover, they operate in the open, with no cloak of anonymity to hide behind.</p>
<p>This is the kind of journalism that serves the public interest.</p>
<p>It follows that it is in the public interest that professional journalism and the media industry respond effectively to the current challenge to their institutional legitimacy. Basically, that means doing journalism to high ethical standards and putting the need to be right ahead of the need to be first.</p>
<p>This is not about elite journalism versus alternative journalism. It is about real journalism versus non-journalism.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Denis will be online for an Author Q&A between 10:30 and 11:30am AEDT on Friday, 9 December, 2016. Post any questions you have in the comments below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69975/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Suddenly ‘elite media’ has become a term of abuse, but in truth this is a battle between real journalism and non-journalism.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/696672016-11-30T12:24:51Z2016-11-30T12:24:51ZTurnbull is happy to horse trade if it gets the nags over the line<p>Malcolm Turnbull didn’t actually trade his first-born this week but it felt like it might come to that.</p>
<p>In a whatever-it-takes frame of mind, the government conceded a great deal to get its legislation to resurrect the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) through on Wednesday.</p>
<p>So much so that Labor finds itself caught between its attack lines. Does it concentrate on arguing this is draconian legislation hitting the workers, or on claiming it has been emasculated by government backdowns?</p>
<p>Labor spokesman Brendan O'Connor did both. “It would have been a lot easier for Malcolm Turnbull just to change the name of the Fair Work Building Commission because of the backflips the government entertained,” he said.</p>
<p>But “we don’t support the ABCC, we’ve never supported the ABCC, so of course we won’t be looking to continue its conduct and its operation in government”.</p>
<p>This final parliamentary week is replete with contradictions and competing imperatives. It’s not a time for the politically pure.</p>
<p>Turnbull likes to portray himself as a pragmatist who wants this parliament to work. To achieve that he’s had to let a vigorous tail, in the form of assorted crossbench senators, wag the dog.</p>
<p>There have been few limits. The idea of telling the ABC and SBS boards they must have regular public forums, as part of the bid to get David Leyonhjelm’s vote on the ABCC, was little short of bizarre.</p>
<p>That’s not to deride the idea of the forums. Indeed Turnbull may wish he had thought of them when communications minister.</p>
<p>Then for Nick Xenophon there was the elevation of the Murray-Darling water issue to a permanent item on the Council of Australian Governments agenda, where it can be regularly monitored.</p>
<p>Xenophon got nothing of substance on water but decided to be happy enough with having its oversight raised to the level of first ministers (take that, Barnaby Joyce), with some extra scrutiny at Senate estimates.</p>
<p>One can take the view that amending bills often produces a better result, and removing some of the harsh edges of the ABCC legislation falls into that category.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the amount of power in the hands of this or that crossbencher at any particular moment, all of them claiming their own mandates and some with very specific demands outside the legislation being dealt with, is a worry.</p>
<p>Not that it’s new. Tasmanian independent Brian Harradine extracted huge largesse from the Howard government for his home state, and other things besides.</p>
<p>And it could be argued that in the last parliament there was not enough trading to make it functional.</p>
<p>Leaving aside the water and ABC trade-offs, the following were among the concessions made to get the ABCC bill through:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>agreement to a security of payments working group to help protect subcontractors;</p></li>
<li><p>a requirement for preferred tenderers for government building work to provide information about the use of domestically sourced materials and the impact on jobs and skills growth;</p></li>
<li><p>changes to government procurement policy across the board – Australian standards will have to be met for procured goods and services, and for procurements of more than A$4 million the economic benefits to the Australian economy must be considered. This has a distinct whiff of protectionism;</p></li>
<li><p>a two-year grace period for companies seeking government contracts to get their enterprise agreements to comply with the new building industry code. Originally the new code would have applied retrospectively to enterprise agreements struck since April 2014, disqualifying some companies from government work;</p></li>
<li><p>a requirement for employers in the industry to show that no Australian worker is available before they can take on a foreign worker. This was the one successful Labor amendment, passed in the face of government opposition;</p></li>
<li><p>preservation of a number of the existing civil liberty safeguards available to a person subject to examination, which the original legislation would have knocked out;</p></li>
<li><p>a review of the act within the next year;</p></li>
<li><p>making decisions under the act subject to merit review; and</p></li>
<li><p>accepting the onus of proof should not be on employees to prove they held a reasonable concern about health or safety when ceasing work.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Labor denounced Turnbull as a “horse-trader by nature”, which he is. He’s about outcomes. In business he was about deals. When he was seeking the leadership, he “traded” earlier positions on climate policy and the same-sex marriage plebiscite as part of his pitch for votes.</p>
<p>When Leigh Sales on Wednesday night pointed to the deals he’d done on crossbenchers’ “pet projects” and asked “is your legislative agenda, looking forwards, going to be held hostage by all of the niche interests that all of the crossbench has?”, Turnbull replied: “Well Leigh that’s the nature of politics. We don’t control the Senate and so to secure the passage of our legislation through the Senate we have to negotiate with the crossbench.”</p>
<p>In this case, it was vital for Turnbull to end the year with substantive legislative achievements, which he has obtained. The two double-dissolution bills are through, with tougher union governance rules passing last week.</p>
<p>But having played ball, albeit at a price, on the ABCC, the Senate immediately delivered Turnbull a slap when it rejected the 15% rate for the backpackers tax, and instead voted for 10.5%.</p>
<p>So it was back to the trading room, with Treasurer Scott Morrison – who is so far not budging from 15% – trying to turn around the numbers.</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm has now accepted 15% – in return the government has agreed to drop publication of the names on the planned register of farmers and other employers of backpackers. Morrison was also working on Derryn Hinch and One Nation’s Rod Culleton – he needs one of them.</p>
<p>Failure to get the backpacker tax legislation passed this week would take some of the gloss off the win on the ABCC. Most obviously, it would infuriate the farmers.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/n7w2w-6510a3?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/n7w2w-6510a3?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69667/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Malcolm Turnbull didn’t actually trade his first-born this week but it felt like it might come to that. In a whatever-it-takes frame of mind, the government conceded a great deal to get its legislation…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/674562016-10-21T03:39:18Z2016-10-21T03:39:18ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the political gun debate<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SoPTIfiZREM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The Turnbull-Abbott hostilities erupted in a very public manner this week over the terms of a ban on the importation of the Adler seven-shot lever-action shotgun. While the fallout from their conflict over the matter is expected to continue, Michelle Grattan tells University of Canberra vice-chancellor Deep Saini these events highlight that when you have a Senate that’s not in the government’s control, compromises are needed.</p>
<p>“Now everyone says ‘well that’s a good thing isn’t it – compromise is what we want in the political system’. But the darker side of compromise is that there can be some questionable deals in the sense that many people would think ‘well to be talking about some concessions in relation to guns isn’t a very good thing’,” Grattan says.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67456/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>The Turnbull-Abbott hostilities erupted in a very public manner this week over the terms of a ban on the importation of the Adler seven-shot lever-action shotgun.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraPaddy Nixon, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/674032016-10-20T12:19:05Z2016-10-20T12:19:05ZGrattan on Friday: A ‘game-changer’ gun changes Turnbull-Abbott game<p>Political pundits often talk about the “transactional costs” of coups. On Thursday, the cost of having around a deeply unhappy and still angry ousted leader suddenly became alarmingly high for the government.</p>
<p>When Malcolm Turnbull told parliament that the prime ministerial office of Tony Abbott knew of the 2015 deal with Senate crossbencher David Leyonhjelm to attach a sunset clause to the import ban on a particular Adler shotgun, it turned the already bitter relationship between the current and former leaders into a potential crisis.</p>
<p>Abbott had denied any deal by him or his office. Now – in parliament – he was in effect being called a liar by the man who supplanted him. It doesn’t come much more serious than that.</p>
<p>The Adler seven-shot lever-action shotgun, advertised as “a game changer for the Australian market”, had changed the game in their mutual hostilities.</p>
<p>To say Turnbull has had yet another bad week doesn’t tell half of it. It’s been little short of disastrous and there will be more fallout.</p>
<p>It started on Tuesday when Turnbull on the ABC did not immediately rule out Leyonhjelm’s call to put the Adler import ban on the table in the negotiations about the government’s industrial relations legislation. Leyonhjelm felt “dudded” because the ban had been extended despite the sunset deal.</p>
<p>Abbott decided to inject himself into the debate, with a tweet saying in part “Disturbing to see reports of horse-trading on gun laws”, while his former chief-of-staff Peta Credlin on Sky said “there was absolutely no deal between Tony Abbott and David Leyonhjelm in order to bring in the Adler shotgun”.</p>
<p>On Wednesday Abbott raised the stakes, with comment to reporters and then a rare appearance on the ABC’s 7.30, where he displaced Foreign Minister Julie Bishop who had been due to be the guest on the show. She was less than happy at being bumped in favour of Abbott but the program knew a better political story when it saw it. </p>
<p>Abbott, who regards Bishop as having been disloyal to him, would have been grimly pleased at one-upping her if he’d known.</p>
<p>Pressed by Leigh Sales on the sunset clause deal, Abbott said: “No deals from me. No deals from my office. No deal.” </p>
<p>He dismissed the August 2015 email from Justice Minister Michael Keenan’s office to Leyonhjelm’s office – confirming Keenan and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton had agreed to insert a sunset clause in the August 7 prohibition in return for Leyonhjelm co-operating on migration legislation – as probably staffers just “telling the good senator what was happening anyway as a matter of course, in an attempt to get him to support something that we thought was a very good idea”.</p>
<p>On Thursday morning Keenan and Dutton met Turnbull. Keenan had a paper trail between his office and the Abbott prime ministerial office relating to the deal.</p>
<p>It was decided Abbott should be given the opportunity to clear things up. Dutton went to see him. After the Dutton-Abbott discussion, Turnbull expected Abbott to put out a statement before Question Time. It didn’t come.</p>
<p>Turnbull knew he and the ministers faced imminent cross-examination from Labor in the House. They couldn’t lie to parliament – a hanging offence – and, anyway, the paper trail would eventually come out.</p>
<p>In Question Time Dutton and Keenan both indicated the Abbott office had been in the loop. Turnbull then delivered the coup de grace. He had made inquiries, he said, and “I’m satisfied that the minister for justice acted in the full knowledge of the prime minister’s office at that time”.</p>
<p>After Question Time Abbott made a personal explanation. He said the suggestion Labor had put to parliament that he “had somehow connived at a deal with senator Leyonhjelm to weaken Australia’s tough, gold standard gun control laws” was “absolutely and utterly false”.</p>
<p>He did not refer to the headline story – that Turnbull had just accused him of being privy to the Leyonhjelm deal.</p>
<p>Abbott went on to give the background – citing a July 2015 note from an adviser – to his government imposing a “temporary ban” on the import of the guns until there had been a review and updating of the regulations. </p>
<p>He asked rhetorically: “How can there have been some kind of deal, or concession, or weakening for senator Leyonhjelm on 11 or 12 August if the temporary ban was what the government had always intended, pending a permanent resolution of this by COAG?”</p>
<p>Presumably the documentation will come out sooner rather than later. Beyond that, it’s uncertain where things will go from here.</p>
<p>Both Abbott and Turnbull will be at the weekend NSW Liberal meeting which is to consider reform of the state division of the party, something Abbott has made a personal cause. </p>
<p>Given this week, such proximity is awkward timing.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3jqqj-63ac0a?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3jqqj-63ac0a?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/t2i8v-63a385?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/t2i8v-63a385?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67403/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Political pundits often talk about the ‘transactional costs’ of coups.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/673342016-10-19T13:15:31Z2016-10-19T13:15:31ZLeyonhjelm will look for another trade off for ABCC support if government won’t play on gun.<p>Malcolm Turnbull is like the man who threw down a match, started a fire, and is now struggling to breathe because of the smoke.</p>
<p>He has inadvertently become the centre of a debate on guns which is at least a diversion from what he wants to talk about and at worst has turned into a series of pressure points.</p>
<p>It started on Tuesday with Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm wanting the ban on the importation of the Adler seven-shot lever-action shotgun lifted in a deal over the government’s industrial legislation. When Turnbull failed to immediately just say no, things spun out of control.</p>
<p>Now Tony Abbott has seized the issue and the moment to parade, including an appearance on the ABC’s 7.30 in which, of course, he parried on leadership. The Nationals, facing a difficult NSW byelection next month, are touchy on guns. Ministers from the states, which have responsibility for gun classification, happen to be meeting on Friday but are not expected to break their deadlock over which category the Adler should be in. The opposition has struck gold.</p>
<p>On Wednesday Turnbull tried to turn the issue back onto Bill Shorten by focusing on Labor’s refusal to support tougher action against illegal guns.</p>
<p>But there was too much other noise, especially from Abbott’s intervention, which some critics see as part of his raising his profile ahead of a weekend meeting of the NSW Liberals that will discuss party reform, a cause on which the former prime minister is running hard.</p>
<p>Abbott declared that “no one needs a rapid-fire gun other than perhaps our law enforcement agencies, the military and just possibly people involved in serious pest extermination.</p>
<p>"This idea that shooters generally should have access to rapid-fire weapons is just crackers and it should never happen as far as I’m concerned.”</p>
<p>He dismissed email evidence that when he was prime minister ministers did a deal with Leyonhjelm, in exchange for his vote on another matter, to put a sunset clause on the ban his government had imposed on the Adler seven-shot while its classification was considered.</p>
<p>“As far as I was concerned as prime minister, there was absolutely no way
on god’s earth, with a heightened terror threat, we were going to allow perhaps tens of thousands of rapid fire weapons into the country,” he said.</p>
<p>His former chief of staff Peta Credlin had already insisted there had not been a deal, backing her point with a reference to the concern at the time about terrorism. This prompted a tart tweet from Leyonhjelm: “Conflating licensed firearms owners with terrorists. When you don’t know what you are talking about you should STFU.”</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm points out there wasn’t just the email – there was the fact of the regulation for the sunset clause being brought in. Abbott suggests that was just a routine way of doing things.</p>
<p>While Abbott is standing for an extremely hard line on the gun, the Nationals have a different view. Deputy speaker Mark Coulton said farmers would mainly use it against feral pigs. “I know of one gun dealer who has hundreds on order waiting for this decision,” he said.</p>
<p>Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce is believed to be in favour of the gun being put in category B, which is the position of NSW Nationals leader and police minister Troy Grant. This is the second most accessible category under the multiple level classification scheme. The version of the gun which has a more limited magazine capacity is currently in category A.</p>
<p>But the Nationals, worried about the Orange byelection and judging they have no prospect of getting their way on the classification question, don’t want the issue further stirred before the vote on November 12. Nationals sources are quick to point out it wasn’t them who raised it. Just like Turnbull, they’d hoped this week’s focus would be on industrial relations.</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm, meanwhile, despite his complaint of being “dudded” by the continuation of the ban, says he’s “not inclined to spit the dummy” and close down discussions about a deal on the legislation. “If they don’t negotiate with me on the ban, we’ll see what else they have on offer,” he says. Uh-oh.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/t2i8v-63a385?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/t2i8v-63a385?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3jqqj-63ac0a?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3jqqj-63ac0a?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67334/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Malcolm Turnbull is like the man who threw down a match, started a fire, and is now struggling to breathe because of the smoke. He has inadvertently become the centre of a debate on guns which is at least…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/672992016-10-19T03:07:29Z2016-10-19T03:07:29ZExplainer: what is the Adler shotgun? And should restrictions on it be lifted?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142261/original/image-20161018-15103-zch373.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm is among those pushing for restrictions on the Adler shotgun to be lifted.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The controversy whether Australia <a href="http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/10/18/17/16/senator-david-leyonhjelm-warns-government-over-failed-adler-gun-ban-deal">should allow</a> the importation of the Adler A110 lever-action shotgun has certainly delivered some over-the-top political theatre. If you believe hyperventilating sectors of the media, the Adler is a newly invented death machine. If you believe some politicians’ rhetoric, allowing the Adler into the country dramatically waters down Australia’s 1996 gun laws.</p>
<p>This sounds ominous. But is any of it true? </p>
<p>The Adler has been incorrectly described as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/19/adler-shotgun-new-south-wales-deputy-premier-backs-lifting-ban-on-imports">“new” or “advanced” technology</a>. In fact, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever_action">lever-action</a> shotguns have been around for well over a century. </p>
<p>The Adler looks modern on the outside, but on the inside there is nothing new. </p>
<p>The most contentious feature of the gun, and the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/explainer-why-was-the-controversial-adler-110-leveraction-shotgun-banned-20161018-gs5gdt.html">reason for the parliamentary angst</a>, is its magazine – the part of a gun that holds extra ammunition. Again, this is nothing new. Various models of lever-action shotgun with magazine capacities of five or more rounds have been on the market in Australia for decades. </p>
<p>Claims the Adler A110 somehow weakens Australian gun laws are pure fiction. Lever-action shotguns have always been permitted in Australia. For the past 20 years, they have been available to “Category A” firearm licence-holders. </p>
<p>Some say this is the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/malcolm-turnbull-wont-take-david-leyonhjelms-shotgun-demand-off-negotiating-table/news-story/112cf1177365d466b9c9f81fd12c79e9">“easiest” category for obtaining firearms</a>, making it sound as if someone can instantly get a licence and go out and buy a gun. The truth is more complex. </p>
<h2>What is a Category A licence? And who can get one?</h2>
<p>A Category A firearm licence authorises a person to possess “rimfire” rifles (the .22, or “rabbit gun”) that are not semi-automatic, and shotguns that are not semi-automatic or pump-action. </p>
<p>To <a href="http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=34324">obtain a licence</a>, a person must be over 18 years of age, complete approved safety training, and prove they have a “genuine reason” for owning firearms. “Genuine reasons” include purposes like target shooting, hunting, or primary production. Self-defence is expressly prohibited. </p>
<p>A person must be “fit and proper” – or, in other words, meet <a href="http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms/licences/suspension_refusal_revocation_of_a_licence_or_permit/frequently_asked_questions_-_suspension_refusal_and_revocation">certain standards of character and behaviour</a>. The standards rule out anyone with a history of, for example, violence (including domestic or family violence), illicit drug use, misuse of weapons, or other criminal activities. </p>
<p>It is mandatory for police to conduct backgrounds checks into licence applicants to ensure they are fit and proper. </p>
<p>It is an offence to provide false or misleading information, and penalties apply. A 28-day waiting period applies before a licence will be issued. </p>
<p>If a person is approved to hold a Category A licence, and wants to purchase a firearm, they must apply to police for an individual “Permit to Acquire” for each gun they want to own (and pay a fee). All sales must occur through a licensed firearms dealer, and all firearms must be registered with state authorities. Guns must be locked in a safe when not in use. </p>
<h2>Politics dominates debates around guns</h2>
<p>The hyperbole about the Adler simply does not match the facts. This is symptomatic of the generally poor quality of debate around firearm policy in Australia.</p>
<p>This, in turn, is rooted in Australia’s ongoing obsession with the concept of “gun control”. </p>
<p>The current furore is a holdover from beliefs that were <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/archive/vda/violenceDirectionsAustralia.pdf">fashionable in the 1980s</a>. Back then, it was assumed that more guns mean more crime, and that certain types of guns are <a href="https://theconversation.com/regulating-people-not-just-guns-might-explain-australias-decline-in-mass-shootings-44770">“more dangerous” than others</a>. Although both assumptions have since been dispelled by <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Illicit_firearms/Report">Australian</a> and <a href="http://jpfo.org/pdf03/Homicide%20Studies-2014-Fox-125-45.pdf">international</a> <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12103-011-9147-x">evidence</a>, advocating for gun control has become more about signalling moral virtue than about a search for good policy. </p>
<p>For politicians, “being seen to be good” often trumps evidence-based decision-making.</p>
<p>Australia’s fixation with gun control has come at the expense of gun violence control. The two are not synonymous. Depending on the specific legislative measures and types of violence, they <a href="https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/05/epirev.mxv007.abstract">can certainly be related</a> – but they are not identical. </p>
<p>Gun control is easy – all it involves is passing laws. </p>
<p>Gun violence control is difficult. It goes far beyond law and order, encompassing complex elements of human society and behaviour: poverty, disadvantage, unemployment, connections with illicit drugs and other forms of criminal activity, social fragmentation, cultural factors, and a host of broader social and justice policy challenges. </p>
<p>Tackling gun violence takes evidence-based, cohesive, and collaborative efforts that adopt a whole-of-community perspective. It needs long-term thinking and commitment.</p>
<p>Canada, the UK, and even the US have all implemented effective gun violence reduction programs. Australia has a lot of catching up to do. But it seems our politicians would rather keep shouting at each other about old guns than talk seriously about new approaches to improving public safety.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samara McPhedran does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Dr McPhedran has been appointed to a number of firearms advisory panels and committees, most recently as a member of the Queensland Ministerial Advisory Panel on Firearms, and as a previous member of the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council. She does not receive any financial remuneration for these activities. She holds memberships with, and volunteers for, a range of not-for-profit firearm-related organisations and women's advocacy groups. She is not a member of any political party.</span></em></p>The hyperbole about the Adler shotgun simply does not match with the facts. This is symptomatic of the generally poor quality of debate around firearm policy in Australia.Samara McPhedran, Senior Research Fellow, Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/672492016-10-18T08:19:55Z2016-10-18T08:19:55ZTurnbull walks right into Shorten’s gun-sight<p>The government has a new buzzword. In the partyroom on Tuesday Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce urged the troops to make the Coalition’s policies “tactile”.</p>
<p>In less-fancy terminology, what they mean is showing people how the benefits of policies are tangible and real.</p>
<p>Turnbull instanced talking about health savings being about providing funds to make available expensive drugs. In industrial relations, the government’s preferred topic of the week, Turnbull casts the government’s tough industrial relations legislation as “economy-boosting” and “job-creating”.</p>
<p>The government is increasingly confident that the two double-dissolution bills – to resurrect the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) and to toughen union governance – will pass the parliament. But it will have to compromise when the bills reach the Senate in order to get the required crossbench support.</p>
<p>It is willing to do so, because that is likely to lead to a better end than the riskier course of a joint sitting.</p>
<p>Mostly this will involve changes to the detail of the bills themselves. But Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm plays a wider game. He wants the ban on the importation of the Adler seven-shot lever-action shotgun lifted as a quid pro quo. He claims he was previously dudded because the ban was just reimposed once a sunset clause he had extracted last year came due.</p>
<p>Two seconds worth of thought would tell you that a trade-off between issues around guns and the industrial relations legislation would be a bad path for Turnbull.</p>
<p>But interviewed on Tuesday morning Turnbull did not flatly shut down the Leyonhjelm demand, as he should have. He didn’t want to get drawn on negotiations or further irritate Leyonhjelm, who already describes himself as “grumpy”.</p>
<p>“We will be dealing respectfully with all of the crossbench senators,” he said on the ABC. Later he told journalists: “I’m not going to speculate about negotiations with senators. I’m certainly not going to negotiate in advance.”</p>
<p>Of Leyonhjelm’s gripe he said: “David Leyonhjelm and I have discussed the matter and I’ll be working hard to ensure that any concerns or disappointment he has is addressed.” Leyonhjelm went to Turnbull to complain during the first week of the new parliament.</p>
<p>Labor, so much more agile than the government on tactics but under pressure over industrial relations, saw an opportunity to switch the heat off itself. It proposed a motion in parliament saying Turnbull “has on at least five occasions just this morning refused to rule out trading away John Howard’s gun laws to pass the Abbott government’s industrial relations bills”.</p>
<p>Tony Abbott, also sensing an opportunity, tweeted: “Disturbing to see reports of horse-trading on gun laws. ABCC should be supported on its merits.”</p>
<p>Turnbull, who had gone into the House to train the fire hose on Labor’s motion, was still trying to gain control of the issue in Question Time.</p>
<p>He declared there was “no chance” of the government “weakening, watering down John Howard’s gun laws”.</p>
<p>He said that presently lever-action shotguns were in the most easily acquired category of guns. After a proposal last year to import a significant number of the beefed-up version in question, there had been a need to get federal-state agreement on a reclassification – which hasn’t yet been reached.</p>
<p>The Commonwealth had imposed the import ban, pending an agreement, “to hold the ring and prevent the lever action guns of that capacity to be imported at all”. The ban would continue until the classification was sorted.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the opposition was pursuing the fact that in Abbott’s time Leyonhjelm’s obtaining the sunset clause had secured his opposition to Labor amendments on migration legislation.</p>
<p>By now what Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek called “guns for votes” had taken over the political battleground. The opposition had shifted the conversation from union bad behaviour, on which Labor is vulnerable, to whether Turnbull might play footsie on guns.</p>
<p>It was yet another demonstration of how, in the initial weeks of this parliament, the government is frequently outwitted by its opponents.</p>
<p>Earlier, in the Coalition partyroom, MPs had canvassed the possibility of an electronic system for parliamentary votes, raised by former minister Kevin Andrews. For example, members would still come into the chamber and take seats, but then they would insert personalised cards into machines at the desks. Turnbull is having Leader of the House Christopher Pyne bring forward a submission.</p>
<p>While the government was worrying about saving the moments, Turnbull was throwing away a day.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/t2i8v-63a385?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/t2i8v-63a385?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3jqqj-63ac0a?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3jqqj-63ac0a?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67249/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The government has a new buzzword. In the partyroom on Tuesday Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce urged the troops to make the Coalition’s policies “tactile”. In less-fancy terminology, what they mean…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/646602016-09-01T03:57:56Z2016-09-01T03:57:56ZExplainer: what is Section 18C and why do some politicians want it changed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136195/original/image-20160901-26179-t9lnlb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cory Bernardi is leading the push for changes to Section 18C.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Politicians who regard <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C</a> of the Racial Discrimination Act as a serious threat to “free speech” are again pursuing a range of strategies to discredit and repeal or water-down Australia’s national racial vilification law. </p>
<p>Earlier this month, senator David Leyonhjelm <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-section-18c-protect-angry-white-males-like-david-leyonhjelm-63944">lodged a complaint</a> with the Australian Human Rights Commission, alleging he had been the target of conduct that breached 18C. And, just this week, Liberal senator Cory Bernardi <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/cory-bernadi-leads-coalition-push-to-change-18c-race-hate-laws/7796356">has led a push</a> to introduce a private member’s bill that would curtail 18C.</p>
<p>So what is 18C? And why does it make people like Bernardi and Leyonhjelm so agitated?</p>
<h2>What is 18C and why do we have it?</h2>
<p>Section 18C was added to the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/">Racial Discrimination Act</a> just over 20 years ago, with the passage of the Racial Hatred Act. Under Section 18C:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:</p>
<p>(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult,
humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and</p>
<p>(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of
the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is important to note that under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html">Section 18D</a>, conduct that prima facie breaches 18C will not be unlawful if it is done “reasonably and in good faith” for artistic, academic, scientific or other public interest purposes (or in reporting on any such conduct).</p>
<p>The original Racial Discrimination Act was (and still is) primarily concerned with situations in which racism produces a material disadvantage for someone. That might be, for example, denial of a promotion in the workplace context, or rejection as a potential tenant of a residential property. </p>
<p>In 1995 federal parliament recognised racism can also manifest in other ways and cause other sorts of harms. These include the harms that can be done by what is often referred to colloquially as “racial vilification” or “hate speech”.</p>
<p>Thinkers, writers, politicians, journalists and others have been arguing for many years about whether words alone can harm – or harm to such an extent that the state should take an interest in discouraging such behaviour. Anyone who has really listened to people who are frequently vilified because of their (actual or perceived) identify knows that the harms are not trivial.</p>
<p>In my own research with <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-gelber-108702">Kath Gelber</a>, we heard numerous accounts of the damage that is done by racist comments, including feeling hurt and angry, fearful, intimidated and paranoid. It can crush people’s self-esteem, leave them feeling paralysed and silenced, and excluded from the wider community. </p>
<p>It may also cause people to modify their behaviour in undesirable ways, such as avoiding going out in public to avoid abuse, being unwilling to identify with one’s ethnicity in the workplace so as not to risk ridicule, or speaking only English in public.</p>
<h2>So who has a problem with it, and why?</h2>
<p>No-one pays much attention to the majority of cases in which Section 18C is invoked – to signal that the behaviours that cause such harms are unacceptable in a multicultural liberal democracy.</p>
<p>The heat is always at the margins – stoked by media interest because of the identity of an alleged perpetrator (the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html">Andrew Bolt case</a> from 2011 being a prime example), or because the case is regarded as linking up a wider agenda around “political correctness”. </p>
<p>This appears to be, at least in part, why The Australian newspaper and Bernardi are so interested in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/18c-case-student-cleared-by-queensland-university-of-technology/news-story/a86f5c3d65d1c1df5289bcd44bc354d2">a pending case</a> triggered by controversy over a computer lab provided to support Indigenous students at the Queensland University of Technology.</p>
<p>It is much harder to perpetuate the myth that 18C threatens the foundations of Australian democracy (and so must be repealed), if the more typical cases that <a href="http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/392-2.pdf">we have discovered in our research</a> are considered. These included: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>cases involving holocaust denial and anti-Semitism; </p></li>
<li><p>a case in which Aboriginal youths killed in a car accident were described as “criminal trash” and “scum” that should be used as “land fill”; and</p></li>
<li><p>a case in which an Aboriginal women and her family were subjected to an torrent of abuse, including being called including “niggers”, “coons”, “black mole”, “black bastards” and “lying black mole cunt”.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>There was also a case in which a man who was simply doing his job as a security officer at a public building was called a “Singaporean prick”, and echoing the classic retort of xenophobic exclusion that has been slung at numerous immigrant communities: “go back to Singapore”.</p>
<h2>Why 18C should not be amended</h2>
<p>The wording of Section 18C, and the inclusion of exemptions in Section 18D, represent a genuine attempt to set some parameters for civil and respectful communication, and for making a declaration that, as a society, we recognise the human dignity of all, irrespective of colour, ethnicity or country of origin. </p>
<p>Bernardi and Leyonhjelm, and other campaigners for the rollback of 18C, tend to focus on the words “offend” and “insult” that form part of the key phrase in the legislation (“offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”). However, this approach misunderstands the harm threshold in 18C. </p>
<p>The courts have consistently held that the bar is not a low one. To fall within 18C the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2001/1007.html">speech must have</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html">Eatock v Bolt</a> the Federal Court explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The definitions of “insult” and “humiliate” are closely connected to a loss of or
lowering of dignity. The word “intimidate” is apt to describe the silencing
consequences of the dignity denying impact of racial prejudice as well as the use of threats of violence. The word “offend” is potentially wider, but given the
context, “offend” should be interpreted conformably with the words chosen as its partners.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Finally, there is another point that often gets lost in the debate over 18C. As far as <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-do-australias-laws-on-hate-speech-work-in-practice-26105">legal regulation goes</a>, the regime contained in the Racial Discrimination Act is one of the more modest forms of state intervention. The Human Rights Commission is a neutral facilitator, not an enforcer. And, wherever possible, the aim is to resolve things via conciliation. </p>
<p>Only a very small number of cases ever make their way to the court system. Even where a complaint is upheld, the remedies are hardly draconian. Damages are rarely awarded (and if they are, the amount is modest), and no-one is convicted or goes to prison – because 18C does not create a criminal offence.</p>
<p>Section 18C alone can’t “fix” the problem of racism that continues to exist in Australia. It would be wrong to see it as a magical panacea. But it is equally wrong – and unsupported by the available evidence – to regard 18C as a threat to Australia’s liberal democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64660/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke McNamara received funding from the Australian Research Council to conduct research on which this article draws.</span></em></p>The debate around amending Section 18C is a furphy: the law is there to guard against the most-damaging vilification, and very few cases end up in court.Luke McNamara, Professor of Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/639442016-08-16T00:01:00Z2016-08-16T00:01:00ZCould Section 18C protect ‘angry white males’ like David Leyonhjelm?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134195/original/image-20160815-13033-1qmb1qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">While there are legitimate grounds for critique of Section 18C, David Leyonhjelm’s 'test' case is not the ideal candidate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016-opinion/freespeech-fundamentalists-break-free-of-good-conscience-20160808-gqnhnw.html">highly critical opinion piece</a> published on August 8, Fairfax Media journalist Mark Kenny declared that Senator David Leyonhjelm and Senator-elect Malcolm Roberts were speaking with “angry-white-male certitude” and were “rank apologists for the resentment industry promoted by angry-white-male shock-jocks” during their recent appearance on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2016/s4514490.htm">ABC’s Insiders</a>.</p>
<p>Kenny’s comments were directed in particular at Leyonhjelm’s support for the removal of the words “offend” and “insult” from <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C</a> of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/index.html#s18c">Racial Discrimination Act</a>, and Leyonhjelm’s argument that “offence is always taken, not given” and “if you want to take offence, that’s your choice”. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C</a> makes it unlawful to do an act that is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people, because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.</p>
<p>In response to Kenny’s piece, Leyonhjelm has lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. He alleges the use of the term “angry white male” is a breach of 18C. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm believes this case will prove his point that 18C places an undue burden on free speech. He also relies on the assumption that a “white person” being able to rely on racial protection would be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/15/david-leyonhjelm-racial-discrimination-complaint-angry-white-male-fairfax-18c">viewed as absurd</a>.</p>
<p>But if Leyonhjelm’s aim is to highlight absurdity, his plan may backfire. His complaint could instead showcase the difficulty in launching a successful action under 18C, and undermine an argument in support of its repeal – that it <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/charlie-hebdo-v-18c-no-contest/news-story/ccf2a26b84386ce41ce5c32706e2ab89&memtype=anonymous">doesn’t apply to the benefit of all people equally</a>. </p>
<h2>What makes Leyonhjelm’s complaint important?</h2>
<p>Leyonhjelm’s complaint requires two preconditions: that “white” is a racial group and that, as a class of persons, “white” is capable of protection under the act. </p>
<p>There is no limitation, express or implied, that Section 18C applies only to minorities. That members of non-minority racial groups tend not to rely on its protections is perhaps indicative of their privilege and capacity to respond to racial prejudice through more effective means. </p>
<p>Whether “white” is a race is an interesting point. In Australia, “white” is often used interchangeably with terms like Caucasian, Anglo-Celtic and Anglo-Australian – generally as a marker of ancestry, rather than racial identity. </p>
<p>This is arguably an inherent weakness in Australia’s public racial discourse, although Australia is hardly <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cannot-teach-race-without-addressing-what-it-means-to-be-white-43827">alone in this respect</a>. But, if we are to classify minority groups on race, it stands to reason the majority group must also be a “race” for the purpose of 18C.</p>
<p>This complaint has been reported as the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/senator-urges-axing-of-discrimination-acts-insult-and-offend/news-story/7e865d0783673e29b2dffac9345ff4f5">“first … of its kind”</a>. While it does appear to be the first based on the term “angry white male”, it is not the first involving terms capable of being applied to a “white” person. The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HREOCA/1997/23.html">first case</a> under 18C involved consideration of the use of the terms “Poms” and “Pommies”. </p>
<h2>Case law and Section 18C</h2>
<p>While there are legitimate grounds for critique of Section 18C, Leyonhjelm’s case is not the ideal candidate.</p>
<p>The perceived issue with 18C is that the level of harm required to enliven its protection lacks a defined scope, particularly through use of the term “offend”. This has instead been left to the Human Rights Commission and the courts to interpret.</p>
<p>It is plausible, however unlikely, that the application of 18C could be broadened unacceptably in the future, particularly if the ordinary meaning of “offend” is applied. As it stands, however, for the purpose of 18C “offend” does not carry its ordinary meaning. There is a large volume of cases to evidence that fact. </p>
<p>“Offend” has necessarily been interpreted within the context of racial hatred and <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2001/1007.html">must involve conduct</a> having a: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… profound and serious effect, not likened to mere slights.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>An objective test is applied based on community standards and the perceptions of the relevant class of victim. A person <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2000/1615.html">cannot simply claim</a> they were offended. The mere feeling of offence, although considered, is not enough. </p>
<p>To adopt Leyonhjelm’s terminology, while a person might “choose” to be offended, they cannot “choose” to successfully avail themselves of 18C.</p>
<h2>Applying Section 18C to Leyonhjelm’s case</h2>
<p>If written in a “malicious manner”, or to cultivate “hatred or antipathy” beyond a “mere slight”, the words “angry white male” could conceivably fall within the ambit of Section 18C.</p>
<p>The issue here is two-fold. Does the article contain evidence of any such maliciousness or cultivation of hatred? And could the use of “angry white male” in that context cause a “profound and serious effect” on persons who identify as white males?</p>
<p>It is difficult to see how the use of “angry white male” in Kenny’s article could be construed as anything other than a “mere slight”. Arguably, it appears to be used as shorthand to mean a person in a position of privilege who believes that attempts to redress the real effects of racial prejudice are inequitable, promote victimisation and are a form of special treatment. </p>
<p>Importantly, it is not the term itself that is assessed, but the context in which it is used. In the case of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2000/1615.html">Hagan</a>, the use of the term “nigger” in the name of a grandstand was deemed not to contravene 18C, since no reasonable member of the local Aboriginal community would have found this particular use offensive.</p>
<p>However, if it could be argued that Kenny’s use of “angry white male” does reach the necessary threshold, there is no clear reason why a complaint should not be lodged. </p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>If the complaint is accepted, the Human Rights Commission will move to facilitate a conciliation session between Leyonhjelm and Kenny.</p>
<p>If the issue is not resolved, then Leyonhjelm could seek further court action. But whether Kenny could rely on a defence under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html">Section 18D</a> – fair comment made reasonably and in good faith – remains an open and valid question.</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm’s intent is to highlight the issue of using “offend” in Section 18C, but his case will likely not help his argument, despite it being entirely applicable. It will certainly be one to watch, just not for the reasons he hopes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63944/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristopher Wilson 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>David Leyonhjelm’s complaint over being called an ‘angry white male’ could showcase the difficulty in launching a successful action under Section 18C and undermine an argument in support of repeal.Kristopher Wilson, DPhil. Candidate in Cybersecurity/Law, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/636122016-08-08T04:11:15Z2016-08-08T04:11:15ZFree speech: would removing Section 18C really give us the right to be bigots?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133299/original/image-20160808-484-2qlwm8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government claims changes to Section 18C are no longer on its agenda.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/george-brandis-people-have-the-right-to-be-bigots">previously saying</a> we all have the right to be bigots, Attorney-General George Brandis <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-04/final-senate-make-up-confirmed-with-11-crossbenchers/7689788">now says</a> reform of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C</a> of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/index.html#s18c">Racial Discrimination Act</a> is no longer on the government’s agenda. </p>
<p>However, there are several senators – some new, some returning – who beg to differ. David Leyonhjelm, Bob Day, Derryn Hinch and One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-07/leyonhjelm-roberts-tell-insiders-18c-racial-discrimination-act/7698252">all say</a> they will push for changes to Section 18C.</p>
<h2>What’s all the fuss about?</h2>
<p>So, what does Section 18C say? </p>
<p>The first thing to note is that it refers to a public (not private) act, including speech “that is likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people” and “the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin” of the person or persons.</p>
<p>Therefore, it prohibits some speech, made in public, based on certain features of a person’s identity.</p>
<p>Section 18C is limited in scope, and it would thus be wrong to claim that free speech <em>carte blanche</em> is under threat. It is, after all, a section of the Racial Discrimination Act, not “The Stop Anyone Being Offensive To Others Act”.</p>
<h2>Offensive speech is alive and well in Australia</h2>
<p>Roberts should be well aware of Section 18C’s limits because he has been free to make a number of deeply offensive remarks recently. <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36972449">He suggested</a> climate change is a conspiracy among global bankers, who also manipulate the United Nations in an attempt to create a socialist world order. </p>
<p>Let’s leave aside the implausible suggestion that bankers are in fact the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. Also ignore the <a href="https://theconversation.com/please-dont-explain-hanson-2-0-and-the-war-on-experts-62106">suspicious similarity</a> that such talk has to long-standing pernicious ideas about a Jewish banking conspiracy to dominate the world. </p>
<p>Instead, let’s focus on the suggestion that global warming is a huge conspiracy. Tied up in this claim is the proposition that most scientists working in this area are deeply dishonest. Roberts is claiming they will fudge the data, deceive their employers and lie to the government and the general population – all presumably to further their own interests. </p>
<p>People accused of such activities will rightly be offended, but they will get no help from Section 18C because Roberts’ statements are about the scientists’ moral character rather than their race or colour. Libel laws are more of a threat to Roberts in this instance than Section 18C.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rm479gJGcYc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Roberts on climate science.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another example of free expression that <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-05/bill-leak-defends-controversial-cartoon/7693244">offended many people</a> was Bill Leak’s cartoon in The Australian last week. The cartoon differs from Roberts’ comments because it has very explicit racial content.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"761006684626038784"}"></div></p>
<p>Even in this instance, however, the freedom to offend is secure. <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html">Section 18D</a> of the act says “Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith” or that is “held for any academic, artistic or scientific purpose, or any other genuine purpose in the public interest” or made in “a fair and accurate report” or “is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment”.</p>
<p>So, there are a great many exemptions to Section 18C that allow comments that might offend, insult, humiliate and even intimidate a person on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin. And we therefore don’t need to change it in order to be bigots.</p>
<h2>The Leyonhjelm/Roberts alternative</h2>
<p>Both Leyonhjelm and Roberts have offered alternative approaches to speech regulation. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-07/leyonhjelm-roberts-tell-insiders-18c-racial-discrimination-act/7698252">says</a> he intends to introduce a bill to remove Section 18C and other relevant sections of the act. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Free speech is free speech, there is no qualification to it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Roberts concurred, and rather convolutedly said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Free speech is free speech; anything less than that is not free speech. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>He also claimed Section 18C was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All done, as far as I understand it, to nobble Andrew Bolt, and Julia Gillard did that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a very bizarre claim, given the act has been around since 1975.</p>
<p>Both senators are very clear that free speech means unfettered speech. This is important. It suggests not only are they opposed to Section 18C, including the part that prevents intimidating a person because of the colour of her skin, but that all limits on speech have to go. Child porn? Go ahead. Revealing state secrets? Reveal away. Blackmail? Go for your life. I could go on, but you get the drift. </p>
<p>The vision offered by Leyonhjelm and Roberts is dangerous, misguided and extreme. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-racism-make-us-sick-63641">Does racism make us sick?</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David van Mill 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>Section 18C is limited in scope, and it would thus be wrong to claim that free speech carte blanche is under threat.David van Mill, Associate Professor in Political Science and International Relations, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/610192016-08-07T20:09:31Z2016-08-07T20:09:31ZThe new Senate looms as a serious problem for a damaged Malcolm Turnbull<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133194/original/image-20160805-466-1rcug2q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We will get an early insight into the Turnbull government’s likely approach to dealing with the Senate crossbench.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal colleagues have had a very poor election. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/final-senate-results-30-coalition-26-labor-9-greens-4-one-nation-3-nxt-4-others-63449">result in the Senate</a> only confirms just how bad the 2016 contest was for the Coalition. </p>
<p>One seat away from being in minority government, the returned Turnbull government can now add arguably one of the most diverse and potentially volatile senates ever elected in Australia to its list of political problems.</p>
<p>When the Senate finally convenes, the Coalition will hold 30 seats – nine short of the majority it would need to have legislation passed. Across the chamber will sit 26 Labor senators, nine Green senators and a further 11 crossbench senators from six different political parties. </p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-174" class="tc-infographic" height="800" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/174/550b3d30dff16f36bae4c36ecc1e3174a2ee92a2/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Upper house woes</h2>
<p>When Turnbull took over as prime minister, the government had to that point been struggling with a non-Green crossbench of nine. </p>
<p>So difficult had these senators become, Turnbull resorted to doing deals with the Greens on occasion to get some bills through. This included one to <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641">alter the Senate voting system</a> to do away with party tickets. Turnbull justified this as a reform that would assist in eradicating “micro” parties. </p>
<p>This reform has not delivered on its promise, although Turnbull contributed to its failure by calling a double-dissolution election and, in so doing, demonstrating yet again just how poor his political judgement can be. </p>
<p>One wonders if Liberal strategists planning the double dissolution foresaw that not only would Pauline Hanson <a href="https://theconversation.com/defiant-hanson-will-test-a-coalition-government-61985">return to the Australian parliament</a>, but that she would bring three fellow senators with her. </p>
<p>Turnbull’s upper house woes don’t stop there. There are now two more acolytes of Nick Xenophon in the Senate – and one in the lower house – and two of the micro-party senators who were the target of Turnbull’s changes to the voting system, Bob Day from Family First and David Leyonhjelm from the Liberal Democrats. They are back and presumably angry with the government for the way it treated them in the previous parliament.</p>
<p>With this phalanx of people from the social conservative and populist right arranged against it, the Coalition’s only alternative is to deal with the left – either Labor or the Greens. </p>
<p>Cynics might suggest this is an outcome that Turnbull might be comfortable with personally, but it is a fair bet the rest of the Coalition would not be so happy to deal with ideological enemies – especially on matters like climate change and same-sex marriage.</p>
<h2>How will the government deal with it?</h2>
<p>To conclude on the basis of this that the government might struggle to get its agenda through the Senate would be the political understatement of the year. </p>
<p>One way around the potential for the Senate to frustrate the government would be to try to minimise the amount of legislation going before it. It is unlikely this would appeal to Turnbull. </p>
<p>The alternatives to legislative minimalism are either seeking to make policy by trying to negotiate with all the different players in the upper house (and wearing the consequential compromises), or taking the Whitlamesque approach of being constantly defeated in the Senate and seeking to campaign against upper house obstructionism in the court of public opinion. </p>
<p>We will get an early insight into the government’s likely approach. The Constitution <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-happens-now-to-the-bills-that-triggered-the-double-dissolution-election-62345">gives Turnbull the option</a> of bringing the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-the-abcc-and-registered-organisations-bills-56676">Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) bills</a> that triggered the double dissolution to a joint sitting of the parliament, if the Senate again rejects them. </p>
<p>What Turnbull does here will probably set the tone for the next three years. There are reports the government has been in dialogue already with the crossbench over the legislation – the subtext being that the ABCC bills might pass with substantial modifications to appease the concerns of the Xenophon bloc in particular. </p>
<p>This sort of bargaining would have to extend to all the other right-wing populists and social conservatives as well, given Labor and the Greens will surely not support these bills.</p>
<p>There is enormous scope for the government’s efforts to come to nothing and for the bills to be defeated at a joint sitting. This would be a very humiliating start to the new government cycle.</p>
<p>Each defeat in the upper house at the hands of the right-of-centre minor parties will be a humiliation of Turnbull and will undermine the impression he is trying to give that he is leading a moderate and mildly progressive government that can get things done. </p>
<p>Turnbull’s only recourse might be to ring up his recently acquired political ally, Greens leader Richard Di Natale, to see if his nine-person bloc might come to his aid. </p>
<p>This approach would incense the very large block of conservatives within the Coalition who are already angry with Turnbull for his abysmal election performance. This is the real danger for Turnbull. Senate defeats can be withstood, but humiliation at the hands of the joint partyroom could be fatal to his leadership.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61019/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Economou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The returned Turnbull government can now add arguably one of the most diverse and potentially volatile senates ever to be elected in Australia to its list of political problems.Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/599002016-06-05T20:12:12Z2016-06-05T20:12:12ZAided by the new Senate rules, Nick Xenophon should have a happy election night<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124748/original/image-20160601-1946-1h79p6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">According to polling, Nick Xenophon and his team are on track to secure about three Senate spots.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are two election battles going on ahead of polling day on July 2. One is for executive power in the contest for the House of Representatives. The other is for the Senate, which is elected under a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Research_and_Education/pops/%7E/link.aspx?_id=DB8FD989ADD34452AF9F0792790FF7DF&_z=z">system of proportional representation</a> that utilises the Single Transferable Vote (STV). </p>
<p>To win a Senate place at a double-dissolution election, a candidate needs to secure 7.7% of the vote cast in the candidate’s state. This sounds like a trifling amount, but in a state like New South Wales, 7.7% equates to 336,963 votes. This, by the way, is the total number of voters in Tasmania, where, to secure a Senate seat, a candidate needs only 25,945 votes.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125265/original/image-20160606-8272-el0zfz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125265/original/image-20160606-8272-el0zfz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125265/original/image-20160606-8272-el0zfz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125265/original/image-20160606-8272-el0zfz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125265/original/image-20160606-8272-el0zfz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125265/original/image-20160606-8272-el0zfz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125265/original/image-20160606-8272-el0zfz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Trying to predict Senate outcomes is difficult at the best of times, but the 2016 contest for the upper house is <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641">even more unknown</a> thanks to the abolition of the group voting ticket, and its replacement by what is effectively optional preferential voting. </p>
<p>Nobody knows how voters will respond to the <a href="http://aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm">Australian Electoral Commission’s instructions</a> on filling in Senate ballots. This means there is great uncertainty about how many ballots will end up counting as preferences.</p>
<p>The best prediction that can be made is that, in order to win a seat, candidates will have to rely on achieving a quota or close to a quota on primary votes alone. The days of a Ricky Muir winning a seat because preferences boosted an otherwise miniscule primary vote are probably over.</p>
<p>Assuming that seats will most likely go to party tickets getting enough primary votes to achieve the requisite quota, only five parties are guaranteed representation. Those are Labor, Liberal, Nationals, the Greens, and <a href="https://nxt.org.au/">Nick Xenophon’s new party</a>. The latter’s support in South Australia should see it secure at least two – possibly three or maybe four – seats.</p>
<p>Of the rest, the only former senator who has a reasonable chance of being returned is <a href="http://lambienetwork.com.au/">Jacqui Lambie</a> in Tasmania. It is quite conceivable that a high-profile individual could get the 26,000 votes needed to secure a seat in a state with a history of voting for prominent individuals ahead of party tickets. </p>
<p>There is much less certainty about the fate of the others. <a href="http://senatorlazarus.com/">Glenn Lazarus</a> and <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=250045">Dio Wang</a> were elected under the auspices of the Palmer United Party, which has since imploded.</p>
<p>Pauline Hanson is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-pauline-hanson-quietly-confident-of-returning-to-parliament-after-20-years-20160524-gp2sbl.html">running for</a> a Queensland Senate spot, which could be very interesting. </p>
<p>The mystery of why so many people voted for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in New South Wales in 2013 has not really been solved. But the inclusion of party emblems on the ballot paper as part of the recent Senate voting reforms suggests the LDP’s David Leyonhjelm was the beneficiary of mistaken identity and having pole position on the 2013 ballot paper. It is unlikely any of these happy coincidences will happen again.</p>
<p>Given the Coalition will not win an upper house majority, the next most likely scenario is that Xenophon and his party members will hold the balance of power in the Senate. Both major party leaders would probably be comfortable with this outcome.</p>
<p>For all his positioning on populist issues, Xenophon has great experience in the ways of upper house politics, especially with regard to negotiating with the major parties on important legislation.</p>
<p>Xenophon’s track record as a crossbench senator has always been characterised by trying to use the upper house to modify bills rather than simply defeat them. And his political persona has none of the volatility associated with a Clive Palmer or the ideological rigidity of Tasmania’s Brian Harradine, who held the balance of power for a time when John Howard was prime minister.</p>
<p>The unknown factor in this, however, is how Xenophon will fare as the leader of a political party with a parliamentary wing. The history of minor parties put together quickly by prominent characters ahead of a general election has not been a happy one.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/191516801?selectedversion=NBD53338372">Nuclear Disarmament Party</a> was created ahead of the 1984 election, and imploded soon after. <a href="http://www.onenation.com.au/">Pauline Hanson’s One Nation</a> did not survive long after its impact on the 1998 Queensland state and federal elections, and the implosion of the <a href="https://palmerunited.com/">Palmer United Party</a> has already been alluded to.</p>
<p>The challenge for Xenophon will not necessarily be about winning Senate seats, but keeping his party together in the transition from being a support mechanism for a charismatic leader to being a parliamentary party.</p>
<p>All of this assumes the Nick Xenophon Team will hold the balance of power in the Senate, and this is by no means a certainty. Any candidate from a party other than Labor and the Coalition could be pivotal to the balance of power in the Senate. A Labor-Green majority cannot be ruled out either. </p>
<p>The chances of another minor party being in such a position of power is remote, not least because of the new Senate voting rules that do away with preference harvesting. This is a reform that Xenophon himself was instrumental in expediting, showing once again how effectively he can merge his political self-interest with declarations that he seeks to serve the national interest.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-196" class="tc-infographic" height="900" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/196/cc8dfeb1b534ed503410f650812ccdfb0f0a2ca6/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59900/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Economou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Senate reforms and a double-dissolution election means that it is difficult to predict who will be sitting in the upper house after July 2. But you can count on Nick Xenophon being there.Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/553072016-02-29T02:54:01Z2016-02-29T02:54:01ZFactCheck: does Australia spend $1.5 billion a year on drug law enforcement, with 70% due to cannabis?<blockquote>
<p>Of the A$1.5 billion spent annually on drug law enforcement, 70% is attributable to cannabis. – <strong>Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm, speaking in parliament in support of the passage of the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Faf5e9bce-9bd9-45dc-bd87-c1d5218a5d66%2F0067%22">Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016</a>, on February 24, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Estimating Australia’s annual drug law enforcement expenditure is a difficult and inexact science. </p>
<p>Drug law enforcement may be involved with other crime fighting. For example, it’s hard to know exactly what proportion of the money spent tackling organised crime entails drug law enforcement, given that illicit drugs may be just one source of income for these groups.</p>
<p>Some arrests are also categorised as illicit drug offences, even when the primary focus of the police may be a different issue. For example, a person arrested for being drunk and disorderly may be found to be in possession of a small quantity of cannabis. This is still counted as an illicit drug offence even though the primary focus of police was dealing with the unruly behaviour and enhancing community safety.</p>
<p>Against this background, we sought to test against the evidence a statement by Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm that A$1.5 billion is spent annually on drug law enforcement in Australia and that 70% is attributable to cannabis.</p>
<h2>Does Australia spend A$1.5b a year on drug law enforcement?</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support his statement, a spokesman for Senator Leyonhjelm referred The Conversation to a page on the <a href="http://www.druglawreform.com.au/australian_drug_law_enforcement_the_cost">Drug Law Reform Australia</a> website. The webpage states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Most of Australian drug arrests were for cannabis around 61,011, or 65% of drug arrests. Around 80% of those were for possession… The total cost of drug law enforcement is around $1.1 billion, not counting drug related crime which is unquantifiable.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is a discrepancy between Drug Law Reform Australia’s reporting of the cost of drug law enforcement ($1.1 billion) and Senator Leyonhjelm’s estimation ($1.5 billion). </p>
<p>The Drug Law Reform Australia webpage, in turn, cites a report by the team at the <a href="https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/24%20Government%20drug%20policy%20expenditure%20in%20Australia%20-%202009_10.pdf">Drug Policy Modelling Program</a> at the University of New South Wales. </p>
<p>That research team estimated that in 2009-10, Australian drug law enforcement activities cost between A$1.03 billion and A$1.07 billion. That estimate included police services, judicial resources, legal expenses, corrective services, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (now the Australian Border Force).</p>
<p>Taking the mid-point of this amount ($1.05 billion) and adjusting for inflation using the Reserve Bank of Australia’s <a href="http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html">inflation calculator</a> (for the period 2010-2015) gives the approximate cost for 2015 of $1.18 billion, well short of Senator Leyonhjelm’s estimation of $1.5 billion. </p>
<p>So we found no evidence to support Senator Leyonhjelm’s assertion that A$1.5 billion is spent annually on drug law enforcement in Australia. That figure is not in the source he used.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, given the difficulties associated with accurately costing drug law enforcement, this discrepancy is not a major flaw.</p>
<h2>Is 70% of Australia’s annual drug law enforcement spend due to cannabis?</h2>
<p>It is unclear how the senator derived this figure of 70%.</p>
<p>The Drug Law Reform Australia webpage correctly cites the Australian Crime Commission’s 2011-12 <a href="http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/IDDR-2011-12-FINAL-HR-020513.pdf">Illicit Drug Data Report</a> in stating that 61,011, or 65%, of drug arrests (including expiation offences) were cannabis-related. </p>
<p>It may be the case that Senator Leyonhjelm has assumed that because 65% (or 70% as he stated) of arrests were cannabis-related then 65% of drug law enforcement costs are related to cannabis. </p>
<p>If so, this is unlikely to be correct for a number of reasons, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>Contemporary Australian policing policy approaches aim to reduce the chances that someone arrested for minor cannabis offences (like use and possession) will end up in the criminal justice system. <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/expiation">Expiation</a> (atonement) and diversion schemes are common, which drives down the cost of cannabis law enforcement. Cannabis arrests are cheap, because they typically do not involve court or prison (which cost taxpayers a lot of money).</li>
<li>The vast majority of cannabis offences are for simple possession, which do not generally stem from expensive and complex investigations. So the average cost would be substantially lower than many other drug-related cases. Cannabis is also bulky, pungent and requires land or hydroponic facilities to grow, so it is easier for police to find than, say, a methamphetamine lab. Destroying a commercial cannabis crop is also far easier and less costly than dismantling a methamphetamine laboratory.</li>
<li>Trafficking cannabis into Australia is largely unnecessary, as the overwhelming majority of the cannabis available in Australia is grown locally. That said, there were four large seizures at the border in 2013-14. Most seizures are for cannabis seed coming through the post. Therefore, it is unlikely that a large proportion of Australian Border Force resources are applied to cannabis. </li>
<li>Similarly, the Australian Federal Police’s expenditure on the detection of cannabis possession offences is likely to be low.<br></li>
</ul>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>We found no evidence to support Senator Leyonhjelm assertion that A$1.5 billion is spent annually on drug law enforcement.</p>
<p>While approximately 70% of all illicit drug offences are cannabis-related, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that 70% of drug law enforcement costs are attributable to cannabis. – <strong>Roger Nicholas and Ann Roche</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound analysis, and I concur with the verdict. That is not to say that spending on drug law enforcement is small, nor that it should not be subject to greater scrutiny. Having better and more recent data (the last drug budgets was 2009-10) will improve Australia’s capacity to have sensible debate about spending priorities. <strong>– Alison Ritter</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/55307/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The research centre which employs Roger Nicholas, NCETA, receives regular government funding for a range of alcohol and drug related issues including examinations of policy and their effectiveness. Full details are available in their annual reports and further detail can be provided on request.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ann Roche's research centre, NCETA, receives regular government funding for a range of alcohol and drug related issues including examinations of policy and their effectiveness. Full details are available in their annual reports and further detail can be provided on request.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alison Ritter receives funding from the NHMRC, ARC, federal government research funding and state governments research funding. the drug budgets work was funded by the Colonial Foundation Trust (philanthropy).</span></em></p>Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm told parliament that of the $1.5 billion spent annually on drug law enforcement, 70% is attributable to cannabis. Are those numbers correct?Roger Nicholas, Senior Project Manager and Senior Researcher, National Centre for Education & Training on Addiction, Flinders UniversityAnn Roche, Professor and Director of the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/553142016-02-24T05:52:58Z2016-02-24T05:52:58ZIt’s no guess Leyonhjelm’s tobacco inquiry will recommend reducing the tax<p>When it comes to tobacco control, you can determine the most effective policies by using the litmus test of how the tobacco industry reacts. This has long been called the “scream test”.</p>
<p>It was obvious the industry wasn’t quaking about falls in sales when they funded <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/8/1/14.2.full?sid=ddc60255-9cc2-442d-9568-75d8787fe86b">school education kits</a>, fronted by controversial academic <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/school-review-panellist-kevin-donnelly-linked-to-tobacco-giant-20140111-30nrv.html">Kevin Donnelly</a>, urging children to “trust their own decisions” about smoking. Or when they install earnest and forgettable point-of-sale signs in shops about how smoking is only for adults.</p>
<p>As one internal Philip Morris <a href="https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=fzjx0111">memo</a> from the 1970s put it when discussing how the company might suck up to health authorities in Hong Kong:</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112698/original/image-20160224-29156-1cl5egr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112698/original/image-20160224-29156-1cl5egr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=148&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112698/original/image-20160224-29156-1cl5egr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=148&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112698/original/image-20160224-29156-1cl5egr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=148&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112698/original/image-20160224-29156-1cl5egr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=186&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112698/original/image-20160224-29156-1cl5egr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=186&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112698/original/image-20160224-29156-1cl5egr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=186&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">HUNG, S. SMOKING & HEALTH MEETING. 1973 February 14. Philip Morris.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/[ID]">Screenshot, UCSF Library</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So when they cry blue murder about the civilisation-ending potential of a policy, it’s not rocket science that they appreciate its threat to their bottom-line. </p>
<p>As I explain in this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3ygACMbDbg&t=10m12s">video</a>, the brand-by-brand, day-by-day, shop-by-shop national data each company has on cigarette sales gives them precise knowledge of the immediate and long term impact of any change in any aspect of tobacco control.</p>
<p>If there was ever a moment when we saw the tobacco industry in the coldest of sweats, it was in August 2011, when British American Tobacco Australia’s (BATA) CEO David Crow addressed a <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:committees%2Fcommrep%2F8140767d-6a40-4d29-a10b-57085015bf4e%2F0001">Senate committee</a> considering the planned introduction of plain packaging. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What I do believe is that … if the objective is to reduce consumption then you would move towards areas which have been evidence-based not only in this country but in others around the world … We understand that the price going up when the excise goes up reduces consumption. We saw that last year very effectively with the increase in excise. There was a 25% increase in the excise and we saw the volumes go down by about 10.2%; there was about a 10.2% reduction in the industry last year in Australia. So there are ways of achieving the objectives that do not infringe on the property rights, do not breach the laws and the international commitments and do not mean that the Australian government would have to compensate people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Crow is a tobacco executive, not a public health advisor on how to reduce smoking. But he offered some great advice anyway. In his desperation to avoid plain pack legislation, he almost begged the government to continue using measures such as tax. Measures that by his own admission would literally decimate the sales of his industry’s product. The implications regarding the impact of plain packaging were obvious.</p>
<p>In fact, the tax hit was worse than his predicted 10.2% figure. A <a href="http://ris.finance.gov.au/files/2013/05/03-25-per-cent-Excise-for-Tobacco.pdf">Treasury paper</a> reported that while a fall in consumption of 6% had been predicted for the 25% lift in April 2010’s tobacco tax, the impact was nearly double that - at 11%.</p>
<h2>One in six cigarettes illegally obtained?</h2>
<p>During the run-up to the introduction of plain packs, BATA poured out a Niagara of tweets claiming the legislation would cause a massive increase in people purchasing illegal tobacco; either loose “chop chop” or smuggled fully branded packs in nicer boxes. </p>
<p>The tweets implied people would be so horrified at having to handle the new garish plain packs with their large graphic health warnings, that they would seek out illegal supplies.</p>
<p>In our free online book telling the story of plain packaging, from <a href="http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/12257/7/9781743324295_Chapman_RemovingtheEmperorsClothes_FT.pdf">page 70</a>, we summarise no less than ten reports by consultancy firms PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte and KPMG, into the alleged size of the illicit trade in Australia. </p>
<p>Published since 2005 and commissioned by the tobacco industry, the reports often have stop-in-your-tracks caveats like: “We have not audited or otherwise verified the accuracy or completeness of the information, and, to that extent, the information contained in this report may not be accurate or reliable.”</p>
<p>But they served the purpose of industry press release headlines screaming that between one in six and one in seven of all cigarettes being smoked in Australia were purchased illegally.</p>
<p>Never mind that the ubiquitous, convenient and price-discounting retail chains like supermarkets, convenience stores chains, hotels, newsagents, petrol stations and specialised tobacconists, have always dominated retail sales. According to the industry, 15% of smokers across the nation were finding their way to shady independents down back alleys. The long queues of all these new customers were somehow completely missed by the federal police and customs investigators, with all their resources and powers.</p>
<h2>Independent data</h2>
<p>So what do data not funded the the tobacco industry show about the extent of illicit tobacco use? </p>
<p>A <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/Suppl_2/ii76.full.pdf+html">study was conducted </a> from April 2012 (six months before plain packaging) to March 2014 (15 months after), by the Cancer Council Victoria, using national telephone samples of 8,679 smokers.</p>
<p>It found for those buying factory-made cigarettes bought in Australia, there were no significant increases in the use of so-called “cheap whites” (0.1%), international brands costing 20% or more below the recommended retail price (0.2%) or packs purchased from informal sellers (0.1%). The prevalence of any use of unbranded illicit tobacco (“chop chop”) remained around 3% throughout the study period. Unsurprisingly, smokers didn’t ditch legal packs for illegal supplies.</p>
<p>It is instructive to look at British American Tobacco’s <a href="https://twitter.com/BATA_Media?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">twitter feed</a>. You will look long and hard to find a tweet on any subject but the heinous problem of illegal tobacco.</p>
<p>Almost every day, the site churns out the same message, often repeated: the world and Australia are awash with illegal tobacco, shockingly being sold by criminals!</p>
<p>But you won’t find anything on where some of these criminals might source their stock. For instance, in 2014, BAT was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/16/bat-fined-for-oversupplying-tobacco-in-low-tax-european-jurisdictions">fined £650,000</a> (under appeal) for oversupplying tobacco to low-taxing European countries at levels that could never be consumed in those countries. </p>
<p>This raised concerns that much of this supply would find its way into high-taxing nations as smuggled goods offered for sale.</p>
<h2>Leyonhjelm’s Senate inquiry</h2>
<p>So in the week of the Senate voting electoral reform deal, which signals the political death warrant for micro party senators, we have the blossoming spectacle of one of these, David Leyonhjelm, who initiated a Senate inquiry into tobacco tax in Australia. It will start taking evidence soon. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm, who has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/02/thank-you-for-smoking-leyonhjelm-confirms-philip-morris-backing">backed by Philip Morris</a>, is avowedly against tobacco tax.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Law_Enforcement/Illicit_tobacco">Multiple submissions</a> to the inquiry with identical wording from shopkeepers strongly suggest store owners are being coached or co-opted by predictable interests to support their fantasies of lower taxes.</p>
<p>If price is driving a small proportion of smokers to regularly buy illegal tobacco, and if the tobacco companies with hands on their hearts care deeply about the loss of tax revenue to government, one solution is wide open to them. </p>
<p>Between 2008 and March 2014 (16 months after plain packaging was introduced), tobacco manufacturers raised their margins <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/Suppl_2/ii90.full.pdf+html">higher than the government raised tobacco tax</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112695/original/image-20160224-16455-1g0lwjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112695/original/image-20160224-16455-1g0lwjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112695/original/image-20160224-16455-1g0lwjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112695/original/image-20160224-16455-1g0lwjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112695/original/image-20160224-16455-1g0lwjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112695/original/image-20160224-16455-1g0lwjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112695/original/image-20160224-16455-1g0lwjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They could always reduce these margins. But that option seems even less probable than anyone in government paying attention to what seems likely to be one of Leyonhjelm’s final exercises in spending parliamentary money on his pet obsessions.</p>
<p>The tobacco industry has lost every policy battle it has ever fought in Australia. Surely, no bookmaker will take bets on what the principal recommendation of this wasteful exercise will be: that tobacco tax should fall. </p>
<p>The consequence of that would see more people smoking, and more tobacco-caused death and disease down the track. Evidence-based tobacco control policy has long had the support of all major political parties in Australia. </p>
<p>Today we have the world’s lowest smoking prevalence. It says a lot that the top gun the tobacco industry can get to run their errands is a man who will soon be a footnote in political history. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://results.aec.gov.au/18126/Website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-18126-236.htm">2015 Canning by-election</a>, Leyonhjelm’s party candidate got less votes (492) than the Pirate party (775) and a candidate who had a <a href="http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/canning-byelection-arrest-warrant-for-teresa-van-lieshout-after-court-noshow-20150908-gjhlcl.html">warrant</a> out for her arrest (539).</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55314/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Surely, no bookmaker will take bets on what the principal recommendation of Leyonhjelm’s wasteful exercise will be: that tobacco tax should fall.Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/552992016-02-24T00:56:04Z2016-02-24T00:56:04ZPolitics podcast: senator David Leyonhjelm on Malcolm Turnbull<p>Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm has accused Malcolm Turnbull of failing to live up to his promise to liaise closely with the Senate crossbenchers.</p>
<p>As the “micro” players react furiously to the government’s proposed Senate voting changes, Leyonhjelm tells Michelle Grattan he has not heard from Turnbull since his call in his first week as prime minister. Despite the “reservoir of goodwill” he enjoyed on taking over, Turnbull did not follow through.</p>
<p>The Coalition government has been appallingly bad at negotiating with the crossbenchers, Leyonhjelm says. Unlike the Gillard government, which negotiated successfully with lower house crossbenchers, the Abbott and Turnbull governments never learnt how to do it.</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm and the other “micro” Senate players have been invited to dinner at The Lodge this week. They are ready to vent their sense of grievance to Turnbull face-to-face.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm says the government has been appallingly bad at negotiating with the crossbench.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/474752015-09-24T20:17:30Z2015-09-24T20:17:30ZIs the minimal state a reasonable response to the nanny state?<p>The <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice">Senate inquiry</a> titled “Personal Choice and Community Impacts” has begun. The intent is to examine government measures “introduced to restrict personal choice for the individual’s own good”. Steering the ship is David Leyonhjelm, who suggests that the “nanny state” is an unacceptable violation of individual liberty. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm recently <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/david-leyonhjelm-declares-war-on-nanny-state/story-fn59niix-1227415288323?sv=269b8156e7f4031a81b36975114c4e93">said</a> that your choices are:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… not the government’s business unless you are likely to harm another person. Harming yourself is your own business, but it’s not the government’s business.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) <a href="http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1158-lifestyle-choices">suggests</a> that having a right to choose:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… inevitably means some people will make … choices of which others strongly disapprove. That does not entitle them to seek to interfere in those choices.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These claims can be traced back to John Stuart Mill’s 1859 classic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty">On Liberty</a>. Mill <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html">argued</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised … is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite its intuitive appeal, this is in fact a very radical position. We don’t know what will come out of the Senate inquiry, but we do have some idea about what the “ship of state” would look like based on these principles.</p>
<h2>Drug policy</h2>
<p>The LDP website <a href="http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1268-cannabis">argues for</a> the legalisation of cannabis:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Crimes associated with the cultivation, sale and use of cannabis by adults are “victimless” as only those who have consented are involved.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The party position is not fully articulated for other substances, but the same arguments seem to apply to most illegal drugs. Some drugs can cause more harm to the individual than cannabis, but the harm principle rules out intervening in these cases.</p>
<p>Some drugs can cause harm to others, but alcohol is still the drug that creates the most carnage in this respect and would have to be banned under any consistent policy aimed at prohibiting drugs because they harm others. The LDP would be unlikely to go down that path. </p>
<p>So far so good – on drug policy I’m broadly on board with Leyonhjelm.</p>
<h2>Sexual preferences</h2>
<p>In the section of the website titled “lifestyle choices”, the LDP <a href="http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1158-lifestyle-choices">says</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… private sexual activities and lifestyle choices voluntarily undertaken by adults are not matters for government intervention except to prevent coercion and protect children.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>True to his ideals, Leyonhjelm <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-democrat-david-leyonhjelm-introduces-samesex-marriage-bill-20141126-11uolh.html">introduced</a> a bill into the Senate to legalise same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>There are other activities, not discussed on the party website, that some will find less appetising than same-sex marriage. At least some forms of incest seem compatible with libertarianism. Two related consenting adults are not harming anyone by choosing each other as partners (as long as they do not procreate). A person choosing to have several spouses also seems acceptable as long as the relationships are not harmful.</p>
<p>Logical consistency, something that Leyonhjelm advocates, means the libertarian position also allows bestiality. Leyonhjelm argues that the state should not interfere because an act is offensive or immoral. The justification for intervention is that the act is harmful to others. </p>
<p>One might claim that the animal is being harmed or not consenting, but I doubt that Leyonhjelm would go down this path given that he supports the use of animals for food production. </p>
<p>You might be a bit green around the gills at this point but still agree with libertarians that repulsion at such acts doesn’t mean we should make criminals of people who perform them.</p>
<h2>Firearms</h2>
<p>It’s definitely time to head for the lifeboats when it comes to the LDP’s gun policy. The <a href="http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1152-firearms">party position</a> is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sport, hunting and self-defence are all legitimate reasons for firearm ownership …Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled … to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Leyonhjelm does not deny that guns can cause harm, but he doesn’t think we should curtail the freedom of the vast majority because of the actions of a few crazed individuals. He also suggests that an armed citizenry would prevent gun-related atrocities. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm’s position is that it is acceptable, and preferable, for all Australians to be packing heat on the trip to the supermarket.</p>
<h2>Deregulation and privatisation</h2>
<p>The LDP opposes taxing people to pay for things like the NBN, ABC, SBS, Medibank Private, electricity generation, TAFE, universities, hospitals and schools. The state should also stop regulating liquor licences, workplace conditions, occupational licences, taxi services, retail trading hours, crash helmets for bikes and seatbelts for cars. </p>
<p>Road regulations should also be relaxed, but the LDP <a href="http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1158-lifestyle-choices">says</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… should be accompanied by a health system that does not impose on society the cost of recovery of irresponsible and dangerous drivers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I take this to mean that the uninsured who harm themselves because they drive recklessly will receive only the most basic, if any, medical assistance. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm’s economic vision is where I abandon ship. If freedom is about choice, as he suggests, the government has to have a redistributive role because resources have a big impact on choices. By ignoring this the libertarian position reveals itself for what it really is: a philosophy of freedom for the few.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>As we can see, an idea that seems intuitively appealing turns out to be quite radical. The great virtue of the harm principle is its clarity. As Mill <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html">says</a>, it asserts:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… one very simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For many people, including myself, this parsimony comes at too heavy a price. </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see whether an inquiry headed by a person of libertarian persuasion will offer something that is palatable to the Australian public regarding the appropriate limits to state intervention.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47475/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David van Mill 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>We don’t know what will come out of the Senate inquiry into the ‘nanny state’, but we do have some idea about what Australia would look like based on libertarian principles.David van Mill, Associate Professor in Political Science and International Relations, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/439162015-06-29T20:08:41Z2015-06-29T20:08:41ZOn ‘nanny states’ and race, Leyonhjelm exposes the moral thinness of libertarianism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86487/original/image-20150626-18207-x7dn5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Libertarians, such as David Leyonhjelm, refuse to see anything but individual liberty as having decisive moral weight.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Whatever you think of his views, or of how he came to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/nsw-sends-liberal-democrat-to-senate/4945080">sit in the Senate</a>, it’s hard to deny that David Leyonhjelm is the real deal: a conviction politician whose positions are governed by principle, not populism.</p>
<p>The problem for his supporters is that Leyonhjelm is exposing the disturbing moral thinness of the libertarian principles he espouses.</p>
<p>In the wake of a parliamentary committee <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-24/government-labor-greens-show-support-for-indigenous-referendum/6571370">recommending a referendum</a> on constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, Leyonhjelm repeated the claim that there’s doubt in anthropological circles that the Aboriginal nations were the first inhabitants of the Australian continent.</p>
<p>That claim struck many as decidedly odd. However, this empirical claim is just one component of a larger position that Leyonhjelm outlined in a speech in March. Appeals to anthropological data and a curious concern not to exclude those who don’t respect Aboriginal culture are just ornaments to his main objection. That comes near the end of <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F0e04f51c-90a0-44db-b9b2-2bbc9d548cae%2F0077;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F0e04f51c-90a0-44db-b9b2-2bbc9d548cae%2F0000%22">his speech</a>, and is both perfectly consistent with his ideological commitments, and perfectly emblematic of what’s wrong with libertarianism:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every human being in Australia is a person, equal before the law. Giving legal recognition to characteristics held by certain persons – particularly when those characteristics are inherent, like ancestry – represents a perverse sort of racism. Although it appears positive, it still singles some people out on the basis of race.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a familiar argument: if we’re all equal, and if it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, then it’s just as wrong to discriminate positively as negatively.</p>
<p>The problem with talking about equality at this level of abstraction is that it makes the reality of material privilege invisible. And the bigger problem is that for libertarians, and a great many classical liberals, that’s not actually a problem at all.</p>
<h2>The skinless enlightenment man</h2>
<p>Treasurer Joe Hockey <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/treasurer-joe-hockeys-address-to-the-sydney-institute-20140612-zs5ok.html">insists</a> the state promises “equality of opportunity” but not “equality of outcome”. But “equality of opportunity” here is understood as mostly formal. It’s the equality Anatole France <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/361132-the-law-in-its-majestic-equality-forbids-rich-and-poor">spoke of</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The majestic equality of the law, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But if you can strip human beings back to a self so abstract that purely formal equality seems compelling, you can convince yourself that practical disadvantage doesn’t matter. Leyonhjelm’s speech name-checked the Enlightenment, and this is fitting. What emerges from the Enlightenment and its early modern antecedents is, as the philosopher Charles Taylor puts it, a <a href="http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/09/02/buffered-and-porous-selves/">“buffered” self</a>, an autonomous agent impervious to external forces. </p>
<p>The men of the Enlightenment – figures like Locke, Hume, Kant, Jefferson and Rousseau – laid out the value of liberty and the essential dignity of humans spectacularly well, but the humans they were describing looked an awful lot like themselves. Being white, male, heterosexual, well-educated and materially comfortable – qualifications which allow you to pass through the world without the kinds of friction that others encounter – makes it much easier to conceive of yourself as an objective centre of disembodied reason and freedom.</p>
<p>Abstract reason doesn’t go hungry. Abstract reason has no skin; it is not born into a body situated into a world of meanings it cannot control.</p>
<p>Nor does it have a history. In speaking of everyone “celebrating ancestry”, Leyonhjelm quite explicitly collapses the experiences of an Indigenous Australian, an asylum seeker, and an Anglo-Celt into one very big but very shallow bucket. Racial identity is reduced to “ancestry” and shunted back into a past that’s available for voluntary “celebration” but exerts no real force on the present. </p>
<p>The “buffered self” isn’t buffeted, let alone constrained or determined, by the winds of history. It stands above history just as it stands above embodiment.</p>
<p>And to suggest otherwise? To suggest that history and its sequelae must be acknowledged? Why, that would be singling people out on the basis of their race. That’s racist.</p>
<h2>Saving us from ourselves</h2>
<p>In some ways this is all in keeping with libertarianism’s refusal to see anything but individual liberty as having decisive moral weight. Freedom, just so we’re clear, is desperately important. It’s one of the main features of the moral landscape that politics must be responsive to. But a myopic focus on individual liberty, linked to a thin conception of persons that sees human dignity simply as the free exercise of autonomy, obscures other vital features of that landscape.</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm has apparently <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4262236.htm">won support</a> for a parliamentary inquiry into the “Nanny State”. Once again, there is commendable philosophical clarity and consistency in his position:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The issue here is, to what extent is the government entitled to legislate – and we’re not talking about just giving advice – but to legislate, to protect you from your own bad choices. Bicycle helmets are a very good example of that: nobody is hurt if you fall off. If you don’t wear a bicycle helmet, your head’s not going to crack into somebody else and damage them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the classic <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#HarPri">Liberal Harm Principle</a>: no-one is entitled to interfere with your personal behaviour so long as it doesn’t impact on anyone else. Hence if you want to smoke, or ride a bike without a helmet, this is an essentially “personal” matter that no-one else should interfere with. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm <a href="https://twitter.com/davidleyonhjelm/status/611657851996508160">hit back</a> against criticism for apparently being more concerned about the imaginary health effects of <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/wind-turbine-syndrome">wind turbines</a> than the very real health effects of <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31600118">tobacco</a>. Such criticism misses the point: libertarians don’t care what you do to yourself, just to other people. Smoke ‘em if you got 'em.</p>
<p>I’ve <a href="https://theconversation.com/fuming-with-outrage-nazis-nannies-and-smoking-16682">noted before</a> that even classical liberals like Mill drew the line at suicide – as this destroys the very freedom that the Harm Principle is meant to respect – though some libertarians such as the late Robert Nozick were prepared to countenance a wider right of self-disposal.</p>
<p>But consider whether you have a right to wrestle a would-be suicide down from a window ledge or bridge. To conclude that this would be an unfair interference in their personal autonomy involves a certain blindness, a whittling of the person down to the point where their only remaining value is rational autonomy. The independent, buffered Enlightenment subject: a pure atomistic locus of self-directed freedom, including the freedom to jump.</p>
<p>What is bled out of that picture is the essential interconnection of persons, grounded in our intersubjective constitution. When John Donne famously <a href="https://web.cs.dal.ca/%7Ejohnston/poetry/island.html">declared</a> “no man is an island entire of itself”, he knew exactly what that implied:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>No-one “merely” harms themselves, but inevitably harms those around them in doing so. My life is not entirely my own – nor is its value reducible to my autonomy.</p>
<h2>Thick value and power-blindness</h2>
<p>People – real, concrete, loving, feeling, people – matter in deep, distinctive ways, ways that strain the resources of our moral language. And, accordingly, their deaths – which rob the world of something inherently precious – also matter, at least enough for us to sometimes try and save people from their own objectively bad choices. But that sort of thick moral value is lost in the remorseless thinning-down of libertarian calculation. </p>
<p>Even Leyonhjelm’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/strange-bedfellows-euthanasia-same-sex-marriage-and-libertarianism-29651">support of same-sex marriage</a>, for instance, doesn’t seem to be grounded in a view that long-term same-sex relationships are intrinsically good things that deserve access to the same sort of recognition as heterosexual ones, so much as a pervasive dislike of governments saying “no” to people.</p>
<p>Also, when you denude the world of moral pith by abstracting people down into their Enlightenment ghosts in this way, you end up peeling away the level on which real power operates. That makes it easier to pretend we’re now living in some sort of post-racial utopia in which any attempt to redress ongoing power imbalances becomes “reverse racism”. </p>
<p>Equality, it seems, is achieved simply by refusing to acknowledge that inequality remains to be overcome, and by refusing to see the privilege of one’s own position. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AypT0F-xv4Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">You know who talks about race? Racists.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Think of Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/human-rights-commissioner-tim-wilson-believes-race-hate-laws-are-bizarre-and-unequal/story-fnj3rq0y-1226868911981">complaining</a> that that the law – and not just social sanction – prohibits racially loaded terms being used by some people but not others. This misses the point that the words in question aren’t just words used to denigrate minorities: they’re words used by white people to denigrate others. </p>
<p>Wilson doesn’t magically stop being white when he speaks, and he doesn’t get to sidestep the historical meanings of a white man using those words. None of us gets to be the pure <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy)">monad</a> of ahistorical, acultural reason the Enlightenment imagined us to be.</p>
<p>But this charge of “reverse racism” is deeply attractive from a certain perspective. It’s a way of pretending you can talk about racism, or sexism, or homophobia, without talking about power. That’s comforting for those who sense true equality would mean that they – we – might have to give up some of that power.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Patrick will be on hand for an author Q&A between 3PM and 4PM AEST on Tuesday, June 30. Post your questions in the comments section below.</em></p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This piece was updated after publication to clarify Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson’s comments.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Stokes 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>David Leyonhjelm is a conviction politician whose positions are governed by principle, not populism. But he is exposing the disturbing moral thinness of the libertarian principles he espouses.Patrick Stokes, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/439142015-06-26T06:21:08Z2015-06-26T06:21:08ZIs the ‘nanny state’ so bad? After all, voters expect governments to care<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86491/original/image-20150626-18237-1wj3edb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Libertarians have a deeply atomising picture about communities, states, even about what it is to be human.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arselectronica/14697349890/">Ars Electronica/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Independent senator David Leyonhjelm has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/david-leyonhjelm-declares-war-on-nanny-state/story-fn59niix-1227415288323">launched</a> a parliamentary inquiry into what he calls “the nanny state”. He objects to what he sees as government interference with the freedom of people to make choices, including, if they want, bad choices. </p>
<p>“It’s not the government’s business unless you are likely to harm another person,” he says. “Harming yourself is your business.” </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm is a libertarian: someone who believes that individual liberty is paramount and should be restricted in as few ways as possible. But you don’t need to be a libertarian to feel some sympathy for his call for the government to butt out. </p>
<h2>Liberty and choice</h2>
<p>The principle he invokes – that it is the business of government to interfere only when we risk harming others – is actually a cornerstone of liberal thought. It’s often called Mill’s principle, after <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill">John Stuart Mill</a>, the famous liberal, utilitarian and early feminist. </p>
<p>In his seminal text, <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/130/">On Liberty</a>, Mill wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Leyonhjelm seems to invoke exactly this principle in decrying the nanny state.</p>
<p>Mill thought government interference in our choices was oppressive even if that interference was genuinely for our own good. Leyonhjelm agrees, though he also says as a matter of fact that we usually make better decisions for ourselves than the government would. </p>
<p>Most of us would probably agree that there ought to be limits on how much governments can interfere with our choices for our own good, and that we are often better judges in our own case than outsiders could be. But agreeing with this much leaves plenty of room for debate. </p>
<p>How much interference is too much? Are there domains in which we are not good judges of our own good and might benefit from – even welcome – outside interference?</p>
<p>There’s a large body of psychological literature on how good people are at making decisions that aim at their own well-being. The record is not encouraging: people regularly make choices that they think will make them happier but actually will not. </p>
<p>We have major problems with what psychologists sometimes call <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_forecasting">affective forecasting</a>: we think we know how happy something will make us, but we’re wrong. This leads us to make bad choices with regard to money, in particular: people think that a pay rise, or <a href="http://apps.webofknowledge.com/home.do;jsessionid=55B867B93BBCE527D6B68F62C9E518EB?UT=WOS%3aA1978FM23000013&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord&product=WOS&SID=T1tfcc3Pfkmne5HD3Nw&smartRedirect=yes&SrcApp=Highwire&DestFail=http%3a%2f%2fwww.webofknowledge.com%3fDestApp%3dCEL%26DestParams%3d%253Faction%253Dretrieve%2526mode%253DFullRecord%2526product%253DCEL%2526UT%253DWOS%253AA1978FM23000013%2526customersID%253DHighwire%26e%3dhH2zexpHRGS6PGgAE_lYJX79xEo.NgJm6EwhlKCknceKK53d.SavxjG.Ty779rBu%26SrcApp%3dHighwire%26SrcAuth%3dHighwire&Init=Yes&action=retrieve&SrcAuth=Highwire&Func=Frame&customersID=Highwire&DestApp=WOS&DestParams=%3faction%3dretrieve%26mode%3dFullRecord%26product%3dWOS%26UT%3dWOS%3aA1978FM23000013%26customersID%3dHighwire%26smartRedirect%3dyes">winning the lottery</a>, will increase their happiness, but if they’re already comfortably well off, the money makes little or no difference. </p>
<p>And that’s not because nothing can be done to increase our happiness: memorable <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/08/05/want-to-buy-happiness-purchase-an-experience/">experiences</a>, for instance, do lead to increases in well-being. </p>
<p>We also routinely make decisions we later regret. For instance, in countries where there’s no real national health system and no compulsory insurance – countries of the sort that Leyonhjlem wants Australia to emulate – people routinely go under-insured, and often pay a high price for it. </p>
<p>Part of the reason for this is that we tend to think of ourselves as much less likely to become seriously ill than we actually are. In terms of health, then, government interference may save us from ourselves.</p>
<h2>Your kind of society</h2>
<p>While Mill’s harm principle is very attractive, it may well be that it’s psychologically unrealistic. It was formulated at a time when optimism in the power of rationality was at its peak and scientific psychology was in its infancy. We now know that we are less rational than we had hoped and that we often make better decisions collectively than we would by ourselves.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86485/original/image-20150626-18254-qttq8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86485/original/image-20150626-18254-qttq8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86485/original/image-20150626-18254-qttq8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86485/original/image-20150626-18254-qttq8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86485/original/image-20150626-18254-qttq8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86485/original/image-20150626-18254-qttq8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86485/original/image-20150626-18254-qttq8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ulysses tied himself to the mast so he wouldn’t be seduced by the sirens’ song, but most of us don’t need to be as dramatic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/freeparking/523448963/">freeparking/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many people who recognise that they are apt to make bad decisions in the heat of the moment take steps to prevent themselves doing so. In <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.html">The Odyssey</a>, for instance, Ulysses tied himself to the mast so he wouldn’t be seduced by the sirens’ song. </p>
<p>Many of us do something similar, if less dramatic. We salary-sacrifice into superannuation not merely to take advantage of higher interest rates but to put the money out of our own reach. We deliberately buy a smaller tub of ice-cream so the hassle of going out and buying more will prevent us from bingeing, and so on. We impose restrictions on ourselves. </p>
<p>In a democracy, voting for a nanny state may also be a way of imposing restrictions on ourselves. A minority of people may not like that, but that’s just how democracy works. So long as the restrictions are not unduly burdensome (how hard is to put on a seatbelt?) they don’t have much call on our sympathy.</p>
<p>We don’t want government interfering with our fundamental freedoms, even for our own good. One of our most fundamental freedoms is the freedom to live in accordance with our own conception of the sort of society we want to live in. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm’s proposal is not philosophically neutral. He has deep-seated philosophical views about the community, the state, even about what it is to be human. He thinks of human beings, in classical liberal fashion, as essentially independent individuals, each choosing for him or herself and bound to one another only by chosen ties. It is this deeply atomising picture he hopes to impose on us all. </p>
<p>We may choose to fight and vote for a different conception of what it is to be human; one in which we are each deeply bound to and interdependent on one another, and in which we may rightly ask each other to bear certain burdens. </p>
<p>That, too, is not a neutral conception of a flourishing human life, but it doesn’t pretend to be. Both pictures will be found attractive by many of us. Contemporary Australia represents a compromise between them and perhaps is all the better for it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43914/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Levy receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Templeton Foundation. He has previously received funding from the Wellcome Trust.</span></em></p>David Leyonhjelm’s parliamentary inquiry into what he calls “the nanny state” reflects a view of human beings as essentially independent individuals. But that’s not kind of society most of us want.Neil Levy, Professor, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/410272015-05-11T06:35:55Z2015-05-11T06:35:55ZFactCheck: Is half to two-thirds of the Australian population receiving a government benefit?<blockquote>
<p>When you’ve got, oh, probably well over half of the population, heading to two-thirds of the population receiving some form of government benefit, it’s pretty easy to identify where that money is going. And a far better option would be to wind back on expenditure, let people look after themselves a little bit more, lower taxes in due course and reduce the size of the government. – Liberal Democratic Party Senator David Leyonhjelm, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4226596.htm">interview</a> with ABC NewsRadio Breakfast, April 30, 2015.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The federal budget will be delivered this week and, while the government has promised it will be a dull one, some cuts to spending are expected in an effort to rein in the structural deficit.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ldp.org.au/">Liberal Democratic</a> party cross-bencher Senator David Leyonhjelm, whose support the government needs to pass its budget, has called for welfare spending to be reduced, saying that government benefits flow to “well over half of the population, heading to two-thirds of the population.”</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>What does the data say?</h2>
<p>Comprehensive data on the number of recipients of social security benefits and allowances are available from the Department of Social Services publication, <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/publications-articles/research-publications/statistical-paper-series/statistical-paper-no-12-income-support-customers-a-statistical-overview-2013">Income Support Customers: A Statistical Overview</a>, with the latest figures being for June 2013. (Quarterly figures are currently available up to December 2014 at <a href="http://data.gov.au/">data.gov.au</a> but may be subject to revision.)</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2015/sp12_accessible_pdf_final.pdf">June 2013</a>, there were 5.1 million people receiving income support payments, of whom nearly half (2.4 million) were receiving Age Pensions or Veterans Affairs Pensions. A further 821,000 were on Disability Support Pension, 660,000 were receiving Newstart, and the balance receiving other payments such as Parenting Payments, Carers Payment or Youth Allowance.</p>
<p>Income support payments are mutually exclusive - you can only legally receive one payment at any time. The situation is more complicated with family payments, where it is possible to receive multiple forms of assistance at the same time, as well as income support.</p>
<p>About 1.7 million families (Table 57 <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2015/sp12_accessible_pdf_final.pdf">here</a>) with 3.2 million children (Table 53 <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2015/sp12_accessible_pdf_final.pdf">here</a>) receive either Family Tax Benefit Part A or Part B – but the Department of Social Services told me that, of these, nearly 700,000 families also receive other income support payments.</p>
<p>Around 930,000 families with nearly 1.4 million children received child care assistance (Table 71 <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2015/sp12_accessible_pdf_final.pdf">here</a>), and while the bulk of these will also be receiving Family Tax Benefit, there are some families ineligible for Family Tax Benefit who will receive support with their child care costs. </p>
<h2>Are children counted as welfare recipients?</h2>
<p>A major complication is defining what we mean by who “receives” assistance. For example, while there are millions of children for whom family payments are made, the children themselves do not receive the payments. Moreover, the payments are usually made to only one of the parents, so if there are two parents in the family should they both be counted as receiving payments or should only one of them be counted?</p>
<p>If we counted both parents and children as recipients, then each Family Tax Benefit Part A payment could have at least three recipients. This seems hard to justify. But let’s run the numbers anyway.</p>
<p>The Australian <a href="http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/4BFD619814CF9F8FCA257E1300775C68/$File/31010_sep%202014.pdf">population</a> at June 2013 was estimated at 23.1 million. If we subtract those under 16 years of age (see Table 59 <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Sep%202014?OpenDocument">here</a>), then the adult population was around 18.2 million.</p>
<p>If we want to get the largest number, we would add together the 5.1 million <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2015/sp12_accessible_pdf_final.pdf">recipients</a> of income support payments, 3.2 million children and the roughly 1.9 million parents receiving Family Tax Benefit but not on income support – giving a total of close to 10.2 million people. </p>
<p>So if children were counted as welfare recipients, then around 44% of the total population is receiving some form of government benefit. That figure doesn’t include those getting child care assistance but not Family Tax Benefits, for which a definitive number is not available. If those people were included, it still seems unlikely the proportion would be over 50%.</p>
<p>If we think children <em>shouldn’t</em> be counted as recipients and that only one member of a couple should be included, then we have 5.1 million income support <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2015/sp12_accessible_pdf_final.pdf">recipients</a> plus around 900,000 parents, or 6 million recipients out of an adult population of 18.2 million - or roughly 33% of the adult population.</p>
<p>Both of these figures are likely to be underestimates because these figures don’t include those getting child care assistance but not Family Tax Benefits - but in total all those receiving child care assistance sums to only around 4% of the population.</p>
<p>However, overall it does not seem correct for Senator Leyonhjelm to say that about half the Australian population receives some form of government benefit. It’s more like 33% to 45%. </p>
<h2>People vs households</h2>
<p>It is possible that Senator Leyonhjelm meant to say that half of Australian <em>households</em> – not people – receive a government payment. That’s an important distinction.</p>
<p>When asked for a source for his figures, a spokesman for Senator Leyonhjelm referred The Conversation to a 2014 <a href="http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/speech/009-2014/">speech</a> Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey gave to the Sydney Institute in which he said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>At the moment over half of Australian households receive a taxpayer funded payment from the government.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6523.02011-12?OpenDocument">Data</a> on the distribution of income from the Australian Bureau of Statistics has included estimates of the proportion of Australian households receiving social security payments from 1994-95 to 2011-12.</p>
<p>We should generally expect that household rates of payment receipt will be higher than individual rates of receipt because households on average contain more than person.</p>
<p>Table 3 in the downloadable excel spreadsheet <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6523.02011-12?OpenDocument">here</a> shows that in 2011-12, 47.1% of Australian households either received zero or less than 1% of their income from government social security benefits. </p>
<p>This means that 53% of households received more than 1% of their income from government payments.</p>
<p>So the figure of 50% of Australian <em>households</em> currently receiving a government payment is correct, and if anything is likely to be something of an understatement.</p>
<h2>Are we heading to two-thirds of the population receiving benefits?</h2>
<p>As with any set of numbers, however, the important issue is what the numbers mean and whether we are “heading towards” two-thirds of the population receiving a government payment.</p>
<p>Around half of the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2015/sp12_accessible_pdf_final.pdf">5.1 million people</a> receiving income support are of age pension age, with the other half being of working age.</p>
<p>The numbers of families and their children receiving family payments is in the order of 6 million people.</p>
<p>Table 3 in the ABS <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&sih%202011-12%20data%20cubes.xls&6523.0&Data%20Cubes&E3075D36DB4F7605CA257BC80016E46F&0&2011-12&16.08.2013&Previous">publication</a> shows that between 1994-95 and 2011-12, the proportion of households receiving zero or less than 1% of their income from government payments actually rose from about 41% to 47%. </p>
<p>So on this measure – and assuming these trends continue – we are not heading <em>up</em> to two-thirds, but <em>down</em>. The proportion of households who rely heavily on government payments is actually shrinking.</p>
<p>As we know from the <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/2015-Intergenerational-Report">Intergenerational Report</a>, the proportion of Australians over 65 years is forecast to increase, leading to upward pressure on welfare spending. </p>
<p>However, the overall number of Australians who rely on government benefits as their <em>main</em> source of income has been <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&sih%202011-12%20data%20cubes.xls&6523.0&Data%20Cubes&E3075D36DB4F7605CA257BC80016E46F&0&2011-12&16.08.2013&Previous">going down</a> from about 28% in the mid-1990s to just under 25% in 2011-12.</p>
<p>But my own research has shown that for <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/is-australias-welfare-system-unsustainable">working age households</a> relying on government benefits as their main source of income, the decline is even larger – from a peak of about 21% in 1996-97 to 13.8% in 2011-12. Past experience suggests that, so long as unemployment remains low, this proportion should not grow markedly.</p>
<p>So what has been happening to family payments? <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0809/childrenpartb">Analysis</a> by the Parliamentary Library points out that non-means-tested child endowment was introduced in 1941, although it was not until 1950 under the Menzies Government that it was extended to families with one child.</p>
<p>From that time on, effectively 100% of families with children received family payments. In 1976, the Fraser Government in 1976 replaced income tax concessions for children and child endowment payments with Family Allowances. Family Allowances were income-tested by the Hawke Government in 1987, and for most of the period since that time, roughly 80% of families with children received family assistance.</p>
<p>Since 2007, however, there has been a remarkable turnaround in this proportion. This is a consequence of <a href="https://theconversation.com/middle-class-welfare-are-we-hitting-the-target-14257">decisions</a> by the Rudd and Gillard governments to change the indexation of family payments from wages to prices and to freeze the higher thresholds for income-testing. </p>
<p>This means that the proportion of families with dependent children receiving Family Tax Benefits has fallen from around 81% in 2007 to 68% in 2011-12, as can be calculated from <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6224.0.55.001Jun%202012?OpenDocument">Table 1 in the ABS survey of Families</a>. This does not take into account the effects of the continuation of the freeze on income test thresholds continuing since then.</p>
<p>Moreover, if we go back further in time, then the downward trend is even stronger, simply because until 1987 Family Allowances were universal. In <a href="http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/FD59468FB17720A3CA257AF700132E98/$File/13010_1985_chapter9.pdf">1985</a>, for example, there were 3.3 million income support recipients and 2.2 million families receiving family payments (around 1.3 million individuals receiving Family Allowances). </p>
<p>So out of a total adult population at the time of 11.5 million, 4.6 million people - 40% - were receiving a payment, compared to a comparable figure of 33% in 2013, as calculated earlier.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The proportion of Australian <em>adults</em> receiving cash payments is well below 50%. It is correct however, that about 50% of Australian <em>households</em> receive a government payment. While population ageing is likely to increase the number of recipients in future, changes to family payments have had a substantial downward impact on the overall proportion of the population receiving government payments. Absent future policy changes this share seems more likely to go down than up.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>In general, I agree with the arguments above. </p>
<p>However, one of the main points is that it is actually quite difficult to know how many people are receiving payments because different payments are not mutually exclusive, as the author notes. With this being the case, it is not possible to just add up the recipients in each category of support payment to come to a single number of total recipients. </p>
<p>The Department of Social Security lists 22 different categories of payments, including rental assistance and the Seniors Health Card. The one number that seems clear is that there are about <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2015/sp12_accessible_pdf_final.pdf">5.14 million</a> recipients of income support, up from 4.86 million in 2003. </p>
<p>If we add family payments, then the number of about 10.2 million overall recipients should be close to the number of overall recipients. </p>
<p>But the author rightly points to the difference between individuals and households. The latest ABS numbers have Australia with about 9.1 million households. If one does some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the basis of family payments and income assistance, it would seem that more than half of all households are receiving payments. So the conclusion that fewer than half of all individuals, but more than half of all households are in receipt of government payments would seem correct. </p>
<p>The final point is on the trends – again, I agree with the author. The number of income support recipients as a fraction of the population is falling, not rising. </p>
<p>However, I guess the point that the Senator is making is that if we don’t change policies then the fraction of recipients will rise. I think that is probably correct. Recent falls in the fraction of recipients have been due to policy changes, particularly to means test programs more strongly. It may not be the case that the fraction of recipients will rise to two-thirds of the Australian population, but it could well be the case that the fraction of recipients will rise if policy does not continue to tighten eligibility, given an ageing population. – <strong>Mark Crosby</strong></p>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” that doesn’t look quite right? 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/41027/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an independent member of the Sustainability Committee of the Board of the National Disability Insurance Agency, He is a member of the Inclusive Prosperity Commission of the Chiffley Research Centre.</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>Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has said that probably half to two-thirds of the Australian population is receiving some form of government benefit. Is that right?Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/292082014-07-16T20:21:09Z2014-07-16T20:21:09ZBeyond hypocrisy to absurdity: the fortunes of same-sex marriage<p>Disaffection with Australian politics seems visceral and entrenched.
An <a href="http://essentialvision.com.au/documents/essential_report_140701.pdf">Essential poll</a> in late June found that only 25% of those polled had trust in the federal parliament. Discussing this poll, Michelle Grattan <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-sort-of-opposition-does-a-jaded-electorate-want-28692">referred to</a> a “jaded” and “jaundiced” electorate. Well she might.</p>
<p>What makes this assessment of Australia’s political culture even more damning is that in the late 1990s Grattan had <a href="http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:11298">already observed</a> “growing distrust of and disillusionment with governments and governance” and a “crisis of cynicism”.</p>
<p>While such sentiments are consistent with research and polling the world over, Australia’s current malaise might be in a class of its own, and for reasons that aren’t hard to understand.</p>
<p>Take the issue of <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/Marriage">same-sex marriage</a>. Here we find the absurd – the deep, French existentialist kind of absurdity – on full display as nowhere else in Australian political life. It is just one of many examples of farce that makes it immediately obvious why Australians feel such estrangement from their political system.</p>
<h2>Australia is ready for the change</h2>
<p>The arguments have been aired. The debate has been won. There’s no outstanding or compelling reason why one part of the community should be discriminated against. So much for theory.</p>
<p>But the practical obstacles have also been removed. While the <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-federal-push-after-high-court-strikes-down-gay-marriage-law-21420">High Court held</a> that the ACT’s marriage equality legislation was unconstitutional, it also made it unambiguously clear that the constitution does not prevent the Commonwealth government from legislating with respect to same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>As for the public mood, electoral support is at an all-time high. In the latest <a href="http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/">poll by Crosby Textor</a> – the same <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/jul/19/lynton-crosby-david-cameron-tobacco-australia-lobbyist-mark-textor">pollsters used by the Liberals</a> – 72% of Australians want same-sex marriage legalised. Fully 77% are in favour of the Coalition granting a conscience vote on the issue. </p>
<p>The poll canvassed almost every age group and significant demographic, including those identifying as religious. This change has majority support across all demographics. Overall, only 21% of respondents opposed same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>A Nielsen poll only a year ago <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-shows-growing-support-for-samesex-marriage-20140714-3bxaj.html">had support</a> for same-sex marriage at 65%. </p>
<p>Barely a day before these results were released, Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm had already raised the stakes in an ideologically provocative appeal to “true” liberals in the Parliament. </p>
<p>Arguing that it’s not the job of governments to define relationships and a “bizarre misappropriation of power” when they do, Leyonhjelm is <a href="https://theconversation.com/leyonhjelm-to-use-leverage-to-get-gay-marriage-conscience-vote-29147">angling for a conscience vote</a> in the Liberal Party. Leyonhjelm is prepared to leverage his own vote on other measures the government might need his support to get through, such as temporary protection visas, to make it happen.</p>
<h2>Citing public support only when it suits</h2>
<p>If it looks like the stars are aligning for same-sex marriage – particularly in view of <a href="https://theconversation.com/ian-thorpe-came-out-but-not-in-australia-a-wise-decision-29158">Ian Thorpe’s highly publicised interview</a> on Sunday, bringing with it critical momentum – one still cannot overlook and much less dismiss the deep malaise in public confidence, nor the Abbott government’s expert hand in prolonging it.</p>
<p>Far from vindicating the status quo, the fortunes of same-sex marriage serve only to underscore its farcical potential.</p>
<p>For instance, it’s well known that prime minister Tony Abbott has an inexplicable obsession with the carbon tax. And despite only <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/most-voters-want-carbon-tax-scrapped-poll/story-fn3dxiwe-1226987665089">a slim majority</a> of Australians in favour of its repeal, Abbott cannot help but repeat again and again how important it is to “axe the tax”.</p>
<p>Where’s the same vox pop enthusiasm when it comes to same-sex marriage? He can’t fall back on anything like the majority position on same-sex marriage to support his ad nauseam whining on the carbon tax.</p>
<p>As we speak, there’s more popular support for the prime minister’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-gay-sister-christine-forster-engaged-20131021-2vwwg.html">sister’s wedding</a> than for a repeal of that loathsome carbon tax. Indeed, there’s more support for her wedding than there is for his own government and his leadership. And he must know this.</p>
<p>So Abbott’s simply playing politics. At the very least, he’s an old-fashioned, Machiavellian-style hypocrite, appealing to “the people of Australia” even as he holds them in contempt.</p>
<h2>Government of the absurd</h2>
<p>There’s more to this situation than hypocrisy. Australian political culture has actually managed to transcend the domain of the merely hypocritical.</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm’s foray into the subject this week draws the ludicrous out of the ridiculous. The Liberal Party’s <a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/our-beliefs">rhapsodies</a> to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-brandis-appoints-ipas-tim-wilson-to-human-rights-commission-20131217-2zi5z.html">free speech</a>, <a href="http://www.weforum.org/sessions/summary/australias-vision-g20">free markets</a> and free this and that are just so much tinkling cymbal. </p>
<p>For a government to prattle relentlessly on such subjects and still assume the moralising posture of late Victorian High Tories shows what a fatuous administration it is.</p>
<p>It’s beyond hypocrisy. A merely hypocritical politician will finesse his or her duplicity with a Machiavellian show of sincerity. It’s good to be virtuous; it’s more important to appear to be virtuous. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince">The Prince</a>, chapter and verse you might say.</p>
<p>All this is familiar. The vulgarity and anti-intellectual bravado of the Abbott government is already legendary. Think of <a href="https://theconversation.com/premiers-demand-abbott-meet-them-insisting-he-has-got-his-budget-facts-wrong-26854">cuts to health and education</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4045863.htm">secrecy on the high seas</a>, the constant <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/bloated-bureaucracy-faces-tony-abbotts-razor-in-this-weeks-budget/story-fncynjr2-1226913896523">denigration of the public sector</a>, which is especially jarring considering that every last one of these small-government zealots holds up a pan to the public purse.</p>
<p>But what makes this government altogether surpass our best estimate of chicanery is its very absurdity. Australians overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage. It’s hard to imagine any other issue on which such a vast majority would be forthcoming.</p>
<p>The argument has been won. The High Court is on side. All true liberals agree.</p>
<p>Make no mistake. Today is the most absurd moment in Australia’s history, and its leader the concentrated essence of this absurdity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29208/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Zerilli 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>Disaffection with Australian politics seems visceral and entrenched. An Essential poll in late June found that only 25% of those polled had trust in the federal parliament. Discussing this poll, Michelle…John Zerilli, Tutor in Law and Philosophy, PhD Candidate, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.