tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/factcheck-6544/articlesFactCheck – The Conversation2020-10-27T02:51:33Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1487382020-10-27T02:51:33Z2020-10-27T02:51:33ZThree fact-checking challenges in Southeast Asia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365484/original/file-20201026-17-1r8cchg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C3%2C1196%2C794&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Southeast Asian governments not only have to deal with the virus but also with the false information surrounding it.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Like many parts of the world, Southeast Asia has been experiencing information pollution in the public information space. </p>
<p>Distribution of unverified information and hoaxes is rampant. It’s particularly a problem <a href="https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/ISEAS_Perspective_2019_100.pdf">on social media sites and text messaging apps</a> like Whatsapp and Telegram. </p>
<p>Disinformation campaigns using cyber troopers to spread hateful rhetoric and hyper-partisan content have long been a <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/in-east-and-southeast-asia-misinformation-is-a-visible-and-growing-concern/">part of communication artifices by political parties in the region</a>. </p>
<p>And now, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, <a href="https://theconversation.com/combating-medical-misinformation-and-disinformation-amid-coronavirus-outbreak-in-southeast-asia-131046">Southeast Asian governments not only have to deal with the virus but also with the false information surrounding it</a>. </p>
<p>In recent years, governments across Southeast Asia have introduced various measures to tackle the problem. <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/southeast-asias-battle-against-disinformation/">This includes enacting stringent fake news laws</a> and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10999922.2019.1603046?af=R&journalCode=mpin20">establishing government fact-checking bodies</a>.</p>
<p>The region has witnessed an increasing number of independent fact-checking bodies to combat the information pollution ever since the ills of online manipulations as part of political warfare were put on full display. </p>
<p>However, these fact-checking agencies only <a href="https://www.iseas.edu.sg/category/articles-commentaries/aseanfocus/">gained significant public popularity since the outbreak of the COVID-19 health crisis in February 2020</a>.</p>
<p>Fact-checking in Southeast Asia poses several unique challenges. This article will highlight three challenges based on my recent interactions with fact-checkers, researchers and journalists in the region.</p>
<h2>Limited force</h2>
<p>One of the challenges fact-checkers face is the abundance of content generated by internet users. </p>
<p>With a limited number of fact-checkers in the region, fact-checking all this content becomes a challenging task to complete. </p>
<p>Aribowo Sasmito, the co-founder of the Indonesian Anti-Slander Society (MAFINDO), told me recently many hoaxes are shared daily on the internet. </p>
<p>The profusion of content has made it difficult for fact-checkers to select which content to verify. </p>
<p>Thus, the most convenient solution is to focus on content that has gone viral on social media or text messaging apps like WhatsApp, or that is believed to be detrimental to the public. </p>
<p>But this raised questions among scholars and observers alike. Does that mean other misinformation is less important than the viral messages? </p>
<p>Another challenge journalists highlighted is time constraints on fact-checking while trying to be the first to report breaking news. </p>
<p>Speaking to several journalists in Southeast Asia, some raised concerns about the lack of proper documentation to prove certain people’s allegations relating to sensitive issues. </p>
<p>This problem is particularly prevalent when it comes to content related to local histories or political accusations. </p>
<p>The unavailability of documents or materials as references has made it even harder for journalists to corroborate information shared by their sources. </p>
<h2>Various languages</h2>
<p>The second challenge is the various languages used to create online content. This leads to fact-checkers overlooking hoaxes shared among indigenous groups who speak non-mainstream indigenous languages. </p>
<p>In Southeast Asia alone, <a href="https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/2105289/speaking-tongues-why-asean-members-stick-english">at least 1,000 languages and dialects are spoken</a>. </p>
<p>This has raised a legitimate concern among researchers about ensuring fact-checkers do not overlook false information shared using less popular languages, considering people in Southeast Asia are still relatively low-skilled in detecting false information. </p>
<p>Fact-checkers also noted that the public’s inability to understand the content in a different cultural context leads to the sharing of misinformation. </p>
<p>Cultural content or posts uploaded in other languages could be lost in translation and misinterpreted, with information taken out of context. </p>
<p>Meeko Angela Camba of <a href="https://verafiles.org/">VERA Files</a>, a fact-checking agency based in the Philippines, told me fact-checkers also face problems in debunking claims with “a bit of truth in them but lacking in context, or presented in a false context”. </p>
<h2>State pressures</h2>
<p>Against the political backdrop in Southeast Asia, where <a href="https://seasia.co/2020/04/29/southeast-asia-countries-in-world-press-freedom-index">press freedom is mostly limited</a>, fact-checking agencies and journalists have also raised concerns about pressures applied by governments when fact-checkers’ findings are at odds with government political narratives. </p>
<p>For example, in countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, laws like the <a href="https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/728/422">Defamation Act</a>, <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30688595.pdf">Official Secrets Act</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29628191">Lèse Majesté law</a> hinder journalists, particularly those working or affiliated with government agencies, from doing fact-checking effectively due to “fear” of offending the government.</p>
<p>Intimidated by the potential repercussions for verifying information that casts doubt on government political narratives, journalists and fact-checkers practicse self-censorship on certain kinds of content.</p>
<p>While independent fact agencies are many in the Western world, independent agencies have yet to gain traction in Southeast Asia. </p>
<p>In Malaysia, the Ministry of Communication and Multimedia Malaysia established <a href="https://sebenarnya.my/">Sebenarnya.my</a> in 2017. It’s the leading “one-stop centre” to check viral content shared on the internet. </p>
<p>Sebenarnya.my has increased in popularity since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. </p>
<p>It has worked closely with other government agencies to debunk mainly health misinformation related to COVID-19. Yet critics doubt if Sebenarnya.my would be the best platform to get fact-checked information about political content. </p>
<p>Recently, two new fact-checking agencies were established in Malaysia, independent agency Faqcheck.org and <a href="http://www.mycheck.my/">Mycheck</a> under Bernama, the Malaysian National News Agency. The founding of the two new agencies could contribute to more balanced information fact-checking in the country.</p>
<p>MAFINDO in Indonesia has also been criticised, particularly when fact-checking political content. </p>
<p>Aribowo said the fact-checking agency has been accused of either supporting the government or supporting the government’s political opponents, solely for fact-checking political content. </p>
<p>Critics see the collaboration between MAFINDO and the Indonesian government involving the <a href="https://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2019/11/11/sejak-2015-mafindo-sudah-tangani-3000-lebih-kasus-hoaks-di-indonesia">General Election Commission (KPU) and the Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu)</a> as discreet political support for the ruling power. </p>
<p>MAFINDO, however, claimed impartiality and asserted the agency is apolitical. It said it <a href="https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1396395/tanggapi-menkominfo-mafindo-melabel-hoaks-harus-jelas-referensinya/full&view=ok">has been debunking hoaxes, even ones shared by government agencies</a>. </p>
<p>Aribowo said such allegations are part and parcel of the process of fact-checking by MAFINDO and other fact-checkers and media outlets in the region. </p>
<p>Fact-checking agencies like MAFINDO, <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/fact-checking-under-pressure-how-vera-files-has-dealt-with-the-duterte-regime/">VERA Files and the Phillipines-based Rappler</a> have received numerous threats, forcing the agencies to take safety precautions. This includes <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-election-fakenews-insight-idUSKCN1RM2ZE">hiding their office address</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148738/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nuurrianti Jalli tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.</span></em></p>With a limited number of fact-checkers in Southeast Asia, fact-checking content becomes a challenging task to complete.Nuurrianti Jalli, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies College of Arts and Sciences Department of Languages, Literature, and Communication Studies, Northern State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1433522020-08-11T20:08:47Z2020-08-11T20:08:47ZCoronavirus misinformation is a global issue, but which myth you fall for likely depends on where you live<p>In February, major social media platforms attended a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-technology/white-house-to-meet-large-tech-companies-to-discuss-ways-to-control-coronavirus-outbreak-idUSKBN20X3CH">meeting hosted by the World Health Organisation</a> to address coronavirus misinformation. The aim was to catalyse the fight against what the United Nations has called an “<a href="https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-tackling-%E2%80%98infodemic%E2%80%99-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19">infodemic</a>”. </p>
<p>Usually, misinformation is focused on specific regions and topics. But COVID-19 is different. For what seems like the first time, both misinformation and fact-checking behaviours are coordinated around a common set of narratives the world over. </p>
<p>In our <a href="https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/esoc-covid-19-disinformation-tracking-report">research</a>, we identified the key trends in both coronavirus misinformation and fact-checking efforts. Using Google’s <a href="https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer">Fact Check Explorer computing interface</a> we tracked fact-check posts from January to July – with the first checks appearing as early as January 22. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Google’s Fact Check Explorer database is connected with a range of fact-checkers, most of which are part of the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A uniform rate of growth</h2>
<p>Our research found the volume of fact-checks on coronavirus misinformation increased steadily in the early stages of the virus’s spread (January and February) and then increased sharply in March and April – when the virus <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00758-2">started to spread globally</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, we found the same pattern of gradual and then sudden increase even after dividing fact-checks into Spanish, Hindi, Indonesian and Portuguese. </p>
<p>Thus, misinformation and subsequent fact-checking efforts trended in a similar way right across the globe. This is a unique feature of COVID-19. </p>
<p>According to our analysis, there has been no equivalent global trend for other issues such as elections, terrorism, police activity or immigration.</p>
<h2>Different nations, different misconceptions</h2>
<p>On March 16, the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, in collaboration with Microsoft Research, <a href="https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/esoc-covid-19-disinformation-tracking-report">began cataloguing COVID-19 misinformation</a>. </p>
<p>It did this by collating news articles with reporting by a wide range of local fact-checking networks and global groups such as Agence France-Presse and NewsGuard.</p>
<p>We analysed this data set to explore the evolution of specific COVID-19 narratives, with “<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEE9TjqPjuUeTtZzyEAGHi5Mmu2V5P1N/view">narrative</a>” referring to the type of story a piece of misinformation pushes. </p>
<p>For instance, one misinformation narrative concerns the “origin of the virus”. This includes the false claim the virus jumped to humans as a result of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/bat-soup-dodgy-cures-and-diseasology-the-spread-of-coronavirus-bunkum">someone eating</a> <a href="https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus-bat-soup">bat soup</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">The Conversation's FactCheck granted accreditation by International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We found the most common narrative worldwide was related to “emergency responses”. These stories reported false information about government or political responses to fighting the virus’s outbreak.</p>
<p>This may be because, unlike narratives surrounding the “nature of the virus”, it is easy to speculate on (and hard to prove) whether people in power have good or ill intent.</p>
<p>Notably, this was also the most common narrative in the US, with an early example being a <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/14/tech/twitter-coronavirus-new-york-misinformation/index.html">false rumour</a> the New York Police Department would immediately lock down New York City. </p>
<p>What’s more, a major motivation for spreading misinformation on social media is politics. The US is a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/">polarised political environment</a>, so this might help explain the trend towards political misinformation.</p>
<p>We also found China has more misinformation narratives than any other country. This may be because China is the world’s most populous country. </p>
<p>However, it’s worth noting the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-internet/china-launches-platform-to-stamp-out-online-rumors-idUSKCN1LF0HL">main fact-checking website</a> used by the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project for misinformation coming out of China is run by the Chinese Communist Party. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This chart shows the proportion of total misinformation narratives on COVID-19 by the top ten countries between January and July, 2020.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When fighting misinformation, it is important to have as wide a range of <a href="https://www.poynter.org/ifcn-fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">independent and transparent</a> fact-checkers as possible. This reduces the potential for bias.</p>
<h2>Hydroxychloroquine and other (non) ‘cures’</h2>
<p>Another set of misinformation narratives was focused on “false cures” or “false preventative measures”. This was among the most common themes in both China and Australia. </p>
<p>One example was a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/virus-video-trump.html">video</a> that went viral on social media suggesting hydroxychloroquine is an effective coronavirus treatment. This is despite <a href="https://theconversation.com/hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-a-new-review-of-several-studies-shows-flaws-in-research-and-no-benefit-137869">experts stating</a> it is <em>not</em> a proven COVID-19 treatment, and can actually have harmful side effects.</p>
<p>Myths about the “nature of the virus” were also common. These referred to specific characteristics of the virus – such as that it can’t spread on surfaces. We know this <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-environmental-cleaning-and-disinfection-principles-for-health-and-residential-care-facilities.pdf">isn’t true</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-know-how-long-coronavirus-survives-on-surfaces-heres-what-it-means-for-handling-money-food-and-more-134671">We know how long coronavirus survives on surfaces. Here's what it means for handling money, food and more</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Narratives reflect world events</h2>
<p>Our analysis found different narratives peaked at different stages of the virus’s spread. </p>
<p>Misinformation about the nature of the virus was prevalent during the outbreak’s early stages, probably spurred by an initial lack of scientific research regarding the nature of the virus. </p>
<p>In contrast, theories relating to emergency responses surfaced later and remain even now, as governments continue to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/audio/2020/aug/11/life-under-covid-19-lockdown-in-melbourne">implement measures</a> to fight COVID-19’s spread. </p>
<h2>A wide variety of fact-checkers</h2>
<p>We also identified greater diversity in websites fact-checking COVID-19 misinformation, compared to those investigating other topics.</p>
<p>Since January, only 25% of 6,000 fact-check posts or articles were published by the top five fact-checking websites (ranked by number of posts). In comparison, 68% of 3,000 climate change fact-checks were published by the top five websites. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/5-ways-to-help-stop-the-infodemic-the-increasing-misinformation-about-coronavirus-137561">5 ways to help stop the 'infodemic,' the increasing misinformation about coronavirus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It seems resources previously devoted to a wide range of topics are now homing in on coronavirus misinformation. Nonetheless, it’s impossible to know the total volume of this content online.</p>
<p>For now, the best defence is for governments and online platforms to increase awareness about false claims and build on the robust fact-checking infrastructures at our disposal.</p>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143352/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob Shapiro has received funding for work relevant to this topic from the Bertelsmann Foundation and Microsoft.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jan Oledan is affiliated with the World Bank Group.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Weismueller and Paul Harrigan 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>When it comes to COVID-19 misinformation, not all nations are the same. Some are peddling a larger variety of myths than others - and each seems to have its own personal favourite.Jason Weismueller, Doctoral Researcher, The University of Western AustraliaJacob Shapiro, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton UniversityJan Oledan, Research Specialist, Princeton UniversityPaul Harrigan, Associate Professor of Marketing, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1164882019-05-08T10:12:20Z2019-05-08T10:12:20ZFrom ‘Total exoneration!’ to ‘Impeach now!’ – the Mueller report and dueling fact perceptions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272847/original/file-20190506-103075-1yd32b8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can a country move ahead when its citizens hold dueling facts? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/142194433?src=Ko6cKmAhl3Wp_3AH9W0tow-1-7&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/?utm_term=.9ec28dc47d10">The Mueller report</a> was supposed to settle, once and for all, the controversy over whether the Trump team colluded with Russians or obstructed justice. </p>
<p>Clearly <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/mueller-report">it has not</a>. </p>
<p>Reactions to the report have ranged from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-live-updates.html">“total exoneration!”</a> to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/442227-orourke-mueller-report-affirmed-need-for-impeachment-against-trump">“impeach now!”</a> </p>
<p>Shouldn’t nearly 700 hundred pages of details, after almost two years of waiting, have helped the nation to achieve a consensus over what happened?</p>
<p>Well, no. </p>
<p>As the German philosopher <a href="https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/German/FaustIProl.php">Goethe said</a> in the early 1800s, “Each sees what is present in their heart.”</p>
<p>Since 2013 – long before Donald Trump was even a candidate – <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/one-nation-two-realities-9780190677176?cc=us&lang=en&">we have been studying</a> the “dueling facts” phenomenon: the tendency for Red and Blue America to perceive reality in starkly different ways. </p>
<p>Based on that work, we expected the report to settle next to nothing. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-major-democratic-and-republican-blocs-are-responding-to-the-mueller-report/">conflicting factual assertions that have emerged</a> since the report’s release highlight just how easy it is for citizens to believe what they want, regardless of what Robert Mueller, William Barr or anyone else has to say about it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Mueller report has sparked dueling perceptions of fact. Here, Attorney General William Barr, right, is sworn in to testify before Senate on May 1, 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Trump-Russia-Probe-Barr/fbe665a0f1c64408bcd6aa1f7a0be8ef/41/0">AP/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Dueling facts in American democracy</h2>
<p>Our research has led us to several conclusions about the future of political discourse in the U.S. </p>
<p>The first is that dueling fact perceptions are rampant, and they are more entrenched than most people realize. </p>
<p>Some examples of this include conflicting perceptions about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/22/trump-thinks-scientists-are-split-on-climate-change-so-do-most-americans">the existence of climate change</a>, the <a href="http://fortune.com/2019/04/26/the-downside-of-fridays-strong-u-s-gdp-growth-figures/">strength of the economy</a>, the <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2016/12/08/2-discrimination-and-conflicts-in-u-s-society/">consequences of racism</a>, the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/20/half-of-americans-say-sexual-orientation-cannot-be-changed/">origins of sexual orientation</a>, the utility of <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/the-real-value-of-a-15-minimum-wage-depends-on-where-you-live/">minimum wage increases</a> or <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx">gun control</a>, the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rates-support-for-gun-rights-increases/">crime rate</a> and the <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/most-americans-think-the-benefits-of-the-mmr-vaccine-outweigh-risks/">safety of vaccines</a>.</p>
<p>This has serious implications for American democracy. As political scientists, we wonder: How can a community decide the direction they should go, if they cannot even agree on where they are? Can people holding dueling facts be brought into some semblance of consensus? </p>
<p>To figure that out, it is important to determine where such divergent beliefs come from in the first place. </p>
<p>This is the perspective we began with: If dueling fact perceptions are driven by misinformation from politicians and pundits, then one would expect things to get better by making sure that people have access to correct information – via fact-checking, for example. </p>
<p>We envisioned the dueling facts phenomenon as being primarily tribal, driven by cheerleading on each side for their partisan “teams.” We assumed, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021226224601">like most other scholars</a>, that individuals are simply led astray by their team’s coaches (party leaders), star players (media pundits) or fellow fans (social media feeds).</p>
<p>But it turns out that the roots of such divergent views go much deeper. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dueling facts: Climate change was referred to on an Obama administration EPA page, left; it was excluded on the Trump administration’s version of the page.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Pruitt-Climate-Change/59a286b5915d4f148c99850881ac55d1/11/0">EPA vis AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found that voters see the world in ways that <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/one-nation-two-realities-9780190677176?cc=us&lang=en&">reinforce their values and identities</a>, irrespective of whether they have ever watched Fox News or MSNBC, and regardless of whether they have a Facebook account. </p>
<p>For example, according to our data from five years of national surveys from 2013 to 2017, the most important predictor of whether a person views racism as highly prevalent and influential is not her partisan identification. It is not her general ideological outlook. It is not the amount or type of media that she consumes. It is not even her own race.</p>
<p>It is the degree to which she prioritizes compassion as a public virtue, relative to other things like rugged individualism.</p>
<h2>Facts rooted in values</h2>
<p>Values not only shape what people see, but they also structure what people look for in the first place. We call this “intuitive epistemology.”</p>
<p>Those who care about oppression look for oppression, so they find it. Those who care about security look for threats to it, and they find them. In other words, people do not end up with the same answers because they do not begin with the same questions.</p>
<p>For example, the perception that vaccines cause autism – against all available empirical evidence – is now shared <a href="https://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001">equally by Democrats and Republicans</a>. Partisanship cannot account for this dueling fact perception.</p>
<p>But when we looked at the role of core values and their associated questions, we found the strongest predictor. If someone we surveyed ranked this question highly, “Does it appear that people are committing indecent acts or degrading something sacred?” they were by far the most likely to believe that vaccines are dangerous.</p>
<p>Partisan identity, on the other hand, has no relationship at all with those beliefs. Because the starting points for different groups of citizens are deeply polarized, so are their ending points. And the starting points are often values rather than parties. </p>
<p>The stronger those commitments to their values are, the stronger the effects. Those with extreme value commitments are <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201904/why-so-certain">much more certain</a> than others that their perceptions are correct. </p>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most disappointing finding from our studies – at least from our point of view – is that there are no known fixes to this problem. </p>
<p>Fact-checking <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201905/fact-checking-is-ineffective-where-it-counts">tends to fall flat</a>. The voters who need to hear corrections rarely read fact-checks. And for those who might stumble across them, reports from distant and distrusted experts are no match for closely held values and defining identities. </p>
<p>Education is the another possible means of encouraging consensus perceptions, but it actually makes things worse. </p>
<p>Rather than training people how to think more reasonably, college and graduate school merely sharpen the lenses graduates use to perceive reality. <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/one-nation-two-realities-9780190677176?cc=us&lang=en&">In our data</a>, those with higher levels of education are more, not less, divided. And the higher the level of training, the more tightly values and perceptions intertwine. Education provides the tools to more efficiently match their preferred values to their perceived facts.</p>
<p>Based on this evidence, we conclude that dueling fact perceptions (or what some have labeled “alternative facts”) are probably here to stay, and worsen.</p>
<h2>Mueller’s muddle</h2>
<p>We suspect that the Mueller report would have been rejected by roughly half the country, even if its conclusions had been definitive. </p>
<p>But with key phrases like “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” the report’s indecisiveness reinforces how difficult it can be to really know the “truth” about a lot of things. </p>
<p>If a respected prosecutor like Robert Mueller can’t offer a firm conclusion after two years of document dumps and interviews, what are the rest of us to do? </p>
<p>As with so many other things, people will go with their guts, using their heads to feel better about the choices they have already made.</p>
<p>Our conclusions are much more definitive than Mueller’s: We see clear evidence of collusion and obstruction. Collusion between values and facts. Obstruction of the capacity to observe and accept legitimate evidence. </p>
<p>So for the past couple of weeks, the chorus of “I told you so!” has rung out from the country’s Blue coastlines and from every Red mile of heartland in-between. </p>
<p>And with that, the U.S. continues to inch ever closer to a public square in which consensus perceptions are unavailable and facts are irrelevant.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116488/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 organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How can a community decide the direction it should go, if its members cannot even agree on where they are? Two political scientists say the growing phenomenon of dueling facts threatens democracy.David C. Barker, Professor of Government and Director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University School of Public AffairsMorgan Marietta, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1063382019-01-31T19:13:16Z2019-01-31T19:13:16ZTrust Me, I’m An Expert: how to spot the work of a political spin doctor this election season<p>It’s February, the holidays seem like a distant memory and here we are barrelling toward a federal election, which the government has indicated will be in May. </p>
<p>Remember in the olden days – as in, a few elections ago – we used to have a fairly set election campaign period of usually about six weeks? Now, of course, politicians seem to always be in campaign mode. </p>
<p>They’re not doing that all by themselves, of course. There’s a small army of spin doctors, social media strategists, political campaign advisers and press secretaries behind the scenes, finessing every utterance so it fits with the overall campaign strategy. And that’s what we are talking about on the podcast today – the art of political spin.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-reputation-that-matters-when-spin-doctors-go-back-to-the-newsroom-81088">It's reputation that matters when spin doctors go back to the newsroom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We’ll hear from Caroline Fisher, political communication and journalism researcher from the University of Canberra. She began her career as a journalist with the ABC, but went on to work as a media adviser for Labor’s Anna Bligh, a former Queensland premier.</p>
<p>Today, she’s talking to Michelle Grattan, political journalist and Professorial Fellow at the University of Canberra about the tips and tricks spin doctors use to shape the political messages you’re hearing every day. And you can read Caroline Fisher’s article on the spin tactics over <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-vomit-principle-the-dead-bat-the-freeze-how-political-spin-doctors-tactics-aim-to-shape-the-news-106453">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-vomit-principle-the-dead-bat-the-freeze-how-political-spin-doctors-tactics-aim-to-shape-the-news-106453">The vomit principle, the dead bat, the freeze: how political spin doctors' tactics aim to shape the news</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>All year round and especially during election season, you’re going to hear a lot of competing claims about the state of the economy. Has school funding been cut or is it at a record high? Do tax cuts make the economy better or worse? Why are the government and the opposition saying seemingly contradictory things about debt and deficits?</p>
<p>To find out, Lucinda Beaman – who was our FactCheck editor but has just moved to the ABC – spoke to Fabrizio Carmignagni, a professor of economics at the Griffith Business School, Griffith University.</p>
<p>He’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fabrizio-carmignani-4375/articles">authored many FactCheck articles</a> for The Conversation, where he tests statements by key public figures against the evidence and his special super power is pulling back the curtain to reveal why certain claims you hear about the economy don’t stand up to scrutiny.</p>
<p>Today, Professor Carmignani reveals why you should be suspicious when you hear a politician claim their government has created jobs, how to spot a bit of causation vs correlation spin doctoring, and other political porkies that make economists’ skin crawl. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-the-trump-tax-cuts-led-to-lower-unemployment-and-higher-wages-101460">FactCheck: have the Trump tax cuts led to lower unemployment and higher wages?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Trust Me, I’m An Expert is a podcast where we ask academics to surprise, delight and inform us with their research. You can download previous episodes <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/trust-me-podcast">here</a>. And please, do check out other podcasts from The Conversation - you can find them all over <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts">here</a>.</p>
<p>The segments in today’s podcast were recorded and edited by Sunanda Creagh, with additional recording and editing by Dilpreet Kaur and Eliza Berlage. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/pencils-ready-its-time-for-politics-2019-bingo-108503">Pencils ready: it's time for Politics 2019 Bingo!</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>New to podcasts?</h2>
<p>Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click <a href="https://pca.st/VTv7">here</a> to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).</p>
<p>You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/trust-me-im-an-expert/id1290047736?mt=2&ign-mpt=uo%3D8"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3RydXN0LW1lLXBvZGNhc3QucnNz"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation/trust-me-im-an-expert"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Trust-Me-Im-An-Expert-p1035757/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/trust-me-im-an-expert-Wa3E5A"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7myc7drbLJVaRitAMXLB7V"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<hr>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p>Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from <a href="https://www.elefanttraks.com/">Elefant Traks</a></p>
<p>Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann, <a href="https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgy6E8annG?play=true">RN Breakfast </a> </p>
<p>Channel 9 news <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFb1ivBwqa4">report</a>. </p>
<p>Bill Shorten’s 2018 Budget reply <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eIYbTTLjiI">speech</a>. </p>
<p>Sky News <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/2091757210846683/?video_source=permalink">report</a>. </p>
<p>Today Show <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/06/23/06/57/christopher-pyne-anthony-albanese-today-show-schools-funding">segment</a>. </p>
<p>ABC news <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-27/election-likely-for-may-as-morrison-locks-in-april-budget/10558080">report</a>. </p>
<p>Labor Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BillShorten/videos/280381889301755/UzpfSTMwNzM0MTk4MTc4ODoxMDE1NzcwODQyNzIzMTc4OQ/">video</a>. </p>
<p>Nick Xenophon SA Best <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2K8jZfUpLc">ad</a>. </p>
<p>The Greens <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/AustralianGreens">ad</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Podington_Bear/Marimba_Vibraphone_Chimes__Bells/Pshaw">Podington Bear</a>, Pshaw, from Free Music Archive.</p>
<p>Bloomberg news <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW8pKs5EKvw">report</a>. </p>
<h2>Image:</h2>
<p>AAP Image/Mick Tsikas</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
There’s a small army of spin doctors behind the scenes of an election campaign, finessing every utterance so it fits with the overall strategy. Today's episode is all about the art of political spin.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorDilpreet Kaur, Editorial InternLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1087952018-12-17T11:41:52Z2018-12-17T11:41:52ZThe math on why the Trump administration’s fuel standards report is seriously flawed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250510/original/file-20181213-178555-1t6j73r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Conflicting fuel standard reports from the Trump and Obama administrations disagree by billions of dollars. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fill-machine-fuel-mashunya-gasoline-gas-148217705?src=1ND2ZKTybg1CyJ2B8Pkn8g-1-3">nata-lunata/shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Fuel economy standards are an important way for the U.S. to combat climate change. However, <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld-cafe-co2-nhtsa-2127-al76-epa-pria-180823.pdf">a 2018 study</a> conducted by the Trump administration proposes hitting the pause button on regulations, potentially leaving billions of dollars in benefits on the table.</p>
<p>This is a significant change from the Obama administration, which ramped up prior fuel economy standards. That administration mandated the fleet-wide fuel economy of passenger vehicles and light trucks to <a href="https://www.wired.com/2012/08/2025-mpg-regulation/">reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025</a>. <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100QQ91.pdf">The federal government’s cost-benefit analysis</a>, completed in January 2017, concluded that this was technologically feasible and that benefits exceeded costs by over US$90 billion. </p>
<p>The current administration challenges that conclusion and recommends freezing standards at model year 2020 levels through 2025. <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld-cafe-co2-nhtsa-2127-al76-epa-pria-180823.pdf">Their analysis</a> finds that the costs exceed the benefits by over $170 billion – a difference of over $260 billion from the previous report. </p>
<p>Who is right? The answer matters, because fuel economy standards are the last remaining major federal regulation to fight greenhouse gas emissions. The current administration has eliminated other regulations related to clean power and is promoting coal consumption. If the Obama administration’s analysis is correct, then pausing fuel standards will cost the economy money and impact the environment. If the Trump analysis is correct, then this may be the right call. There is a lot at stake.</p>
<p>My colleagues and I <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav1458">analyzed the differences between the two reports</a>, looking to see whether those differences are supported by research and best practices. While both studies contain flaws, we found that the Trump administration’s study contains more. </p>
<p>First, the Trump administration’s study doubles the “rebound effect” – it assumes that consumers will drive twice as many extra miles if they purchase an efficient car. As a result, this leads to more traffic deaths, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/climate/trump-fuel-economy.html">a claim that has been repeated a number of times</a>. Yet, there is no justification in the research literature for doubling the rebound effect, so this focus on costs associated with increased accidents and deaths is artificial.</p>
<p>The study’s second flaw is that it ignores the global impact of carbon emissions, only looking at the impact on the U.S. This effectively announces to the world that the U.S. does not care about climate impacts outside of its borders. This is a major difference that reduces the <a href="https://theconversation.com/curbing-climate-change-has-a-dollar-value-heres-how-and-why-we-measure-it-70882">social cost of carbon</a> – the economic harm due to emitting a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere – from $48 per ton globally to only $7 per ton in the U.S. This impacts the bigger picture, as it reduces the benefits of fuel standards from $27.8 billion in 2016 to $4.3 billion in 2018.</p>
<p>Third, the study claims that eliminating the fuel economy standards decreases the number of vehicles on the road by 6 million cars by 2029. However, this is <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.1.1.106">completely inconsistent</a> with <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.5.2.148">economic theory</a>, which predicts that tighter standards make both new and used vehicles more expensive. As standards increase vehicle prices, total fleet size should decrease over time – but the 2018 analysis claims the opposite. </p>
<p>In contrast, if standards are rolled back, this should increase demand for vehicles, resulting in a larger fleet. This mistake alone leads the Trump administration to claim over $90 billion of cost savings, from the fewer cars on the road, that just aren’t there.</p>
<p>Mistakenly assuming 6 million fewer cars on the road also means that the study’s assumptions about miles driven and fatalities from car crashes may be off, too.</p>
<p>Finally, the Trump administration study doubles the assumed costs of new technologies required to meet fuel standards compared to the 2017 analysis. We couldn’t find any empirical justification for that.</p>
<p>The Obama administration’s study found $90 billion in net benefits, while the Trump administration’s found a net loss of $186 billion. If the first analysis is right, then the U.S. is leaving this $90 billion on the table by not capturing those net benefits. </p>
<p>Both researchers and the administration need to take a closer look at the data, because this latest study could have a lasting impact on climate change protections in the U.S. and climate change in the world. A change this important needs to be supported by data and best practices, rather than flawed statistics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher R. Knittel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Their analysis finds that the costs exceed the benefits by over $170 billion – but it includes four major errors in the calculations.Christopher R. Knittel, Professor of Applied Economics and Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, MIT Sloan School of ManagementLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1084922018-12-10T10:14:35Z2018-12-10T10:14:35ZFactCheck: did more people buy their seventh home than bought their first home last year?<blockquote>
<p>Last year, more people bought their seventh home than those buying their first.</p>
<p><strong>– Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works Mick de Brenni, <a href="http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/11/22/2b-housing-scheme-to-grow-community-sector?fbclid=IwAR0ow7O1aapDYLDNy5Aky56x_VDvWpRqDEstmSVBJ7-Yyp2RF5AC5zQ3Yzw">media statement</a>, November 22, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Housing affordability remains a serious issue in many cities across Australia. </p>
<p>Federal Labor has promised to make negative gearing reforms if elected in 2019. In Queensland, Minister for Housing and Public Works Mick de Brenni announced a A$2 billion housing scheme he said would create more affordable housing in the Labor-held state.</p>
<p>De Brenni said that “last year, more people bought their seventh home than those buying their first”. The statistic <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/a4glmp/last_year_more_australians_bought_their_seventh/">attracted attention</a> after being published in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) article on Saturday.</p>
<p>Is the claim correct?</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works Mick de Brenni’s statement that “last year, more people bought their seventh home than those buying their first” is incorrect.</p>
<p>A spokesperson for the minister acknowledged the error and amended two relevant ministerial statements in response to The Conversation’s FactCheck. A media article containing the assertion was also amended.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to a request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Mick de Brenni told The Conversation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The statistics referenced in that quote were misinterpreted from a Misha Zelinski <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/misha-zelinksy/how-property-addicts-have-locked-young-australians-out-of-the-ho_a_22076682/">article</a> for the Huffington Post.</p>
<p>The quote has now been removed from [a December 6] <a href="http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/12/6/victorians-vote-on-rental-reform-a-good-guide-for-queensland">ministerial media statement</a>, and we have contacted the ABC to get it removed from their article.</p>
<p>Housing affordability remains a significant barrier for first home buyers. As Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen <a href="https://www.chrisbowen.net/issues/housing-affordability/">recently said</a>:</p>
<p>“Last year, for the first time in history, more than 50% of all new home loan approvals were for investment purposes.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The spokesperson said the <a href="http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/11/22/2b-housing-scheme-to-grow-community-sector?fbclid=IwAR0ow7O1aapDYLDNy5Aky56x_VDvWpRqDEstmSVBJ7-Yyp2RF5AC5zQ3Yzw">November 22</a> media statement was in the process of being amended. The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20181208143620/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-08/queensland-rental-laws-on-cusp-of-change/10595628">original</a> ABC article has now been <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-08/queensland-rental-laws-on-cusp-of-change/10595628">amended</a>. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Editor’s note, December 12, 2018: the November 22 <a href="http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/11/22/2b-housing-scheme-to-grow-community-sector?fbclid=IwAR0ow7O1aapDYLDNy5Aky56x_VDvWpRqDEstmSVBJ7-Yyp2RF5AC5zQ3Yzw">statement</a> has now also been corrected. The verdict has been updated to reflect this. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Lost in translation</h2>
<p>As acknowledged by the Minister’s office, the statistics quoted were a misinterpretation of information published in a Huffington Post <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/misha-zelinksy/how-property-addicts-have-locked-young-australians-out-of-the-ho_a_22076682/">article</a>. </p>
<p>There is no data available to support the claim. </p>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for information, a media spokesperson for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) said while the agency does collect <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Taxation-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2015-16/?page=6#Table6">information</a> on individuals’ ownership of a <em>rental</em> property:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the data is only for those who rent out the property (based on numbers of schedules with a unique address). We don’t have anything on <strong>all</strong> properties an individual owns.</p>
<p>Therefore, we don’t have data comparing proportion of first home buyers to second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh home buyers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Keeping in mind the caveats above, you can see some of the data the ATO does collect in the table below. It is drawn from the ATO’s <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Taxation-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2015-16/">Taxation Statistics report 2015-16</a>.</p>
<p>To collect this data, the ATO sampled 2% of all individual tax returns filed in 2015-16. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249628/original/file-20181210-76986-10x8626.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249628/original/file-20181210-76986-10x8626.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249628/original/file-20181210-76986-10x8626.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249628/original/file-20181210-76986-10x8626.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249628/original/file-20181210-76986-10x8626.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249628/original/file-20181210-76986-10x8626.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249628/original/file-20181210-76986-10x8626.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249628/original/file-20181210-76986-10x8626.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Individuals – interest in a rental property, by overall net rent outcome, 2014–15 to 2015–16 income years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Taxation-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2015-16/?page=6#Table6">Australian Taxation Office, taxation statistics 2015-16</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A media spokesperson for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) told The Conversation the ABS does not have the data to make any comment on this claim.</p>
<p>Likewise, a spokesperson for property data firm CoreLogic said the company does not hold data to support the claim. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5609.0Oct%202018?OpenDocument">ABS Housing Finance figures</a> for October 2018 indicate that the value of housing financing provided to investors exceeded that provided to first home buyers in that month.</p>
<p>First home buyers represented <a href="http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.nsf/0/6274AD9E46F7D3D9CA25835C000FEC2E/$File/56090_oct%202018.pdf">18.1%</a> of all loans made, and generally take out smaller loans than other borrowers (see <a href="http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.nsf/0/6274AD9E46F7D3D9CA25835C000FEC2E/$File/56090_oct%202018.pdf">Table 9</a>). In comparison, loans made to investors represented <a href="http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.nsf/0/6274AD9E46F7D3D9CA25835C000FEC2E/$File/56090_oct%202018.pdf">around 33%</a> of all housing related loans in October 2018.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, it is not possible to identify how many dwellings an investor owns. <strong>– Stephen Whelan</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the conclusion of the FactCheck: there isn’t any data available to support the claim.</p>
<p>While ABS data on housing finance show that investors had taken out a higher share of loans in October 2018 than first home buyers, it is not sufficient to justify a claim that more people bought their seventh home than those buying their first in the last year.</p>
<p>Indeed, my calculations from the unit record files from the most recent household wealth module in the <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda">Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA)</a> Survey, for the year 2014, indicate that among property investors, less than 2% held seven or more properties in that year. <strong>– Rachel Ong ViforJ</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Whelan has received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and is currently working on a project funded by that organisation. He has previously received an Australian Research Council grant.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Ong ViforJ receives funding from the Australia Research Council and the Australia Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).</span></em></p>Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works Mick de Brenni made the claim while announcing a $2 billion housing investment scheme. But is the claim correct?Stephen Whelan, Associate Professor of Economics, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1067722018-11-22T18:54:03Z2018-11-22T18:54:03ZFactCheck: does Victoria have Australia’s lowest rate of public school funding?<blockquote>
<p>Victoria has the lowest funding rate for public schools of any state in Australia.
<strong>– Victorian Greens state election pamphlet, circulated in the seat of Melbourne, November 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Victorian Greens state election pamphlet, November 2018.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Australian Greens party <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/greens-pledge-extra-205bn-for-public-schools/news-story/961f84e65d97abe4c319166239ae1402?from=htc_rss&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=TheAustralian&utm_content=SocialFlow">this week</a> outlined its federal public education policy, saying it would spend an extra A$20.5 billion on public schools over the next 10 years, legislate to remove the cap on Commonwealth contributions to the sector, and cancel what it described as special deals for private schools, among <a href="https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2018-11/POLICY%20INITIATIVE-%20Funding%20Public%20Schools.pdf">other proposals</a>. </p>
<p>In the lead-up to Saturday’s Victorian election, the Victorian Greens shared campaign pamphlets arguing the state’s education funding needed to be brought up to the national average, stating that “Victoria has the lowest funding rate for public schools of any state in Australia”.</p>
<p>We asked the experts to check the numbers.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for the Victorian Greens provided the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to the most recent publicly available information from the Productivity Commission’s <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education">Report on Government Services 2018</a>, recurrent funding per student in Victoria in 2015-16 was the lowest in the country at A$13,301 per student, which is A$1,589 lower than the national average of A$14,890.</p>
<p>The next lowest spending state is Tasmania, spending A$14,372 per student, and the highest spending state is Western Australia at A$17,306.</p>
<p>The relevant figures can be found in the <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/348/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4-attachment.xlsx?1542152525">attached table</a> at tab 4A.14.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The statement made by the Victorian Greens is correct: Victoria does have the lowest funding rate for public schools of any state or territory in Australia. Total government funding for Victorian government schools in 2015-16 was A$15,656 per student. </p>
<p>Victoria has had the lowest per student government funding for public schools in Australia for at least a decade, due to relatively low levels of state government funding compared with other states and territories. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, Victorian students’ performance on national and international assessments is generally above average.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Response to the sources provided by the Victorian Greens</h2>
<p>The figures provided by the Greens spokesperson are not the total government funding for Victorian public schools; they are state government funding only. </p>
<h1>How is school funding allocated?</h1>
<p>All schools in Australia — government (public) and non-government (Catholic and independent) — receive public funding from both the federal government and their respective state or territory government. </p>
<p>Under the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0%7E2012%7EMain%20Features%7EGovernment%20responsibilities%20in%20education%7E103">Commonwealth Constitution</a>, school education is the responsibility of state governments. As such, most government funding for schools comes from state governments.</p>
<p>In 2015-16 (the most recent year of finalised accounts provided by the Productivity Commission), total government funding for schools was <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4.pdf">A$55.7 billion</a>. This comprised 28% from the federal government and 72% from state and territory governments. </p>
<p>(The funding figures for government schools include a non-cash accounting element called <a href="https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2826">user cost of capital</a> that is not included in non-government school funding figures. This complicates comparisons between the government and non-government sectors, but doesn’t substantially affect state-by-state comparisons of government schools).</p>
<p>However, the balance of funding sources in the government and non-government school sectors is very different.</p>
<p>Non-government schools receive most of their funding from the federal government, whereas government schools receive most of their funding from state and territory governments. </p>
<h2>Funding for government schools</h2>
<p>In 2015-16, <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4.pdf">86%</a> of funding for government schools came from state and territory governments, and 14% from the federal government. The latter was an increase over the past decade from the <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4.pdf">9%</a> of federal funding for government schools in 2006-07. </p>
<p>In Victorian government schools, the federal government’s share of funding increased from <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4.pdf">9% to 15%</a> in the decade to 2015-16.</p>
<p>This increase in the federal government contribution is largely the result of the various <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-passage-of-gonski-2-0-is-a-victory-for-children-over-politics-79828">iterations</a> of the <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2017/05/rr26.pdf?">school funding model</a> that arose from the <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/review-funding-schooling-final-report-december-2011">Gonski review</a> of school funding in 2011.</p>
<p>The current funding model under the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/australian-education-act-2013">Australian Education Act 2013</a> has two components: a base level of funding, and additional loadings for disadvantage. All government schools are allocated 100% of the base level, while non-government schools have their base level adjusted according to the socioeconomic status of the school population.</p>
<p>The loadings — which are allocated for socioeconomic disadvantage, indigenous students, students with limited English language proficiency, students with disabilities, and small/remote schools — are not subject to any means-test adjustments. </p>
<p>The funding model sets each school a theoretical or aspirational <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/what-schooling-resource-standard-and-how-does-it-work">Schooling Resource Standard</a> (SRS) that combined federal and state/territory funding should meet. As the SRS represents a large increase in funding for some school sectors, it is being <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/how-will-schools-transition-new-funding-arrangements-be-calculated">phased in</a> over several years.</p>
<h2>What’s Victoria’s share?</h2>
<p>While both levels of government produce budget forward estimates projected over four years, it’s not possible to predict funding levels or enrolments with sufficient precision to know whether Victorian government schools will continue to have lower per student funding than other states in the future.</p>
<p>In 2015-16, total government funding for Victorian government schools was A$15,656 per student – the lowest rate in Australia. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fRelL/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="527"></iframe>
<h2>Does lower funding mean poorer outcomes?</h2>
<p>No, lower average funding does not necessarily mean lower average performance. </p>
<p>Victorian government and non-government school students have been at least above average and often among the highest achieving states in the <a href="http://reports.acara.edu.au/NAP/NaplanResults">National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy</a> (NAPLAN), frequently outperforming the higher funded schools in the Australian Capital Territory.</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/21/">Program for International Student Assessment 2015</a> (PISA), Victoria’s average performance in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy was among the top three states and territories (but Victoria had relatively low proportions of high-achieving students).</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://research.acer.edu.au/timss_2015/1/">Trends in International Maths and Science Study 2015</a> (TIMSS), the average performance of Victorian students in maths and science in Years 4 and 8 was either equal first or second among Australian states and territories. <strong>– Jennifer Buckingham</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The verdict is correct: Victorian government schools have the lowest level of government funding of any state. This is true when all government funding is counted (as the fact-checker correctly argues it should be, given the original statement) or just state government funding (the figures provided by The Greens.)</p>
<p>Comparing funding as a percentage of Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) gives a more nuanced comparison of relative funding, by taking into account the individual needs of each school. But it doesn’t change the answer: in 2016, Victorian government schools got just <a href="https://twitter.com/peter_goss/status/1065488300780089344">82% of their SRS target</a>, 6 percentage points lower than the next lowest funded state.</p>
<p>It’s even harder to make a clear link between funding levels and student outcomes. The data provided on average achievement levels in NAPLAN, PISA and TIMSS cover all school sectors, not just government schools. State-wide averages do not account for the fact that Victoria has fewer disadvantaged students than many states. And while it is formally true that Victoria is in the top three in PISA and top two in TIMSS, Victoria’s performance was not statistically higher than the national average in any of these international tests in 2015. Determining the impact on outcomes of Victoria’s low funding levels is a subject for another discussion. <strong>– Peter Goss</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106772/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Buckingham 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>Were the Victorian Greens correct about pubic school funding? We asked the experts to check the numbers.Jennifer Buckingham, Senior Research Fellow, The Centre for Independent Studies; Associate Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1071102018-11-19T09:18:04Z2018-11-19T09:18:04ZFact Check: Has the rate of rural poverty in Indonesia declined twice as much as in the cities?<p>On November 5 2018, Indonesia’s incumbent presidential candidate Joko “Jokowi” Widodo released a statement claiming that the <a href="https://m.antaranews.com/berita/765153/jokowi-angka-kemiskinan-desa-menurun-dua-kali-lipat">rate of poverty in rural Indonesia has declined at twice the poverty rates of cities</a>. </p>
<p>But is it true?</p>
<hr>
<h2>Jokowi’s response</h2>
<p>The Conversation contacted the Presidential Staff Office to confirm and request an explanation for Jokowi’s claim. They explained that his statement was made based on data from the Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration, citing reports from the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) on poverty rates from March 2017 to 2018.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244851/original/file-20181109-116853-1uf1sh1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244851/original/file-20181109-116853-1uf1sh1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244851/original/file-20181109-116853-1uf1sh1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244851/original/file-20181109-116853-1uf1sh1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244851/original/file-20181109-116853-1uf1sh1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244851/original/file-20181109-116853-1uf1sh1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244851/original/file-20181109-116853-1uf1sh1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Data showing the decline of poverty in rural areas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BPS 2018</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To verify the accuracy of Jokowi’s claim, The Conversation asked economic researcher Ridho Al Izzati from SMERU Research Institute.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Analysis</h2>
<p>Before testing that claim, firstly, we must understand the indicators the Indonesian government uses <a href="https://www.bps.go.id/subject/23/kemiskinan-dan-ketimpangan.html#subjekViewTab1">to measure poverty</a>. These measures were introduced by economists <a href="https://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE251/fall2008/Papers/foster-etal84.pdf">James Foster, Joel Greer and Erik Thorbecke</a> in 1984 to calculate poverty rates.</p>
<p>Those indicators include: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The poverty rate, the percentage of people living below the poverty line as compared with the total population. From this indicator we can figure out the number of poor people.</p></li>
<li><p>The poverty gap rate measures how far or how deep is the level of income of the impoverished population from the poverty line. This indicator is measured by calculating the average distance between the income of the poor and the poverty line. The further they are from the poverty line, the more impoverished they are. </p></li>
<li><p>The poverty severity rate measures income inequality among poor people. This indicator is the average of the squared poverty gap. This calculation is made to identify the distribution of income among poor people and how far the most impoverished is from the people who are closest to the poverty line. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Although the BPS uses all three indicators to measure poverty, the first approach is most frequently used because it’s considered the easiest and the most popular among policymakers. </p>
<p>If we use all three approaches to evaluate Jokowi’s statement, then his statement <strong>is not exactly accurate</strong>. Although calculations of the number of poor people along with the depth and severity of poverty are correct, the percentage of impoverished people is not accurate.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2016/08/18/1219/persentase-penduduk-miskin-menurut-provinsi-2007---2018.html">The percentage of rural poverty</a> in March 2017 was around 13.93% and in March 2018 it became 13.2%. This means the rural poverty rate fell by 0.73 points. At the same time, urban poverty rates decreased by 0.7 points from 7.72% in March 2017 to 7.02% in March 2018. Thus, there is no significant percentage difference between the decline of poverty rates in the city and rural areas. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2016/01/18/1119/jumlah-penduduk-miskin-menurut-provinsi-2007-2018.html">number of poor people</a> in rural villages decreased 1.29 million from 17 million people in March 2017 to 15.8 million people in March 2018 while the number of impoverished people in urban cities decreased by 500,000 people from 10.6 million in March 2017 to 10.1 million in March 2018. So, it is true that the reduction in the number of impoverished people in rural areas is twice the number of those in the cities.</p>
<p>Moreover, <a href="https://www.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2016/01/18/1121/indeks-kedalaman-kemiskinan-p1-menurut-provinsi-2007---2018.html">the rural poverty gap rate</a> has declined by 0.12 points from 2.49% in March 2017 to 2.37% in March 2018. Urban poverty rates declined by 0.07 points from 1.24% in March 2017 to 1.17% in March 2018. This means that rural poverty gap rate did decline by almost twice the rate of the decline in urban poverty depth.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2016/01/18/1122/indeks-keparahan-kemiskinan-p2-menurut-provinsi-2007---2018.html">For the poverty severity rate</a>, numbers from rural areas have decreased by 0.04 points from 0.67% in March 2017 to 0.63% in March 2018. In urban areas, poverty severity has declined as much as 0.02 points from 0.31% in March 2017 to 0.29% in March 2018. This implies that the decline in rural poverty severity is twice as much as in the city.</p>
<p>Although most of Jokowi’s statement are statistically valid, if we aim to assess his accomplishment in eradicating poverty, it would be best to measure this from the beginning of his administration, from September 2014 until March 2018 (the most recent data available).</p>
<p>Thus, I offer an additional analysis of Indonesia’s poverty rates from the beginning of Jokowi’s time in office. My analysis based on data provided by the BPS exhibits a different fact. </p>
<p>When we look at the period between September 2014 and March 2018, the decrease in urban poverty percentages are actually bigger when compared to numbers from rural villages.</p>
<p>The rural poverty rate in September 2014 (a month before Jokowi’s inauguration) was 13.76%. If we compare this with the numbers from March 2018, it decreased by 0.56 points.</p>
<p>During the same period, the rate of decline for urban poverty is actually higher than rural levels. Urban poverty rates declined by 1.14 points from 8.16% in September 2014 to 7.02% in March 2018.</p>
<p><strong>Graph 1:</strong> <em>The percentage of poverty between September 2014 and March 2018. During this period, the rate of poverty experienced a rise in March 2015 but has steadily declined since then</em>. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-RjOUn" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/RjOUn/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400" width="100%"></iframe>
<p>However, the decrease in the number of poor people in villages is indeed greater than in the cities during Jokowi’s time in office. </p>
<p>During Jokowi’s administration, the number of impoverished people living in rural areas declined by as much as 1.5 million people from 17.3 million in September 2014 to 15.8 million in March 2018.</p>
<p>During the same time frame, the number of poor people in cities declined by 200,000 people from 10.3 million to 10.1 million.</p>
<p><strong>Graph 2:</strong> <em>The number of people struck by poverty from September 2014 to March 2018. The number rose briefly in March 2015. Afterwards, it declined before rising back up on September 2016 to March 2017. Instead, the number of impoverished people only rose on March 2015 and steadily declined significantly afterwards.</em></p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-Bm2DS" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Bm2DS/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400" width="100%"></iframe>
<p>For the rate of poverty gap during Jokowi’s administration, rural numbers actually increased by 0.12 points from 2.25% to 2.37%. </p>
<p>The urban numbers for poverty gap declined by 0.08 points from 1.25% in September 2014 to 1.17% in March 2018.</p>
<p><strong>Graph 3:</strong> <em>Poverty gap</em>. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-h5C74" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/h5C74/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400" width="100%"></iframe>
<p>The similar trend, in which the decline rate of poverty numbers in the cities is higher than in the villages, also occurs in the poverty severity rate. The rate of rural poverty severity has increased by 0.06 points from 0.57% in September 2014 to 0.63% in March 2018. The urban poverty severity rate declined by 0.02 points from 0.31% in September 2014 to 0.29% in March 2018.</p>
<p><strong>Graph 4:</strong> <em>Poverty severity rate</em>. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-ogR7m" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ogR7m/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400" width="100%"></iframe>
<p>The above analysis is made by taking the dynamic welfare of the population into account. A household can escape poverty at a certain year but at any time it can return to poverty. This phenomenon is known as <a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21355/wps2437.pdf;sequence=1">vulnerability</a>. </p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>As a conclusion, it is valid to say that between March 2017 and March 2018, the number of impoverished people in rural areas did experience a bigger drop than those in the city. But the percentage of poverty rate showed a different story.</p>
<p>Secondly, if viewed as a whole from the beginning of Jokowi’s time in office, then the overall decline of poverty is actually much larger in cities than in rural villages, although in terms of numbers the decline in poverty is much bigger in rural areas.</p>
<p>This is due to the fact that <a href="https://www.bps.go.id/pressrelease/2018/07/16/1483/persentase-penduduk-miskin-maret-2018-turun-menjadi-9-82-persen.html">poor people in villages outnumber</a> those in cities; thus making poor people in villages easier to identify than in cities.</p>
<p>Thirdly, it is better to see the condition of poverty as a whole, <a href="https://theconversation.com/memetakan-kemiskinan-tidak-cukup-hanya-menghitung-jumlah-orang-miskin-82536">not just in relation to the number of poor people</a> but also to its <a href="http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20242881%7Eis%20CURL:Y%7EmenuPK:492130%7EpagePK:148956%7EpiPK:216618%7EtheSitePK:430367,00.html">depth and severity</a>.</p>
<p>Many poverty eradication programs are effective in reducing the number of poor people (especially those who are close to the poverty line) but are unable to improve the welfare of those most impoverished until at least near the poverty line. This becomes important to note considering that poverty eradication policies should be able to improve the welfare of all who are suffering from poverty without leaving a single one behind. – <strong>Ridho Al Izzati</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind peer review</h2>
<p>After rechecking with BPS data, I can confirm that the data used by the author are correct.</p>
<p>However, we cannot decisively say that Jokowi’s statement is inaccurate. Jokowi’s statement would only be inaccurate if we used numbers from the entire span of his administration. But, it would still be accurate if we only limit ourselves to data from the last year.</p>
<p>I would like to emphasise that I agree with the writer’s notion in using the statistical data as a whole and not in sections. Therefore, to actually measure Jokowi’s success in eradicating poverty, it would be best to use data from the beginning of Jokowi’s time in office from September 2014 instead of using data from the past year only. </p>
<p>I would also like to note that it would be better if the writer elaborated on why the poverty gap and severity indexes need more attention. Apart from that, the writer could also add a simple illustration so that both concepts could be easier to understand. – <strong>Teguh Dartanto</strong> </p>
<hr>
<p><em>The Conversation checks the validity of claims and statements made by Indonesia’s presidential candidates before the 2019 presidential election. Their statements are analysed by experts in the field, which are then subjected to a blind peer review.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107110/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.</span></em></p>Is Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s claim that the rate of poverty in rural Indonesia has declined at twice the poverty rates of cities correct?Ridho Al Izzati, Junior Researcher, SMERU Research InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1042262018-11-12T19:01:57Z2018-11-12T19:01:57ZFactCheck Q&A: have 90% of Labor MPs worked in trade unions?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238855/original/file-20181002-98899-19s5qgp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C613%2C344&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trade Minister Simon Birmingham has said Labor MPs disproportionately come from unions.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IxC5EWFw9ck?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, October 2, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s nice for Amanda to say you need to reflect society, but you can’t reflect society if 90% of your members of parliament were chosen from trade unions and worked in trade unions and that’s the background they bring to the table. </p>
<p><strong>– Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment Simon Birmingham, <a href="https://twitter.com/QandA/status/1046735270358409228">speaking on Q&A</a>, October 2, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>On an episode of Q&A, panellists discussed the extent to which the composition of the Australian parliament reflects the demographic make up of society. </p>
<p>Labor MP Amanda Rishworth said in addition to having women account for 50% of parliamentarians, there needed to be more diversity of skills and experience. </p>
<p>“So we need to move further than just looking at men and women. We need people from a whole range of backgrounds,” Rishworth said. </p>
<p>Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment Simon Birmingham later suggested to Rishworth that “you can’t reflect society if 90% of your members of parliament were chosen from trade unions and worked in trade unions, and that’s the background they bring to the table”.</p>
<p>Let’s check the records. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046735550370041856"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046740117514153984"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046734887699415040"}"></div></p>
<h2>Response from a spokesperson for Simon Birmingham</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Simon Birmingham provided a 2015-16 <a href="https://sa.alp.org.au/files/Membership_2015-16_FINAL.pdf">membership application form</a> for the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party and said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Based on this application, and the disclaimer that a person applying for membership must be a member of a union, it would seem the Minister may have underestimated the percentage. </p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>On Q&A, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment Simon Birmingham said “90% of [Labor’s] members of parliament were chosen from trade unions and worked in trade unions”. In terms of federal parliamentarians, this is a gross exaggeration.</p>
<p>According to parliamentary members’ biographies, taken from the 45th Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2017, about one third (33.7%) of Labor’s currently serving federal MPs have worked in trade unions, or 32 of Labor’s 95 members of federal parliament (the total comprising 69 members of the House of Representatives and 26 Senators).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Regarding the source provided by the Minister’s office</h2>
<p>The source provided by Minister Birmingham’s office doesn’t support the statement; it refers to a discounted fee offered for South Australian Labor party membership if the applicant is also a union member. Having been a member of a union isn’t the same as having worked for one, and being a union member isn’t a requirement of becoming a member of the Labor party. </p>
<h2>How many Labor MPs have worked in trade unions?</h2>
<p>A trade union is a member-based organisation that represents the interests of workers in particular industries, or groups of industries, to employers. The Australian Labor Party <a href="https://getparliament.peo.gov.au/parliament-at-work-representation-and-forming-government/history-of-political-parties-in-australia">grew out of the union movement in the 1890s</a>. Affiliated unions play a <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/media/1277/alp_national_constitution.pdf">significant role</a> in the Labor party today; in its internal structures and forums, and influence in <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-influence-of-trade-unions-on-the-labor-party-is-overestimated-57476">choice of parliamentary candidates</a>. </p>
<p>The proportion of former union officials entering parliament as Labor members peaked in 1901, at <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/labors-conflict/2F3D3F1670FBDC6059EF69A8038085F1">79%</a> of Labor representatives. The proportion has been declining steadily since then.</p>
<p>Minister Birmingham referred to members of parliament (MPs) who had been “chosen from” and “worked in trade unions” and who bring that background to the table. In this FactCheck, we’ll look at members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate who have worked in trade unions.</p>
<p>To see how things stand today, we can look to the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/parliamentary_handbook">Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia 2017</a>, which includes the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/handbook/newhandbook/2017-06-21/toc_pdf_repeat/Part%202%20-%20The%20Forty-fifth%20Parliament.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">biographies</a> of the 76 Senators and 150 members of the House of Representatives in the current (45th) federal parliament. (Four of the Labor MPs listed in the handbook, which was published in July 2017, are no longer in parliament: Sam Dastyari, David Feeney, Katy Gallagher and Tim Hammond.) </p>
<p>Included in these biographies are MPs’ qualifications and occupations before entering federal Parliament.</p>
<p>According to those biographies, the proportion of Labor MPs who have worked in trade unions is about a third (33.7%). That’s 32 of Labor’s 95 members of parliament (the total comprising 69 members of the House of Representatives and 26 Senators).</p>
<p>The proportion has declined since the previous parliament, elected in 2013. In that, the 44th parliament, the proportion of Labor representatives with a union background was <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fnewhandbook%2F2014-10-31%2F0000%22">45%</a>. </p>
<p>The <em>number</em> of Labor MPs and Senators with a union background dropped slightly between the 44th and 45th parliaments, from 36 to 32, but the <em>total number</em> of Labor representatives also increased substantially, from 80 to 95.</p>
<p>In terms of how these figures compare to union representation in the broader community: around <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/6333.0Main%20Features5August%202016?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6333.0&issue=August%202016&num=&view=">15%</a> of the Australian workforce are union members.</p>
<p>Total union membership is now around <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/6333.0Main%20Features5August%202016?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6333.0&issue=August%202016&num=&view=">1.5 million</a>, however, unions collectively represent <a href="http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/ABS+Chief+Economist+-+Full+Paper+of+Wage-setting+methods+and+wage+growth+in+Australia">59.5%</a> of the workforce in bargaining for conditions through enterprise agreements or awards. </p>
<h2>From which unions have the MPs come?</h2>
<p>The three unions with the largest contingents of employees-turned-MPs are the <a href="https://www.sda.org.au/">Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Union</a>, with six former employees now MPs, the <a href="http://www.twu.com.au/">Transport Workers’ Union</a> with three (this was originally four after the 2016 election, but reduced when David Feeney resigned from the seat of Batman and was replaced by Ged Kearney in the March 2018 by-election), and <a href="https://www.unitedvoice.org.au/">United Voice</a>. </p>
<p>Other unions with two former employees each are the <a href="https://www.amwu.org.au/">Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union</a>, the <a href="https://www.awu.net.au/">Australian Workers’ Union</a>, and the <a href="https://www.cpsu.org.au/">Community and Public Sector Union</a>. </p>
<p>Another 11 unions each have one representative, and a couple of MPs did not specify their union background.</p>
<p>Many of those with a union background were university graduates appointed to union positions as political operatives before or after becoming a political staffer. Few came up through the ranks of a union, as their predecessors more commonly did. </p>
<h2>What other types of backgrounds do Labor MPs have?</h2>
<p>More than half (51.6%) of Labor MPs in the current government were party officials, or staffers for Labor Ministers or back-benchers before being elected.</p>
<p>Some have experience as public servants (18%), lawyers (16%), employees of non-governmental organisations (12%), and small business owners (8%). </p>
<p>Small numbers have a background in business, consultancy, journalism, the military and State legislatures. Many have moved between a number of these categories during their careers.</p>
<h2>What about the Liberal Party?</h2>
<p>The Liberal Party also has a high proportion of MPs who were political staffers or party officials before entering parliament, at 45%. Of those 38 representatives, 14 appear to have entered the Commonwealth parliament directly from political staffer positions, and a further three from State legislatures.</p>
<p>The main difference between the Liberal and Labor parties is that whereas Labor has former union employees, the Liberal Party has many parliamentary members with a background in business (36 MPs), especially in banking and finance (7 MPs), and large consulting firms (6 MPs).</p>
<p>Some Liberal Party MPs have backgrounds in employers’ associations (9 MPs) and think tanks (6 MPs). <strong>– Raymond Markey</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the conclusion that about one-third of Labor MPs in the current federal parliament have worked in trade unions. I counted 30 Labor MPs with union backgrounds. The extra two the lead author found could be because a wider definition of union official was used. <strong>– Adrian Beaumont</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104226/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ray Markey is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said “you can’t reflect society if 90% of your members of parliament were chosen from trade unions and worked in trade unions”. Let’s take a look at the numbers.Ray Markey, Emeritus Professor, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1058462018-11-05T03:58:47Z2018-11-05T03:58:47ZFactCheck: does Victoria have Australia’s highest rate of crime?<blockquote>
<p>But sadly, under Daniel Andrews Victoria has won the unenviable title as the state with the country’s highest rate of crime.</p>
<p><strong>– Leader of the Victorian Liberal Party Matthew Guy, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/victorian-liberals-launch-tilt-at-state-leadership/news-story/65922b5514e5fbf3a8f5042c2ae37dda">speaking</a> at the party’s election campaign launch, 28 October, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Victorian Liberal Party has promised to take a tough stance on crime if elected on November 24, with proposals including mandatory minimum sentencing for repeat offenders of serious crimes (including murder, rape, aggravated home invasions, aggravated burglaries and car-jackings) and an overhaul of the bail system. </p>
<p>At the party’s election campaign launch, Victorian Opposition leader Matthew Guy said Labor had presided over a “law and order crisis”, adding that under Premier Daniel Andrews, “Victoria has won the unenviable title as the state with the country’s highest rate of crime”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Response from Matthew Guy’s office</h2>
<p>The Conversation asked a spokesperson for Matthew Guy for sources and comment to support his statement, but did not receive a response before deadline.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it is possible to check the statement against publicly available data.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Leader of the Victorian Liberal Party Matthew Guy said that “under Daniel Andrews, Victoria has won the unenviable title as the state with the country’s highest rate of crime”. The assertion is incorrect.</p>
<p>The Andrews government was elected in November 2014. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Crime Victimisation Survey data, between July 2014 and June 2017 (the latest figures), Victoria did not top the nation in terms of crime rates for any but one of the 11 measured categories of personal and property crime.</p>
<p>Looking at the Crime Victimisation Survey results for three years up to and including 2016-17, Victoria showed the highest rate of sexual assault in two of those years. However, the ABS said the sexual assault data must be used with caution due to the small sample size. </p>
<p>For the other ten crime categories, the Victorian crime rate was lower than at least one other state or territory in each of the three years considered. </p>
<p>ABS Recorded Crime data show that between 2014 and 2017, Victoria did not have the highest rate of murder in the nation, nor did it have the highest rate of criminal offenders proceeded against by police at any time between November 2014 and June 2017.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Comparing crime rates between states and territories</h2>
<p>Making comparisons between recorded crime rates in different states and territories is fraught with difficulty, due to the differences in police practices and counting methods across the nation. </p>
<p>The most reliable data set for this task is the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Main+Features12016-17?OpenDocument">Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Crime Victimisation Survey</a>. Published <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/second+level+view?ReadForm&prodno=4530.0&viewtitle=Crime%20Victimisation,%20Australia%7E2016-17%7ELatest%7E16/02/2018&&tabname=Past%20Future%20Issues&prodno=4530.0&issue=2016-17&num=&view=&">annually since 2008-09</a>, the national survey collects data on people’s experience of violence and household crime. </p>
<p>The survey records both reported and unreported crimes. Given that not all crimes are reported to police, this provides us with a bigger picture.</p>
<p>The questions asked in the ABS Crime Victimisation Survey are the same for all states and territories. The victimisation rates represent the prevalence of selected crimes in Australia, expressed as a percentage of the total relevant population.</p>
<h2>Personal crime statistics</h2>
<p>This part of the survey records experiences of crime across: physical assault, face-to-face threatened physical assault, non-face-to-face threatened physical assault, sexual assault and robbery. </p>
<p>The Andrews government was sworn in on December 4, 2014, and the latest ABS Crime Victimisation Survey data are for 2016-17.</p>
<p>In the years <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/D86E52390995CC89CA2580BA0018B424?opendocument">2014-15</a>, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/D6A3384BCF91637DCA258235000CBF8E?opendocument">2015-16</a> and <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0">2016-17</a>, Victoria did not have the highest rate in the nation for physical assault, face-to-face threatened physical assault, non-face-to-face threatened physical assault, or robbery. </p>
<p>Victoria did have the highest reported rate for sexual assault in 2015-16, and equal highest in 2014-15. However, the ABS warned that the data for Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, and a relative standard error of 25% to 50%.</p>
<p>In addition, the data for Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory had a relative standard error <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4530.02016-17">greater than 50%</a>, and was considered too unreliable for general use.</p>
<p>The most recent Crime Victimisation Survey data are presented below. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VruH5/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="580"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>Property crimes statistics</h2>
<p>The property crime element of the ABS survey covers home break-ins, attempted home break-ins, motor vehicle thefts, thefts from motor vehicles, malicious damage to property and other theft.</p>
<p>At no time in the years <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Main+Features100062014-15?OpenDocument">2014-15</a>, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/D6A3384BCF91637DCA258235000CBF8E?opendocument">2015-16</a> or <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0">2016-17</a> did Victoria have the nation’s highest rate of victimisation on any of these measures.</p>
<p>The chart below shows the latest available data:</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/n4TAP/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="520"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>Murder and homicide</h2>
<p>We can look to a different ABS data set – <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/second+level+view?ReadForm&prodno=4510.0&viewtitle=Recorded%20Crime%20-%20Victims,%20Australia%7E2017%7ELatest%7E28/06/2018&&tabname=Past%20Future%20Issues&prodno=4510.0&issue=2017&num=&view=&">ABS Recorded Crime - Victims</a> – to assess the murder rates across the states and territories for the calendar years from 2014 to 2017 (the latest year for which data are available). </p>
<p>However, there are missing data points in this record: no data were collected in the Northern Territory in 2016, Tasmania in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2015, or the Australian Capital Territory in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016. </p>
<p>Even with the missing data points, we can see that Victoria did not have the highest recorded murder rate in any of the years from the election of the Andrews government to 2017. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/rGAfW/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>The terms homicide and murder are sometimes used interchangeably, but in fact they mean different things. Homicide is a broader term that includes some counts of manslaughter, murder-suicides, and <a href="http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/homicide/">other incidents</a>.</p>
<p>The Australian Institute of Criminology publishes data from its National Homicide Monitoring Program. The <a href="http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/">latest report</a>, published in 2017, shows information between <a href="https://aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr002">July 2012 and June 2014</a>, before the Andrews government was elected.</p>
<p>But as you can see from the chart below, the Northern Territory had a higher homicide incident rate than Victoria (and all other states and the Australian Capital Territory) every year between 1999-2000 and 2013-14. You can explore an interactive version of the chart <a href="http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/tljGH/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>The issues with recorded crime data</h2>
<p>The ABS publishes “Recorded Crime” data on the number and rate of crime victims (with the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4510.0Main+Features12017?OpenDocument">latest data</a> reporting on the 2017 calendar year), and offenders formally proceeded against by police (with the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4519.0Main+Features12016-17?OpenDocument">latest data</a> reporting on the 2016-17 financial year).</p>
<p>These data sets aren’t ideal for comparing crime rates between states and territories, for a few reasons. </p>
<p>The data come from state and territory police administrative computer systems. Each state has subtly different recording methods and police practices, and this affects the comparability of data. </p>
<p>In addition, people’s willingness to report crime to police can differ across the states and territories. As such, the crime victims data are less reliable for measuring crime rates than the Crime Victimisation Survey.</p>
<p>The ABS introduced rules to guide the recording and counting of criminal incidents for statistical purposes, to enable consistency across the states and territories. But there remains some <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4510.0Explanatory%20Notes12017?OpenDocument">variability in the interpretation of the rules</a>. </p>
<p>The offender data are considered to be a reliable indication of <em>legal actions</em>. But they’re not a direct indicator of crime rates, due to the issues outlined above. Different jurisdictions also have different crime “clear up rates” (the percentage of a category of crimes that are solved).</p>
<p>The number of people arrested and proceeded against, and the types of crimes they are arrested for, can have as much to do with changes in legislation, police policy and practices in different jurisdictions as the number of criminal incidents committed. </p>
<p>It’s very important to keep those caveats in mind when looking at the data in the following chart.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W1yZS/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>What’s the picture for Victoria?</h2>
<p>The data in the chart below is published by the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency, and relates to crime in Victoria only. </p>
<p>The offences shown were chosen as their recorded incidence is generally considered to reflect their prevalence in the community, and the recorded rates are not overly impacted by law enforcement initiatives. </p>
<p>The recorded rates of drug offences and justice offences, by comparison, can be heavily affected by discretionary police decisions.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/pNSz9/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="550"></iframe>
<hr>
<p><strong>– Don Weatherburn, with Jackie Fitzgerald, director, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>This FactCheck is accurate and based on reliable data. The verdict is correct: Victoria does not have the highest rate of crime.</p>
<p>It it worth observing that the latest federal <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/justice">Report on Government Services (2018)</a> does highlight a significant drop in perceptions of public safety in Victoria. Often the public’s perceptions do not match the reality.</p>
<p>It is also noteworthy that the <a href="https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/latest-crime-data/recorded-criminal-incidents-2">number and rate of criminal incidents in Victoria</a> have been at higher levels in recent years compared to before the Andrews government came to power. <strong>– Terry Goldsworthy</strong></p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GYUey/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105846/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>Victorian Opposition leader Matthew Guy said under Premier Daniel Andrews, ‘Victoria has won the unenviable title as the state with the country’s highest rate of crime’. Is that right?Don Weatherburn, Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research; Adjunct Professor, School of Social Science, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1055072018-10-24T19:04:47Z2018-10-24T19:04:47ZVictorian election 2018: how to spot and suggest a fact check<p>Between now and November 24, when Victorians will choose their next government, they’re sure to be hit with more than their fair share of political spin, misinformation, half-truths, and maybe even a few brazen falsehoods.</p>
<p>That’s why we’ll be turning our fact-checking efforts to the issues facing Victorians as they decide the future course of their state. </p>
<p>And it’s why we want to hear from you, our readers – particularly those of you who live in Victoria. What’s the most pressing issue for you in this election campaign? What do you want to see fact-checked?</p>
<p>With your help, we’ll identify the most questionable claims and test them against the evidence, working with some of Australia’s leading academic experts to bring you information you can trust. </p>
<p>Here’s how you can get in touch with us, plus some ideas for locating material in need of myth-busting.</p>
<h2>Things that make you go ‘hmmm’</h2>
<p>Many of our FactChecks are published in response to statements made by politicians and other influential public figures. But there are plenty of other potential sources of misinformation. </p>
<p>Whenever you read or hear something that makes you think: “Really? Is that right?” That’s the perfect time to request a FactCheck. </p>
<p>For a claim to be checkable, there needs to be a data set or body of research evidence against which it can be tested. But don’t worry too much about that – we can assess the possibilities when we receive your suggestion.</p>
<p>The email address for requests is <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. It helps if you can let us know where and when you came across the claim. </p>
<p>If the source is an <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-can-native-title-only-exist-if-australia-was-settled-not-invaded-90540">online article</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-getup-on-the-impact-of-us-corporate-tax-cuts-on-wages-100753">social media post</a>, send us a link, where possible.</p>
<p>If it’s something you see in print, perhaps in <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-christian-porter-right-about-welfare-spending-and-income-tax-78609">a newspaper</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-would-pokies-reform-in-south-australia-wipe-out-many-of-26-000-jobs-93189">a letter</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-safe-schools-be-mandatory-if-same-sex-marriage-is-legalised-84437">a pamphlet</a>, consider taking a photo with your phone, and send it in.</p>
<p>It’s not always easy to remember the exact details of a quote, especially if you <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-the-trump-tax-cuts-led-to-lower-unemployment-and-higher-wages-101460">heard it on the radio</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-population-the-highest-growing-in-the-world-96523">on television</a>. In those cases, just provide as much information as you can. </p>
<p>Perhaps the questionable claim is something you heard at a <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928">leaders’ debate</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-up-to-21-fathers-dying-by-suicide-every-week-87308">community event</a>.</p>
<p>It could be a statement made in an <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-bank-profits-belong-to-everyday-australians-88156">advertisement</a>, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-700-000-workers-be-ripped-off-by-penalty-rate-cuts-as-bill-shorten-said-75048">a robo-call</a> from a politician. </p>
<p>There’s a growing trend of misinformation being spread through private messaging platforms <a href="https://www.poynter.org/news/heres-why-fighting-fake-news-harder-whatsapp-facebook">like WhatsApp</a>. If you receive a viral message or meme that you would like to share with us, you can take a screen shot on your phone. If you’re not sure how to do that, you can find instructions <a href="https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT200289">here</a> and <a href="https://www.greenbot.com/article/2825064/android/how-to-take-a-screenshot-on-your-android-phone.html">here</a>.</p>
<p>Alternatively, if you haven’t spotted a particular claim, but there’s an election issue you’re interested in, or a perception in your community you’d like to see explored in more detail, <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">let us know</a>. </p>
<h2>How we do FactChecks at The Conversation</h2>
<p>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit has been running since January 2013. </p>
<p>Our method is unique, and we’re proud of it. Our experienced journalists work closely with some of Australia’s most respected academic experts to test claims against the best available data and scientific research. Our FactCheck authors bring years, and often decades, of expertise to the task.</p>
<p>After being rigorously researched, verified and tested from all angles, each FactCheck is subject to a blind review from another academic expert, who analyses the article without knowing the author’s identity. This is a valuable process that ensures the integrity and accuracy of The Conversation’s FactChecks.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYLdaZWt9H8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>These are just some of the reasons our FactCheck unit is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">accredited</a> by the <a href="https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/">International Fact-Checking Network</a>, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the <a href="https://www.poynter.org/">Poynter Institute</a> in the United States. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/profile/the-conversation-factcheck/applications">accreditation</a> means we’re committed to a <a href="https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more/the-commitments-of-the-code-of-principles">code of principles</a> that require non-partisanship and fairness, transparency of sources and methodology, transparency of funding and organisation, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/72-78vidh14?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Steal our FactChecks (seriously)</h2>
<p>At The Conversation, we believe a healthy information ecosystem is fundamental to a healthy society, and that everyone should have access to accurate information.</p>
<p>That’s why The Conversation publishes all of its content under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org.au/">Creative Commons</a> <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">licence</a>. This means our FactChecks, and all other articles, can be republished online or in print, for free.</p>
<p>Our FactChecks have been republished by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/21/factcheck-are-5000-jobs-at-risk-if-pokies-are-banned-in-tasmania">The Guardian</a>, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-14/the-conversation-fact-check-does-sa-have-highest-energy-prices/9546506">the ABC</a>, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/10/03/factcheck-will-safe-schools-be-mandatory-if-same-sex-marriage-legalised">SBS</a>, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-australia/its-true-wa-has-the-nations-highest-rate-of-methamphetamine-use-20170215-gudidj.html">Fairfax</a> and <a href="https://croakey.org/factcheck-do-women-in-tasmania-have-access-to-safe-abortions/">more</a>.</p>
<p>All you need to do is click the blue “Republish this article” button on the right hand side of the article. The republishing guidelines are simple, and you can find them <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/republishing-guidelines">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Stay in touch</h2>
<p>You might like to sign up to our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/newsletters">GetFacts newsletter</a>, so you can receive FactChecks direct to your inbox when they’re published.</p>
<p>The GetFacts newsletter is also home to blind reviewed articles from The Conversation’s excellent <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/research-check-25155">Research Check</a> series and other great <a href="https://theconversation.com/would-an-eruption-in-melbourne-really-match-hawaiis-volcanoes-heres-the-evidence-101675?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GetFacts%20volcano&utm_content=GetFacts%20volcano+CID_5438c1c7102fee4ac275270de43d23b1&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=to%20give%20us%20the%20geological%20low%20down">myth-busting science pieces</a>.</p>
<p>We look forward to reading your FactCheck suggestions, and wish you a well-informed election season.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><strong>The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media service. If you value what we do, please consider becoming a Friend of The Conversation by making a <a href="https://donate.theconversation.com/au?utm_source=theconversation.com&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=friends">tax-deductible donation</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105507/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
With just over four weeks to go until the Victorian state election, we’d like to know which topics matter to you, and what you’d most like to see fact-checked. Here’s how you can get involved.Lucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1033232018-10-21T19:17:03Z2018-10-21T19:17:03ZFactCheck: is the Coalition spending ‘$1 billion extra, every year’ on aged care?<blockquote>
<p>In aged care in particular we’re spending A$1 billion extra, every year.</p>
<p><strong>– Prime Minister Scott Morrison, <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressrel/6247445%22">doorstop interview</a>, Guildford, Western Australia, October 2, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Preparations for the <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/royal-commission-aged-care-quality-and-safety">Royal Commission into aged care</a> are <a href="https://agedcare.health.gov.au/royal-commission-into-aged-care-quality-and-safety">now underway</a>, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison having <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-16/scott-morrison-announces-royal-commission-into-aged-care-sector/10252850">warned</a> Australians to brace themselves for “pretty bruising information” about the mistreatment of elderly people in the sector. </p>
<p>The Royal Commission <a href="https://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/Terms-of-reference.aspx">will examine</a> the quality and sufficiency of aged care services currently being provided – including a focus on <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/who-cares/10258290">evident</a> substandard treatment, mistreatment, abuse and systemic failures – and the challenges facing the sector more broadly as Australia’s baby boomer population begins to require its services. </p>
<p>Opposition leader Bill Shorten <a href="http://www.billshorten.com.au/abc_insiders_sunday_16_september_2018">said</a> it wasn’t possible to “repair the system whilst you’re cutting it at the same time”, with the Labor leader <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressrel/6217594%22;src1=sm1">and</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorWong/status/1041911109123358720">other</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/BOConnorMP/status/1041529828367687680">MPs</a> asserting the Coalition had made cuts of between A$1.2 billion and A$2 billion to aged care during Morrison’s time as Treasurer.</p>
<p>The Prime Minister rejected those accusations, saying the government was spending “A$1 billion extra, every year” on aged care.</p>
<p>Let’s look at the numbers. </p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>The Conversation requested sources and comment from the Prime Minister’s office, but did not receive a response before publication. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s statement that the Coalition is “spending A$1 billion extra, every year” on aged care is correct when spending is calculated in nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation).</p>
<p>Budget papers show that estimated nominal spending on aged care has risen by more than A$1 billion per year since financial year 2014-15, following the Coalition’s first budget in May 2014. </p>
<p>In real terms – adjusted for inflation – estimated spending on aged care increased by between A$679 million and A$796 million per year between 2014-15 and 2017-18.</p>
<p>Spending on aged care is projected to continue to increase by more than A$1 billion per year (in nominal terms) from 2017-18 to 2021-22.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Coalition spending on aged care</h2>
<p>The Australian government is the primary <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/Aged_Care_a_quick_guide">funder</a> and regulator of the <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-statistics/health-welfare-services/aged-care/overview">aged care system</a>, with care provided by a <a href="https://www.myagedcare.gov.au/">range</a> of non-profit and private providers. </p>
<p>Budget papers show that estimated nominal spending on aged care (not adjusted for inflation) has risen by more than A$1 billion per year since financial year 2014-15, following the Coalition’s first budget in May 2014. </p>
<p>The table below shows estimates from each Budget of spending on aged care and services, including care and services for veterans, spending on nursing homes and other institutions, and community care services for older people, but excluding the aged pension and concessions.</p>
<p>In 2014-15, estimated spending was A$15.3 billion. This grew to an estimated A$18.4 billion in 2017-18.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Floj5/6/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>In real terms – adjusted for inflation – estimated spending on aged care increased by between A$679 million and A$796 million per year between 2014-15 and 2017-18.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/TZeEQ/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="420"></iframe>
<p>Here’s spending per person aged 85 and over:</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZKTJz/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="420"></iframe>
<h2>Have there been cuts to aged care funding, as Labor claimed?</h2>
<p>In the wake of the announcement of the Royal Commission into aged care, Opposition leader <a href="http://www.billshorten.com.au/abc_insiders_sunday_16_september_2018">Bill Shorten said</a> the current government had “cut A$2 billion, nearly, in aged care funding”. </p>
<p>Labor <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorWong/status/1041911109123358720">Senator Penny Wong</a>, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations <a href="https://twitter.com/BOConnorMP/status/1041529828367687680">Brendan O'Connor</a>, Greens Senator <a href="https://twitter.com/sarahinthesen8/status/1041182433775767553">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, the <a href="https://twitter.com/unionsaustralia/status/1042270545474027520">Australian Council of Trade Unions</a> and its Secretary <a href="https://twitter.com/sallymcmanus/status/1041455196759445504">Sally McManus</a>, among others, pointed to a figure of A$1.2 billion in cuts from aged care during Scott Morrison’s time as Treasurer. </p>
<p>Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health, Julie Collins, <a href="http://outagepi.aph.gov.au/">said</a> Morrison’s “$1.2 billion cut in the 2016 Budget came on top of the almost $500 million from aged care funding he cut in the 2015 MYEFO”.</p>
<h2>Funding changes outlined in 2015 MYEFO</h2>
<p>In its <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/html/index.htm">2015 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook</a> (MYEFO), the government did <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/html/03_part_3-01.htm">outline</a> a range of policy decisions that had reduced spending.</p>
<p>One of these was changes to the <a href="https://agedcare.health.gov.au/tools-and-resources/aged-care-funding-instrument-acfi-reports">Aged Care Funding Instrument</a> – a measure used to assess the needs of aged care residents, and therefore how much funding the aged care providers receive as a result. </p>
<p>The government said it would refine the Aged Care Funding Instrument to “better align the funding claimed by providers to the level of care provided, through changes to the scoring matrix”. In other words, to make sure aged care providers weren’t receiving money for care that wasn’t required or being delivered. </p>
<p>The government said these changes were expected to reduce cash payments by A$472.4 million over three years to 2018‑19.</p>
<p>In addition, the 2015 MYEFO update <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/html/11_appendix_a_expense.htm">noted</a> that “improved compliance” around the provision of funding to residential aged care providers (including a focus on false claims) would lead to a net saving of A$61.9 million between 2015-16 and 2018-19.</p>
<p>The combination of the two initiatives were expected to lead to savings of A$534.3 million over four years.</p>
<p>But there were also <em>increases</em> in spending. </p>
<p>The 2015 MYEFO <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/html/03_part_3-01.htm">noted</a> that payments related to the Residential and Flexible Care program were rising, and were expected to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… increase by A$162 million in 2015-16 (A$943 million over the four years to 2018-19), largely reflecting a higher than expected growth in care subsidies provided to residential aged care facilities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Overall, the increase in payments to 2018-19 (A$943 million) was greater than the savings (A$534.3 million) over the same period. </p>
<h2>Funding changes outlined in the 2016-17 Federal Budget</h2>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-15.htm">2016-17 Budget</a>, the government said that by expanding on the refinements to the scoring matrix of the Aged Care Funding Instrument (outlined in 2015 MYEFO), it would achieve savings of A$1.2 billion over four years.</p>
<p>(That’s the A$1.2 billion federal Labor and other groups were referring to.)</p>
<p>In addition, the government said it would reduce indexation of the Complex Health Care component of the Aged Care Funding Instrument by 50% in 2016-17 (and establish a A$53.3 million transitional assistance fund to support providers).</p>
<p>The government said these measure were in response to continued higher than expected growth in spending on the Aged Care Funding Instrument, which had increased by a further A$2.5 billion over the forward estimates since the 2015 MYEFO.</p>
<p>The next item in the Budget papers outlined higher spending for regional aged care facilities. The government said it would provide A$102.3 million over four years from 2016-17 to target the viability supplement (which address cost pressures experienced by residential care providers) more effectively to areas of greatest need. </p>
<h2>The bottom line?</h2>
<p>The claims that the Coalition has cut aged care spending do refer to specific saving initiatives the government has made, but they do not include other policy changes that have <em>increased</em> spending and variations in <em>actual spending</em> due to higher costs.</p>
<p>So while there have been decreases in aged care spending in some areas, the MYEFO and Budget papers show that these were made, in part, to offset <em>increases</em> in spending in other areas of aged care. </p>
<p>And when we look at the final figure, it shows that estimated spending on aged care has risen by more than A$1 billion per year since 2014-15, and is projected to continue to increase by more than A$1 billion per year from 2017-18 to 2021-22. <strong>– Peter Whiteford</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>Politicians love to claim credit for spending more on things such as health and aged care, and it would be a rare year if more money was not spent, given the underlying economic and demographic dynamics.</p>
<p>Governments like to focus on inputs – such as spending – preferably not adjusted for inflation or population growth, as it makes the numbers bigger. Oppositions also like to focus on numbers – and often reductions in promised future spending – suggesting governments are chiselling consumers or the industry. </p>
<p>The Government is indeed spending more on aged care, as shown in this FactCheck. But although aged care spending has increased, it would have increased more but for the Government’s actions, as Labor has asserted. <strong>– Stephen Duckett</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103323/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Social Services. He is affiliated with the Centre for Policy Development. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Duckett is a member of the Board of Directors of an aged care provider, the Brotherhood of St Laurence.</span></em></p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison has defended the Coalition’s spending on aged care as preparations for a Royal Commission into the sector get underway. We asked the experts to crunch the numbers.Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1014612018-09-26T20:17:27Z2018-09-26T20:17:27ZFactCheck: do ‘over a million’ people in Australia not speak English ‘well or at all’?<blockquote>
<p>A growing number of people in Australia cannot speak English well or at all, over a million people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>– Senator Pauline Hanson, <a href="https://www.senatorhanson.com.au/2018/09/19/protect-our-australian-way-of-life-senate-speech/">Senate speech</a>, September 19, 2018</strong></p>
<p>One Nation Party leader and Senator for Queensland Pauline Hanson is urging a rethink on Australia’s immigration policy, including changes to the “number and mix” of migrants coming to the country. </p>
<p>In a Senate speech, Hanson outlined a number of concerns she has with what she described as Australia’s “failed immigration policy”, including issues with social integration and the establishment of “culturally separate communities”.</p>
<p>The senator said a “growing number of people in Australia cannot speak English well or at all, over a million people”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, an advisor to Senator Hanson accurately cited Census data showing the number of people who self-reported they spoke English “not well” or “not at all” was 820,000 in 2016, up from 655,000 in 2011 and 560,000 in 2006. </p>
<p>To reach a calculation of “over a million people” in 2018, Hanson’s office:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>added 66,000 people to the 2016 Census results, based on the assumption that the growth in the number of people in this category would be the same between the 2016 and 2021 Census as it was between 2011 and 2016, and</p></li>
<li><p>added a further 149,294 people to the 2016 results, based on the assumption that 10% of the 1,492,947 people who didn’t respond to the question in the Census about language proficiency did not speak English “well or at all”. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>You can read the full response from Hanson’s office <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-pauline-hanson-for-a-factcheck-on-english-language-proficiency-in-australia-103757">here</a>. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Senator Pauline Hanson said “a growing number of people in Australia cannot speak English well or at all, over a million people”. </p>
<p>The most up to date information available on this question comes from the 2016 Census. The data show that the number of people who self-reported speaking English “not well” or “not at all” in that year was 820,000. </p>
<p>Hanson was correct to say that number has been growing, from 560,000 people in 2006 to 820,000 people in 2016. This amounts to a rise from 2.8% of Australian residents in 2006 to 3.5% in 2016.</p>
<p>Over the same time, among people who speak a language other than English at home, the percentage of people who self-reported speaking English “not well” or “not at all” fell, from 17.5% in 2006 to 16.6% in 2016.</p>
<p>It’s important to keep in mind that self-reporting is not the most accurate measure. Some people will over-estimate their language capabilities, while others will under-estimate theirs. </p>
<hr>
<h2>What do the data show?</h2>
<p>In its five-yearly Australian Census, the Australian Bureau of Statistics <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2900.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7EENGP%20Proficiency%20in%20Spoken%20English%7E10054">asks people</a> who speak a language other than English at home to state how well they speak English. </p>
<p>Respondents can choose from <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2901.0Chapter3202016">four options</a>: “very well”, “well”, “not well”, or “not at all”. The categories “not well” and “not at all” are reported together. </p>
<p>In the 2016 Census, <a href="http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/communityprofile/036?opendocument">4.9 million people</a> reported speaking a language other than English at home. </p>
<p>Of those people, the number of people who reported they spoke English “not well” or “not at all” was 820,000. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/6lO9L/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Hanson was correct to say the number of respondents who ticked the “not well” or “not at all” categories has been rising – from 560,000 people in 2006, to 655,000 people in 2011 and 820,000 in 2016.</p>
<p>But of course, the overall Australian population has also grown over that time.
So let’s look at the numbers as a proportion of the broader Australian population. On this measure, it amounts to a rise from 2.8% of all Australian residents in 2006 to 3.5% in 2016.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/X6ciV/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="508"></iframe>
<p>Over the same time, the percentage of bilingual residents who reported speaking English “not well” or “not at all” fell slightly, from 17.5% in 2006 to 16.6% in 2016. </p>
<p>That means within the bilingual population, there was an improvement in perceived English language skills between 2006 and 2016. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qUV0X/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="508"></iframe>
<p>Hanson said there were now “over a million” people in Australia who “cannot speak English well or at all”. There are two potential problems with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-pauline-hanson-for-a-factcheck-on-english-language-proficiency-in-australia-103757">calculations made</a> to come to this conclusion.</p>
<p>Firstly: the calculation assumes the same rate of growth in the number of people who speak English “not well” or “not at all” between 2016 and 2021 as it was between 2011 and 2016. </p>
<p>The number of people with little or no English language capability is largely a function of the overall migrant intake. As our overall migrant intake has increased, the absolute number of new arrivals with little or no English language capability has also increased.</p>
<p>However, since the 1990s, our migration program has become <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-migrant-intake-hits-10-year-low-under-turnbull">increasingly selective</a> and the <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/lega/lega/form/immi-faqs/aelt">English language requirements</a> for permanent residency have <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2005.tb00284.x">risen</a>.</p>
<p>Second, the projected growth rate suggests that not speaking English well is an unalterable characteristic, and that new entrants with little English capability simply add to the existing number.</p>
<p>This assumption doesn’t account for the likelihood that many recent immigrants who responded that they did not speak English well or at all in the 2016 Census will have improved their English (or their confidence, or both) by 2021 and will respond that they speak English “well” or “very well” then.</p>
<h2>How accurate are the data?</h2>
<p>The Census data provide us with a rough guide to English language proficiency, but it’s not a particularly valid or reliable measure. </p>
<p>That’s because the judgements made in the survey are subjective. There’s no definition around what speaking English “well” or “not well” means. One person may overestimate their English proficiency, while another person may underestimate theirs.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2901.0Chapter48102016">noted by</a> the Australian Bureau of Statistics:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… one respondent may consider that a response of ‘Well’ is appropriate if they can communicate well enough to do the shopping, while another respondent may consider such a response appropriate only for people who can hold a social conversation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As such, these data should be interpreted with care. </p>
<p>Self-assessment <em>can</em> be a valid tool in determining language proficiency. But for that to be the case, the questions need to be much more detailed and sophisticated.</p>
<p>So while we can state that 820,000 Australians reported speaking English “not well” or “not at all” in the 2016 census, it’s not possible to determine what that means in terms of their actual ability to communicate in their everyday lives.</p>
<h2>Most bilingual residents speak English ‘well’ or ‘very well’</h2>
<p>The vast majority of bilingual Australian residents report speaking English “well” or “very well” – more than 4 million out of 4.9 million. </p>
<p>Evidence of a certain level of English language proficiency is a <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/work/work/age-skill-and-english-language-exemptions-permanent-employer-sponsored-programme">visa requirement</a> for most permanent migrants, and many temporary migrants. The key exceptions are humanitarian and family reunion migrants, whose reasons for admission supersede the immediate language requirements. </p>
<p>New citizens are also subject to an <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/citi/pathways-processes/citizenship-test/about-the-citizenship-test">Australian citizenship test</a>, which is an implicit English language test, requiring a certain level of English language proficiency to pass.</p>
<p>The number of people in Australia with little or no English language capability depends not only on the number and mix of new migrants admitted, but the English language training provisions made available to those people when they arrive. <strong>– Ingrid Piller</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the verdict of this FactCheck. The sources used and conclusions drawn are correct. <strong>– Amanda Muller</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101461/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ingrid Piller receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Humboldt Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda 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>Senator Pauline Hanson raised concerns about immigration and social cohesion, saying ‘more than a million people’ in Australia ‘cannot speak English well or at all’. Let’s look at the numbers.Ingrid Piller, Professor of Applied Linguistics, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1014602018-09-02T20:09:46Z2018-09-02T20:09:46ZFactCheck: have the Trump tax cuts led to lower unemployment and higher wages?<blockquote>
<p>The evidence on the ground is very clear. The Trump tax cuts have led to stronger investment, stronger growth, lower unemployment rate and higher wages.</p>
<p><strong>– Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann, <a href="http://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgy6E8annG?play=true">interview on RN Breakfast</a>, August 13, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>After two years of debate and months of intense negotiation, the government’s proposal to cut the corporate tax rate from 30% to 25% for companies with turnover of more than A$50 million was <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-cremates-big-business-tax-cuts-after-senate-kills-them-101980">voted down</a> in the Senate.</p>
<p>But while the government’s attempts to pass tax cuts in Australia were not fruitful, tax reform remains a significant international issue. </p>
<p>In arguing for a tax reduction for big business, Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann pointed to economic outcomes in the United States, where corporate tax rates were cut from 35% to 21% in January this year.</p>
<p>“If you look at the economic data in the US in the second quarter, of course post the Trump tax cuts, the US is recording in excess of 4% growth on an annualised basis, the unemployment rate now has a ‘three’ in front of it, and wages growth is the strongest it’s been in a very long time,” Cormann said.</p>
<p>“Massive, massive capital investment has been returned to the United States.”</p>
<p>Is that right? And if yes, are the tax cuts to thank? Let’s take a closer look. </p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Cormann provided <a href="https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm">GDP</a> and <a href="https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2018/pdf/gdp2q18_adv.pdf">capital investment</a> data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, employment data from the US <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a>, a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-27/u-s-employment-costs-accelerate-in-sign-of-mounting-inflation">Bloomberg article</a>, and a January 2018 <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/01/11/world-economic-outlook-update-january-2018">World Economic Outlook</a> from the International Monetary Fund.</p>
<p>You can read the full response from Cormann’s office <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-mathias-cormann-for-a-factcheck-on-corporate-tax-cuts-and-the-us-economy-101521">here</a>. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann’s statement that corporate tax cuts in the US had “led to stronger investment, stronger growth, lower unemployment rate and higher wages” is not supported by evidence. </p>
<p>Cormann pointed to US economic data from the second quarter of 2018 (shortly after the US corporate tax cuts were enacted) to support his statement.</p>
<p>Cormann correctly quoted the figures about GDP growth and the unemployment rate. His statement on wage growth is debatable, and there are qualifications to be made about his interpretation of the capital investment data.</p>
<p>But the simple observation that some US economic indicators improved in the second quarter of 2018 does not imply that those improvements were caused by the tax cuts. </p>
<p>Even if causation <em>could</em> be established, one quarter of data tells us very little about the effect of tax reform. It takes time for companies and workers to adjust to changed taxation environments. These adjustments happen progressively over time, and this can lead to significant differences in the short term and long term responses. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that the improvement in economic conditions in the US started in mid-2016, around 18 months before the tax reform.</p>
<hr>
<h2>The fundamental issues with the claim</h2>
<p>Can we really look to US economic data from the second quarter of 2018 to support (or for that matter, reject) the argument that corporate tax cuts would benefit Australia?</p>
<p>My answer is no, for two reasons.</p>
<h2>There is not evidence of causation</h2>
<p>The simple observation that some US economic indicators improved in the second quarter of 2018 (after the introduction of the corporate tax cuts) does not imply that those improvements were <em>caused</em> by the tax cuts.</p>
<p>Several other factors will determine economic dynamics in any given quarter. A sophisticated statistical analysis based on a longer string of data after the second quarter of 2018 would be needed to determine the causal contribution of corporate tax cuts.</p>
<p>The assessment of causality is further complicated by the fact that there is a lag effect of corporate tax cuts on the economy.</p>
<p>It takes time for companies and workers to adjust to changed taxation environments. These adjustments happen progressively over time, and this can lead to significant differences in the short term and long term responses. </p>
<p>It’s also important to note that the improvement in US economic conditions started in mid-2016, around 18 months before the tax reform.</p>
<h2>One quarter of data is not enough</h2>
<p>Even if we neglected the causality issue, data from the second quarter of 2018 only gives us a limited idea of the <em>very</em> short term effects of the corporate tax cuts.</p>
<p>When it comes to tax reform, long term effects are what really matters. The important difference between short term and long term effects is evident from the preliminary economic projections published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in August 2018.</p>
<p>According to the authors of the <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2018/08/07/The-Tax-Cuts-and-Jobs-Act-An-Appraisal-46137">IMF working paper</a>, the US corporate tax cuts are projected to have a modest impact on long term growth, but will also cause an <em>increase</em> in the US federal debt to GDP ratio by approximately five percentage points by 2023.</p>
<p>Therefore, the corporate tax cuts may, in the end, fail to sustain long term growth, and make it harder to reduce government deficits and debt. </p>
<p>Rather than focusing on what happened in the second quarter of 2018 in the US, those debating corporate tax cuts should look at the economic theory and evidence drawn from countries where tax reforms have been implemented for a longer period of time (for example, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272703000604">Canada</a> and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/geer.12157">Germany</a>).</p>
<p>In general, this body of research does <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-isnt-solid-research-or-theory-to-support-cutting-corporate-taxes-to-boost-wages-92031">not provide</a> any solid theoretical or empirical evidence backing the argument that corporate tax cuts will lead to a more prosperous economy.</p>
<h2>A closer look at the economic figures</h2>
<p>As outlined above, we cannot say that the Trump tax cuts “led to” the economic outcomes quoted by Cormann. But we can take a look at the numbers, for interest’s sake. </p>
<p>Cormann pointed to four macroeconomic benchmarks:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp">Gross domestic product</a> (GDP)</li>
<li>unemployment</li>
<li>wages, and</li>
<li><a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital-investment.asp">capital investment</a>. </li>
</ul>
<h2>US GDP growth</h2>
<p>Cormann said the US is “recording in excess of 4% growth on an annualised basis”. </p>
<p>Based on <a href="https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey">GDP data from US Bureau of Economic Analysis</a>, and with the growth rate calculated as annualised change over the previous quarter, Cormann was correct: GDP growth hit 4.1% in the second quarter of 2018.</p>
<p>The GDP growth rate can also be calculated as the change compared to the same quarter of the previous year.</p>
<p>On that measure, the growth rate was 2.8%, compared to 2.1% in the second quarter of 2017, following a steady increase from 1.3% in the second quarter of 2016.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/d9WxG/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>US unemployment rate</h2>
<p>In July 2018, the US unemployment rate was <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/find?st=0&r=20&s=popularity%253AD&q=unemployment+rate&more=0">3.9%</a>, as Cormann correctly stated. </p>
<p>The chart below shows both the employment rate at the end of each quarter (for example, June 2018 for the second quarter of 2018) and the average rate across the three months in each quarter.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/flC2x/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>US wages growth</h2>
<p>To support his statement about US wages growth, Cormann pointed to a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-27/u-s-employment-costs-accelerate-in-sign-of-mounting-inflation">Bloomberg article</a> which drew on data from the US Bureau of Labour and Statistics <a href="https://www.bls.gov/ncs/">Employment Cost Index</a>. In the second quarter of 2018, this particular index did record its highest growth since mid-2008.</p>
<p>However, measures of “wages” differ depending on which parts of employees’ salaries are included, and which are excluded.</p>
<p>Another, and perhaps more useful, definition of wages is employees’ <em>average hourly earnings</em>, also reported in the table. </p>
<p>The picture emerging from this measure quite different. These figures show that employees’ average hourly earnings actually fell in the year to the second quarter of 2018. </p>
<p>This doesn’t support the conclusion that wage growth in the second quarter of 2018 was the “strongest it’s been in a very long time”. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/i149f/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>US capital investment</h2>
<p>We can measure capital investment by looking at <a href="https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product">Nonresidential Gross Private Domestic Investment data</a>, sourced from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. These figures show a pick up in investment in the first and, to a lesser extent, second quarters of 2018.</p>
<p>These figures are not, however, necessarily evidence of “massive capital investment” being “returned” to the US, as Cormann stated.</p>
<p>The figures Cormann quoted in his response to The Conversation measure capital expenditure on commercial real estate, factories, tools and machineries in the US – not where the investment comes from.</p>
<p>The term “nonresidential” doesn’t refer to foreign investment, but to investments in commercial (rather than residential) assets.</p>
<p>The chart below, based on data from US Bureau of Economic analysis, shows there was an increase in capital investment in the first quarter of 2018 (when the tax cuts were implemented). </p>
<p>Again, this follows a trend of increases in capital investment, with peaks and troughs, since the first quarter of 2016. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/g2yLF/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>The continuation of an existing trend</h2>
<p>Overall, the data paint a rather favourable picture for the US in the second quarter of 2018. </p>
<p>However, it also seems that these macroeconomic indicators began to improve in mid-2016. This is particularly the case for GDP growth and unemployment. </p>
<p>Therefore, the positive outlook for the US in the second quarter seems to be the <em>continuation</em> of a positive cyclical phase that started before the enactment of the corporate tax cuts. <strong>– Fabrizio Carmignani</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I concur with the verdict. </p>
<p>Senator Cormann’s assertion that the growth in business investment and wages and the decline in unemployment observed in the US over the first half of this year can be attributed, either wholly or in part, to the Trump administration’s corporate tax cuts is not supported by the evidence. </p>
<p>As this FactCheck points out, all of these trends were under way well before the corporate tax cuts took effect, and one or two quarters worth of data is not sufficient to establish that the tax cuts have made any significant or sustained change to those trends. </p>
<p>I disagree that average hourly earnings is a ‘better’ measure of US wages growth than the employment cost index (for the same reasons that most Australian economists regard the ABS wage price index as a better measure of Australian wages growth than average weekly earnings). </p>
<p>But that doesn’t undermine the conclusion that the gradual upward trend in US wages growth was well established before the Trump administration’s corporate tax cuts came into effect, and owes far more to the gradual tightening in the US labour market (which has been underway for a long time before those tax cuts came into effect) than it does to those tax cuts.</p>
<p>Indeed, over the first two quarters of 2018, the employment cost index rose by just 0.1 of a percentage point more than it did over the first two quarters of 2017, which is hardly compelling evidence of a significant impact of the corporate tax cuts.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that <a href="https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?isuri=1&reqid=19&step=2&0=survey">one-fifth</a> of the 21% annualised rate of <em>growth</em> in US real private non-residential fixed investment over the first half of this year was due to a 156% (annualised) increase in investment in “mining exploration, shafts and wells”.</p>
<p>This category that accounts for <a href="https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?isuri=1&reqid=19&step=2&0=survey">less than 4%</a> of the <em>level</em> of private non-residential fixed investment, and the spurt in this category of business investment would have owed far more to the rise in oil prices since the middle of last year than it would have to the cut in corporate tax rates.</p>
<p>Finally, it is also worth noting that the one component of the Trump administration’s corporate tax reforms which the IMF and others have acknowledged would likely have some temporary positive impact on business investment - the immediate expensing for tax purposes of capital expenditures incurred before 2023 (what we in Australia call an “instant asset write off”) - isn’t part of the measures which Senator Cormann had been asking the Senate to pass. <strong>–Saul Eslake</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101460/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrizio Carmignani has received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the estimation of the piecewise continuous linear model and its macroeconomic applications.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saul Eslake does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann said corporate tax cuts in the US had led to ‘stronger investment, stronger growth, a lower unemployment rate and higher wages’. Let’s take a closer look.Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1007532018-08-08T20:11:31Z2018-08-08T20:11:31ZFactCheck: GetUp! on the impact of US corporate tax cuts on wages<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229765/original/file-20180730-106511-1lnwxsg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1917%2C1074&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">GetUp! national director Paul Oosting.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.getup.org.au/media#downloads-anchor">GetUp!</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229743/original/file-20180730-106530-qy2sn5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229743/original/file-20180730-106530-qy2sn5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229743/original/file-20180730-106530-qy2sn5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229743/original/file-20180730-106530-qy2sn5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229743/original/file-20180730-106530-qy2sn5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229743/original/file-20180730-106530-qy2sn5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229743/original/file-20180730-106530-qy2sn5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229743/original/file-20180730-106530-qy2sn5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Graph: GetUp! Australia Instagram post, July 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BluZvCRhADM/">Graph: GetUp! Australia, Instagram</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Graph shared by GetUp! Australia on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/GetUpAustralia/photos/a.401481301454.178964.13527056454/10155409595396455/?type=3&theater">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BluZvCRhADM/">Instagram</a>, July 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/liberal-backbencher-tony-pasin-says-time-isnt-right-for-company-tax-cuts-to-big-businesses/news-story/147a503a642b9e17aeb9cdf6a31fd8e5">Debate continues</a> over the Turnbull government’s proposal to cut the corporate tax rate from 30% to 25% for businesses with turnover of more than A$50 million. </p>
<p>One major point of contention is the possible effect of the tax cuts on Australian wages. </p>
<p>A social media post shared by lobby group <a href="https://www.getup.org.au/">GetUp! Australia</a> argued against the tax cuts, suggesting that US real wages fell after the Trump administration cut corporate tax rates from <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-provisions-factbox/whats-in-the-final-republican-tax-bill-idUSKBN1ED27K">35% to 21%</a>.</p>
<p>Let’s take a closer look.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>The Conversation requested sources and comment from GetUp! to support the data used in the graph, and the suggestion that there had been a causal relationship between the enactment of corporate tax cuts in the US and a reduction in real wages.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We first found the graph in Bloomberg in <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-18/trump-s-tax-cut-hasn-t-done-anything-for-workers">this article</a> by economics blogger and former Assistant Professor of Finance at Stony Brook University, Noah Smith.</p>
<p>The underlying data comes from the <a href="https://www.payscale.com/payscale-index/">Payscale Real Wage Index</a> – adjusted for inflation. We noted that percentage change since 2006 is an unorthodox Y axis for a wages graph, but that’s what the Payscale Index tracks.</p>
<p>We added the marker of the corporate tax rate being cut in the United States, which while passed in Q4 [the fourth quarter] of 2017, came into effect in Q1 [the first quarter] of 2018. </p>
<p>Note that in the Instagram image, we attributed Payrole.com as the source, instead of Payscale.com. This was a drafting error on our part.</p>
<p>Proponents of corporate tax cuts both in the US and Australia have asserted that there is a causal relationship between a lower corporate tax rate and higher wages (see <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/malcolm-turnbull-stresses-urgency-of-company-tax-rate-cuts/news-story/a367d37a553fda7c1641811dba63b42a">US example</a> and <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/malcolm-turnbull-says-70pc-of-company-tax-cut-benefit-will-flow-to-workers-20180222-h0wimx">Australian example</a>). The graph we posted in Instagram demonstrates that, in the US experience, that has not been the case. </p>
<p>This suggests that there is no causal relationship between a lower corporate tax rate and higher wages, and that cutting the corporate tax rate based on an expected flow on effect to wages would be a mistake.</p>
<hr>
</blockquote>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The social media post shared by GetUp! Australia, which could be read by many as suggesting that US corporate tax cuts caused wages to fall, is problematic and potentially misleading for two reasons.</p>
<p>Firstly: charts constructed with data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics suggest that the chart used by GetUp! overestimates the drop in wage growth in the US between the first and second quarters of 2018. </p>
<p>According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, wage growth over that period declined slightly (rather than significantly), or was moderately positive, depending on the measure used.</p>
<p>Secondly, and most importantly: the chart used by GetUp! can’t conclusively establish any causal relationship between the enactment of US corporate tax cuts in January 2018 and any drop in wage growth.</p>
<p>While the chart does not support the argument that corporate tax cuts cause higher wages, it also cannot conclusively reject it. </p>
<hr>
<h2>What does the GetUp! chart show and suggest?</h2>
<p>The social media post shared by GetUp! has the title: “This is what happened to wages when Donald Trump cut corporate tax in America.” </p>
<p>It shows a line chart with the heading: “United States real wages.” The reference to “real wages” means the index has been adjusted for inflation. A note below the chart says the wage changes are relative to 2006 levels.</p>
<p>The line chart depicts US real wages rising from minus 8.50% of 2006 levels in Q2 2016, to minus 7.70% in Q1 2018. A vertical line marks the point in Q1 2018 when the tax cuts were enacted. The line then shows a drop to minus 9.30% of 2006 levels in Q2 2018. </p>
<p>A reader could quite easily interpret the chart as meaning the enactment of corporate tax cuts in the US had an immediate and negative effect on real wage growth.</p>
<p>The subtitle reads: “Let’s not make the same mistake here.” </p>
<h2>Are the data used in the chart appropriate?</h2>
<p>As noted by GetUp! in their response to The Conversation, the source for the data used in the chart is Payscale, not payrole.com, as stated in the post. </p>
<p>Payscale is a US commercial company that provides information about salaries. The company publishes a quarterly wage index based on its own data, which <a href="https://www.payscale.com/payscale-index/compensation-trends-methodology">it says</a> is based on more than 300,000 employee profiles in each quarter, capturing the total cash compensation of full time employees in private industry and education professionals in the US. </p>
<p>Given the commercial nature of Payscale data, I don’t have access to their primary dataset, and can only rely on the <a href="https://www.payscale.com/payscale-index/compensation-trends-methodology">description of the methodology</a> reported on their website. I have no reason to doubt the validity of the data and/or the methodology.</p>
<p>I do, however, suggest that presenting the data in the form of percentage changes from 2006 is not ideal for an assessment of wage dynamics around the time of the enactment of corporate tax cuts. </p>
<p>In their response to The Conversation, GetUp! did acknowledge that “percentage change since 2006 is an unorthodox Y axis for a wages graph”.</p>
<p>It would be more informative to present the data as percentage changes between one quarter and the same quarter of the previous year, or between two consecutive quarters. I have done this in the two charts below, using the data publicly available from Payscale. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aGSTp/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7t2xo/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The story is qualitatively similar to that shown in the chart presented by GetUp!. Therefore, we can say that – based on the Payscale data – real wages seem to have dropped between the first and second quarters of 2018. </p>
<h2>Is Payscale the best source for this kind of analysis?</h2>
<p>While there is no reason to believe that the Payscale data are incorrect, it is worth considering a more standard statistical source. </p>
<p>Earnings data for the US are available from a variety of institutions. The difficulty, in this case, is that there are many different statistical definitions of earnings and wages depending on which sectors, geographical areas, and types of employees are observed. </p>
<p>One of the most commonly used definitions is the “average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory employees on private payrolls”, with monthly data supplied by the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/home.htm">US Bureau of Labor Statistics</a>. </p>
<p>Using these data, I have recomputed changes in real wages (adjusted for inflation) between one quarter to the same quarter of the previous year and between two consecutive quarters.</p>
<p>These two charts based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics data tell a different story from the charts based on the Payscale data. </p>
<p>In particular, the change in wages between the first and second quarters of 2018 is moderately <em>positive</em> (+0.4%) rather than significantly negative (minus 1.7% based on the Payscale data).</p>
<p>The drop in wages between the second quarter of 2017 and the second quarter of 2018 is also less sharp (minus 0.11%, compared to minus 1.4% from the Payscale data).</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Ta1mH/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ozccF/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>These differences may be determined by the different coverage and/or statistical definitions used by Payscale and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure wages and compensation.</p>
<h2>The story the GetUp! chart suggests: is it correct?</h2>
<p>The combination of the words and the image could suggest to some that there was a causal relationship between the enactment of corporate tax cuts and a drop in real wages in the US.</p>
<p>But the chart used in the post isn’t suited to provide any evidence on causality. </p>
<p>That’s because changes in real wages can be determined by a variety of economic factors, such as changes in the makeup of the labour force and business cycle fluctuations. A chart like the one published by GetUp! can’t possibly isolate the impact of just one factor.</p>
<p>The observation that wage growth dropped around the time of the enactment of the corporate tax cuts doesn’t automatically imply that this drop was <em>caused</em> by the tax cuts. At best, a correlation between the two events can be established, not a causal effect. </p>
<p>We also need to keep in mind that the relationship between tax cuts and wages is likely to involve time lags. The effect of corporate tax cuts on wages, or any other economic variable, takes time to feed through the economic system and to show up in the data. This reinforces the argument that the chart demonstrates correlation, rather than causality.</p>
<p>Having said that, while the data used cannot provide evidence for the argument that corporate tax cuts lead to lower wages, it cannot conclusively reject the argument, either. <strong>– Fabrizio Carmignani</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The GetUp! chart is captioned: “This is what happened when Donald Trump cut corporate tax in America.” Strictly speaking, GetUp! don’t actually claim that the corporate tax cut caused the wage to fall, but it is certainly what the reader is led to believe. </p>
<p>The author has identified the key problem with the GetUp! chart, which is that there is no evidence that the fall in real wages was caused by the enactment of corporate tax cuts. In fact, the chart provides no evidence to either support <em>or</em> reject the premise that a corporate tax cut would have any effect on wages. </p>
<p>The alternative data sourced by the author from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics cast some doubt on the accuracy of the data used by GetUp!, yet this is a distraction from the main argument that neither chart proves causality between corporate tax cuts and wage growth.</p>
<p>As the author says, there are many factors that influence real wage growth. Some examples include changes in the skills and experience of the working population, changes in government expenditure, and of course, changes to tax policy. It would be a mistake to attribute the recent decline in US wages to any single factor, such as the cut to the corporate tax rate. </p>
<p>This is why economic modelling is so powerful. In a “laboratory”, economic modellers can build two versions of the world: one with a tax cut and one without. With all other things held equal, the only differences between these two worlds must be a consequence of the tax cut.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.copsmodels.com/elecpapr/g-260.htm">Economic modelling</a> produced by Victoria University’s Centre of Policy Studies (and of which I was an author) finds that despite stimulating growth in pre-tax real wages, a company tax cut would cause a fall in the average incomes of the Australian population.</p>
<p>So while this FactCheck shows that the wage chart from GetUp! is inconclusive, my view (based on the Victoria University modelling) is that company tax cuts here would be a “mistake” because of the negative impact on the incomes of Australians. <strong>– Janine Dixon</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100753/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrizio Carmignani has received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the estimation of the piecewise continuous linear model and its macroeconomic applications.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Janine Dixon 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>A social media post shared by GetUp! Australia suggested US real wages had dropped significantly following the enactment of Trump’s corporate tax cuts in January. We asked the experts to check it out.Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1008192018-08-06T10:16:47Z2018-08-06T10:16:47ZFactCheck: has Australia’s net debt doubled under the current government?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230336/original/file-20180802-136673-pi3c0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1280%2C718&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CU6P1qgdY1w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, July 30, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>…we don’t hear enough about the fact under the current government we have had net debt double.</p>
<p><strong>– Shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4858439.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, July 30 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As the government and opposition seek to establish their economic credentials in the lead-up to the next federal election, we can expect to hear plenty about the relative performances of the Coalition and Labor Party with regard to government deficits and debt.</p>
<p>On ABC Television’s Q&A, shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers claimed that “under the current government, we have had net debt double”. </p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request, a spokesperson for Chalmers provided the following sources:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to the government’s Monthly Financial Statements, in September 2013 (the month of the 2013 federal election), net debt was <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2013-09/">under A$175 billion</a> (A$174,577m).</p>
<p>Net debt reached <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2017/mfs-december/">more than A$350 billion</a> in December 2017 (A$350,245m), and was <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2018/mfs-january/">above A$350 billion</a> in January 2018 (A$353,359m) and March 2018 (<a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2018/mfs-march/">A$350,717m</a>).</p>
<p>Also, on the government’s own budget numbers, net debt for this financial year is A$349.9 billion (<a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">2018-19 Budget, BP1 3-16, Table 3</a>).</p>
<p>So whether you look at the government’s Monthly Financial Statements or its budget, we’ve had net debt double under this government.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Chalmers told The Conversation: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Liberals used to bang on about a so-called “budget emergency” and a “debt and deficit disaster”, but you don’t hear a peep from them anymore.</p>
<p>Not only has net debt doubled on the Liberals’ watch, but gross debt has crashed through half-a-trillion dollars for the first time ever, and their own budget papers expect it to remain well above half-a-trillion dollars every year for the next decade.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers quoted his numbers (broadly) correctly when he said that “under the current government we have had net debt double”.</p>
<p>As at July 1 2018, the budget estimate of net debt in Australia was about A$341.0 billion, up from A$174.5 billion in September 2013, when the Coalition took office. That’s an increase of A$166.5 billion, or roughly 95%, over almost five years. </p>
<p>To put that in context, in Labor’s last term (2007-13, a nearly six-year period that included the Global Financial Crisis), net debt rose by about A$197 billion – around A$30 billion more than has been the case under the current Coalition government.</p>
<p>It’s worth remembering that over time, a government’s debt position will reflect deficits (or surpluses) of past governments.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is ‘net debt’?</h2>
<p><em><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/AustGovDebt">Gross debt</a></em> is the total amount of money a government owes to other parties. <em><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/AustGovDebt">Net debt</a></em> is gross debt, adjusted for some of the assets a government owns and earns interest on.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs7.pdf">Not all government assets</a> are included in the calculation of net debt. For example, the equity holdings of Australia’s sovereign wealth fund – the <a href="https://www.futurefund.gov.au/">Future Fund</a> – are excluded. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that net debt doesn’t give the full picture of a government’s balance sheet. </p>
<p>If the government borrows A$1 (by <a href="https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/investments-paying-interest/bonds/australian-government-bonds">issuing bonds</a>) to buy A$1 worth of equity (investment in another asset), net debt will rise. That’s because bond issuance (debt) will rise by A$1, without an accompanying increase in investments that pay interest.</p>
<p>In Australia’s case, this distinction is relevant, because the government currently has about A$50 billion of investments in shares (which aren’t considered interest-bearing for accounting purposes) and around <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">A$50 billion</a> in equity in <a href="https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/departments-and-agencies/list-of-departments-and-agencies">public sector entities</a> (like schools, hospitals and infrastructure).</p>
<p>Over time, a government’s debt position will reflect deficits of past governments, with budget deficits increasing the total debt, and surpluses reducing it.</p>
<h2>Has net debt doubled under the current government?</h2>
<p>The chart below shows net debt for Australia from 2001-02 to 2018-19. The 2017-18 and 2018-19 numbers are estimates, but all earlier numbers are actual net debt numbers. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Q5ZgN/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>As you can see from the chart, net debt has risen under both Coalition and Labor governments since 2008.</p>
<p>The Department of Finance publishes <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/">Australian Government Monthly Financial Statements</a>, which can be used to get a picture of net debt levels during election months.</p>
<p>On July 1 2007, in the final year of the Howard Coalition government, net debt was <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">minus A$24.2 billion</a>. The government’s financial assets, such as those held in the Future Fund, were greater than government bonds on issuance, putting the government in a net asset (positive) position. </p>
<p>At the time of the election of the Labor government in November 2007, Australia’s net debt position was still negative (<a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/mfs_nov-dec2007.pdf">at minus A$22.1 billion</a>) – meaning the government held A$22.1 billion more than it owed. By July 1 2013, in the final months of the last Labor government, net debt had risen to <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">A$159.6 billion</a>.</p>
<p>The Liberal-National Coalition won the federal election on September 7 2013. At September 30, net debt was <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/mfs-september-2013.pdf">A$174.5 billion</a> (meaning that net debt rose by about A$5 billion per month in the three months before the 2013 election). </p>
<p>As at July 1 2018, the budget estimate of net debt in Australia was about <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">A$341.0 billion</a>. That’s roughly a 95% rise since the Coalition took office in 2013, making Chalmers’ statement about net debt having doubled under the current government broadly correct.</p>
<h2>What can we take from this?</h2>
<p>In terms of economic management, not a great deal.</p>
<p>Rather than being concerned about the level of debt, most economists would be concerned about the level of debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP), or the size of the population. On these measures, the rises in net debt under the current government have been less significant. </p>
<p>Let’s take the net-debt-to-GDP ratio.</p>
<p>It rose from about 11.3% in September 2013 (when the Coalition was elected) to 18.3% in July 2016, at which point the ratio roughly stabilised. The net debt to GDP ratio now stands at <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">18.6%</a> and is predicted to fall in the next few years.</p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that during Labor’s most recent period of government, net debt rose by around A$197 billion – about A$30 billion more than has been the case under the current Coalition government.</p>
<p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8454.1997.tb00819.x">My research</a> on the effects of political parties in Australia on the economy found that, historically, economic growth and other important economic outcomes have had little to do with which party is in power. <strong>– Mark Crosby</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The author has a done a very competent job in analysing Jim Chalmers’ statement regarding net debt under the current government. </p>
<p>What the analysis shows is how complex the issue is, and that the argument over which major party is the better economic manager cannot be encapsulated simply by one number.</p>
<p>The net debt figures can be interpreted in a number of different ways, pointing to different assessments of a particular government’s economic management.</p>
<p>As the author notes, the net debt position depends not just on the current government’s actions, but also on the legacy inherited from previous governments. That’s because debt is used to finance borrowings, which are largely the result of previous governments’ fiscal policies. </p>
<p>An assessment of a government’s macro-economic management depends on analysis of several different factors, of which debt is only one. <strong>– Phil Lewis</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100819/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phil Lewis does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. He also has no relevant affiliations. During his career he has received funding from many private and public sector organisations including most recently the ARC, NCVER, DEEWR, the AFPC, ABLA and CPA Australia.</span></em></p><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>Was shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers correct when he said that under the current Coalition government, net debt had doubled? We asked the experts.Mark Crosby, Professor, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1002482018-07-26T19:56:08Z2018-07-26T19:56:08ZFactCheck: has Pauline Hanson voted ‘effectively 100% of the time with the Turnbull government’ in 2018?<blockquote>
<p>This year [Pauline Hanson] has voted effectively 100% of the time with the Turnbull government. Honestly you may as well vote LNP if you are voting One Nation because there is no difference.</p>
<p><strong>– Deputy opposition leader Tanya Plibersek, <a href="http://www.tanyaplibersek.com/transcript_doorstop_interview_caboolture_tuesday_10_july_2018">doorstop interview</a>, Caboolture, Queensland, July 10, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In recent weeks, senior Labor Party figures have sought to draw attention to the voting patterns of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, arguing that a vote for the minor party is a vote for the Coalition.</p>
<p>At the Labor campaign launch in the Queensland seat of Longman ahead of Saturday’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/byelection-guide-whats-at-stake-on-super-saturday-99757">crucial byelections</a>, opposition leader Bill Shorten <a href="http://www.billshorten.com.au/address_to_the_longman_labor_campaign_launch_caboolture_sunday_22_july_2018">said</a> it’s “a fact that if you vote One Nation, you are voting [Liberal National Party]. You are not protesting, you are being used to send a vote to the LNP.” </p>
<p>On the same day, shadow finance minister Jim Chalmers described One Nation as “the wholly-owned subsidiary of Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal Party”.</p>
<p>Earlier this month, deputy opposition leader Tanya Plibersek said that in 2018, Pauline Hanson had “voted effectively 100% of the time with the Turnbull Government”. </p>
<p>Let’s look at the records.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, Tanya Plibersek said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Pauline Hanson voted with the Liberals to cut school funding and voted to cut family benefits while she voted herself a massive $7,000 a year tax cut. Australian voters deserve to know the truth about Hanson’s voting record in Canberra.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Plibersek’s comment related to votes on <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_16">second and third reading votes</a> (including amendments) on legislation. </p>
<p>Plibersek’s office highlighted <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/Senate_StatsNet/General/divisions">20 such votes</a> in 2018 in which Labor and the Coalition disagreed. Of those, Hanson abstained from one vote, and voted 18 times with the government. (The equivalent of 95% of the time, with the abstention excluded.)</p>
<p>A spokesperson told The Conversation Plibersek used the qualifier “effectively” in her original comment to indicate that Hanson voted with the Coalition almost all of the time. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Deputy opposition leader Tanya Plibersek said Pauline Hanson has “voted effectively 100% of the time with the Turnbull Government” in 2018. </p>
<p>Parliamentary records show the figure to be between 83-86%, depending on the measure used.</p>
<p>Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party has cast 169 formal votes in the Senate to date in 2018. Of those, it was in agreement with the government 83% of the time.</p>
<p>If we look at the 99 occasions where the government and opposition were in disagreement, and One Nation cast an <em>influential</em> vote, we see that the minor party voted with the government 86% of the time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Voting in the Senate</h2>
<p>Votes in the Senate can <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_3">be determined</a> “on the voices” or “by division”.</p>
<p>For a vote to pass on the voices, a majority of senators must call “aye” in response to the question posed by the chair.</p>
<p>If two or more senators challenge the chair’s conclusion about whether the “ayes” or “noes” are in the majority, a division is called. </p>
<p>Bells are then rung for four minutes to call senators to the chamber. The question is posed again, and senators vote by taking their place on the right or left hand side of the chair, before the votes are counted by tellers.</p>
<p>Voting records are only published for votes passed by division.</p>
<h2>How has One Nation voted in 2018?</h2>
<p>We can look to <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/Senate_StatsNet/General/divisions/2018">parliamentary records</a> to test Plibersek’s claim.</p>
<p>Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party is represented in the parliament by party leader and Queensland senator Pauline Hanson, and West Australian senator Peter Georgiou. New South Wales senator Brian Burston was a One Nation senator <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-18/brian-burston-will-run-for-clive-palmers-party-next-election/9879984">until June 2018</a>. </p>
<p>Plibersek’s comment referred to votes on the second and third readings of legislation in the full Senate, excluding <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/Glossary_of_Senate_terms">procedural votes, motions</a> and votes in Senate committees.</p>
<p>But votes that take place in Senate committees, after the second reading, but before the third, are also important. Much of the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_16">legislative process</a> is done “in committee”, where various parties propose amendments to legislation, and these are voted on. </p>
<p>So counting only the full Senate votes on legislation as being significant, as Plibersek did, does not give the full picture.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stages of consideration of bills in the Australian Senate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_16">Parliament of Australia, Brief Guides to Senate Procedure</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In this FactCheck, I will consider all the divisions, from a number of different angles.</p>
<p>There have been 187 divisions in the Senate so far this year. Of those, One Nation:</p>
<ul>
<li>voted with the Coalition on 141 occasions (or 75% of the time)</li>
<li>voted against the Coalition on 28 occasions (or 15% of the time), and </li>
<li>abstained from voting on 18 occasions (or 10% of the time).</li>
</ul>
<p>Of the 169 divisions where One Nation voted, it was in agreement with the government 83% of the time.</p>
<p>But it’s important to consider the balance of power.</p>
<p>When the Coalition and Labor vote the same way, minor party votes do not affect the outcome. When the Coalition and Labor are in disagreement, minor party votes are all important.</p>
<p>There have been 110 such divisions between the Coalition and Labor in the Senate in 2018 to date. </p>
<p>In these 110 divisions, One Nation:</p>
<ul>
<li>voted with the Coalition on 85 occasions (or 77% of the time)</li>
<li>voted against the Coalition on 14 occasions (or 13% of the time), and</li>
<li>abstained from voting on 11 occasions (10% of the time).</li>
</ul>
<p>If we look at the 99 divisions where the Coalition and Labor were in disagreement, and One Nation cast an influential vote, we see that the party voted with the Coalition 86% of the time.</p>
<p>By comparison, in the 110 divisions where Labor opposed the government, the Australian Greens supported the Coalition 5% of the time, and the Centre Alliance (formerly Nick Xenophon Team) did so 56% of the time.</p>
<p>The calculations for the Greens and Centre Alliance above do not include abstentions and cases where the party vote was split. <strong>– Adrian Beaumont</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The author’s points and statistics appear to be all in order.</p>
<p>As the FactCheck shows, while One Nation has not voted with the government 100% of the time, it has supported the Coalition in a large majority of cases. <strong>– Zareh Ghazarian</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100248/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>Ahead of Saturday’s crucial byelections, senior Labor Party figures have described a vote for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party as a vote for the Coalition. What do the records show?Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/965232018-07-13T07:03:17Z2018-07-13T07:03:17ZFactCheck: is Australia’s population the ‘highest-growing in the world’?<blockquote>
<p>We’re the highest-growing country in the world, with 1.6% increase, and that’s double than a lot of other countries.</p>
<p><strong>– One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/994398072569413633">interview</a> on Sky News Australia, May 9 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has <a href="https://twitter.com/PaulineHansonOz/status/1012137057756430337">proposed</a> a plebiscite be held in tandem with the next federal election to allow voters to have “a say in the level of migration coming into Australia”.</p>
<p>Hanson <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5782800010001">has</a> <a href="https://www.2gb.com/let-the-people-have-their-say-senator-pauline-hanson-calls-for-plebiscite-on-immigration/">suggested</a> cutting Australia’s <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/20planning">Migration Program</a> cap from the current 190,000 people per year to around 75,000-100,000 per year.</p>
<p>On <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/994398072569413633">Sky News</a>, Hanson said Australia is “the highest-growing country in the world”.</p>
<p>The senator added that, at 1.6%, Australia’s population growth was “double [that of] a lot of other countries”.</p>
<p>Are those statements correct?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Hanson said the senator “talks about population growth in the context of our high level of immigration because, in recent years, immigration has accounted for around 60% of Australia’s population growth”.</p>
<p>The spokesperson added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/">Australian Bureau of Statistics migration data for 2015-16</a> show that Australians born overseas represent 28% of the population, far higher than comparable countries like Canada (22%), UK (13%) or the US (14%).</p>
<p><a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW">World Bank data for 2017</a> show that Australia’s population growth was 1.6%, much higher than comparable countries with immigration programs like Canada (1.2%), the UK (0.6%) and the US (0.7%). </p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>One Nation leader Pauline Hanson was correct to say Australia’s population grew by 1.6% in the year to June 2017. But she was incorrect to say Australia is “the highest-growing country in the world”.</p>
<p>According to the most accurate international data, the country with the fastest-growing population is Oman, on the Arabian Peninsula.</p>
<p>Hanson said Australia’s 1.6% population growth was “double than a lot of other countries”. It is fair to say Australia’s population growth rate is double that of many other countries, including the United States (0.7%) and United Kingdom (0.7%), for example.</p>
<p>Since Hanson’s statement, Australia’s population growth rate for the period ending June 2017 has been revised upwards to 1.7%. But Hanson’s number was correct at the time of her statement, and the revision doesn’t change the outcome of this FactCheck.</p>
<p>In terms of the 35 countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Luxembourg was the fastest-growing country in 2016, with Australia coming in fifth.</p>
<p>Caution must be used when making international population comparisons. It’s important to put the growth rates in the context of the total size, density and demographic makeup of the population, and the economic stage of the country. </p>
<hr>
<h2>How do we calculate population growth?</h2>
<p>A country’s population growth, or decline, is determined by the change in the estimated number of residents. Those changes include the number of births and deaths (known as natural increase), and net overseas migration.</p>
<p>In Australia, both temporary and permanent overseas migrants are included in the calculation of population size.</p>
<p>According to Australian Bureau of Statistics data, Australia’s population <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/3101.0Main%20Features2Jun%202017?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3101.0&issue=Jun%202017&num=&view=">grew by 1.6%</a> in the year to June 2017 – as Hanson said. </p>
<p>Since Hanson’s statement, Australia’s population growth rate for the period ending June 2017 has been <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Dec%202017?OpenDocument">revised upwards to 1.7%</a>. But, as said in the verdict, Hanson’s number was correct at the time of her statement, and the revision doesn’t change any of the other outcomes of this FactCheck.</p>
<p>That’s an increase of 407,000 people in a population of 24.6 million.</p>
<p>All states and territories recorded positive population growth in the year to June 2017. Victoria had the fastest growth rate (2.4%) and South Australia recorded the slowest growth rate (0.6%).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-south-australias-youth-population-rising-or-falling-92995">FactCheck: is South Australia's youth population rising or falling?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is Australia’s population the ‘highest-growing in the world’?</h2>
<p>No, it’s not. </p>
<p>There are <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+-+estimate+and+projection">different ways</a> of reporting population data. </p>
<p><em>Population projections</em> are statements about future populations based on certain assumptions regarding the future of births, deaths and migration. </p>
<p><em>Population estimates</em> are statistics based on data from a population for a previous time period. Population estimates provide a more accurate representation of actual dynamics.</p>
<p>World Bank data for 2016 (based on population estimates) provide us with the most accurate international comparison. </p>
<p>According to those data, Australia’s growth rate – 1.5% for 2016 – placed it at 86th in the world. The top 10 countries grew by between 3% and 5%.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/xmNEi/9/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="660"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/QHYfE/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="660"></iframe>
<h2>How does Australia’s growth compare to other OECD countries?</h2>
<p>Comparison of Australia’s average annual population growth with <a href="http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/#d.en.194378">other OECD countries</a> shows Australia’s rate of population growth is among the highest in the OECD, but not the highest.</p>
<p>This is true whether we look at annual averages for five-year bands between 1990 and 2015, or single-year data.</p>
<p>Looking again at the World Bank data, Australia’s rate of population growth for 2016, at 1.5%, was double that of many other OECD countries, including the United Kingdom (0.7%) and United States (0.7%). </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/L8bMM/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="550"></iframe>
<h2>Permanent v temporary migration levels</h2>
<p>Hanson has <a href="https://www.onenation.org.au/pauline-proposes-peoples-vote-on-immigration/?utm_source=Mailing+Subscribers&utm_campaign=032db92c43-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_25_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4f8178d36d-032db92c43-117107263&goal=0_4f8178d36d-032db92c43-117107263&mc_cid=032db92c43&mc_eid=56574ed782">proposed a national vote</a> on what she describes as Australia’s “runaway rates of immigration”.</p>
<p>The senator has suggested reducing Australia’s Migration Program cap from the current level of <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/20planning">190,000 people per year</a> to <a href="https://www.2gb.com/let-the-people-have-their-say-senator-pauline-hanson-calls-for-plebiscite-on-immigration/">75,000-100,000 people per year</a>. The expected intake of <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/20planning">190,000</a> permanent migrants <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2017/November/Behind_the_Numbers_-_the_2016-17_Migration_Programme">was not met</a> over the last few years. Permanent migration for 2017-18 has dropped to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/duttons-vetting-drive-slashes-20000-from-migrant-intake/news-story/a0510c51e8be5411e421f1792c847a41">162,400 people</a>, due to changes in vetting processes. </p>
<p>The greatest contribution to the growth of the Australian population (63%) comes from overseas migration, as Hanson’s office noted in their response to The Conversation.</p>
<p>The origin countries of migrants are <a href="https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/107/2018/04/Shaping-a-Nation-1.pdf">becoming more diverse</a>, posing socioeconomic benefits and infrastructure challenges for Australia.</p>
<p>Sometimes people confuse <em>net overseas migration</em> (the total of all people moving in and out of Australia in a certain time frame), with <em>permanent</em> migration (the number of people who come to Australia to live). They are <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/MigrationStatistics">not the same thing</a>.</p>
<p>Net overseas migration includes temporary migration. And net overseas migration is included in population data. This means our population growth reflects our permanent population, plus more.</p>
<p>Temporary migrants are a <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features52015-16?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2015-16&num=&view=%20%22%22">major contributor</a> to population growth in Australia – in particular, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-18/australia-hosting-unprecedented-numbers-international-students/9669030">international students</a>.</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features52015-16?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2015-16&num=&view=%20%22%22">most recent data</a> (2014-15), net temporary migrants numbered just under 132,000, a figure that included just over 77,000 net temporary students.</p>
<p>The international student market is Australia’s <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/trade-statistics/trade-in-goods-and-services/Pages/australias-trade-in-goods-and-services-2017.aspx">third-largest export</a>.</p>
<h2>Looking back at Australia’s population growth</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-have-a-population-policy-why-78183">Population changes</a> track the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aehr.12068">history</a> of the nation. This includes events like post-war rebuilding – including the baby boom and resettlement of displaced European nationals – to subsequent fluctuations in birth rates and net overseas migration. </p>
<p>We can see these events reflected in the rates of growth from 1945 to the present.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/urTQB/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The rate of population growth in Australia increased markedly in 2007, before peaking at 2.1% in 2009 (after the height of the <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/the-global-financial-crisis.html">global financial crisis</a>, in which the Australian economy fared better than many others).</p>
<p>Since 2009, annual population growth has bounced around between a low of 1.4% and a high of 1.8%.</p>
<p>The longer-term average for population growth rates since 1947 is 1.6% (the same as it is now).</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CHC8w/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>Interpreting population numbers</h2>
<p>It’s worth remembering that a higher annual growth rate coming from a lower population base is usually still lower growth in terms of actual numbers of people, when compared to a lower growth rate on a higher population base.</p>
<p>There can also be significant fluctuations in population growth rates from year to year. So we need to use caution when making assessments based on changes in annual rates.</p>
<p>Economic factors, government policies, and special events are just some of the things that can influence year-on-year population movements.</p>
<p>Other factors we should consider when making international comparisons include the: </p>
<ul>
<li>total size of the population</li>
<li>population density</li>
<li>demographic composition, or age distribution, of the population</li>
<li>economic stage of the country (for example, post-industrialisation or otherwise).</li>
</ul>
<p>Any changes to the <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/discussion-papers/managing-australias-migrant-intake.pdf">Migration Program</a> should be considered alongside the best available research. <strong>– Liz Allen</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The FactCheck is fair and correct.</p>
<p>The statement about Australia’s population growth rate over the year to June 30 2017 is correct. The preliminary growth rate published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics at the time of Hanson’s statement was 1.60%; the rate was subsequently revised to 1.68%. </p>
<p>It is also true that many developed countries have lower population growth rates than Australia, but some have higher rates. According to <a href="http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/">United Nations Population Division</a> estimates, Oman had the fastest-growing population between 2014 and 2015 (the latest data available).</p>
<p>With regard to misinterpretations of net overseas migration, it should also be stated that some people think this refers to the number of people migrating <em>to</em> Australia. It is actually immigration minus emigration – the difference between the number arriving and the number leaving. <strong>– Tom Wilson</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96523/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liz Allen is a national council member of the Australian Population Association.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Wilson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>One Nation leader Pauline Hanson said Australia is “the highest-growing country in the world”, with population growth “double than a lot of other countries”. Is that right?Liz Allen, Demographer, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/993782018-07-09T10:25:42Z2018-07-09T10:25:42ZFactCheck Q&A: did the Coalition ‘deliver more than a million jobs in the last year’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226441/original/file-20180706-122262-1fgac66.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1007%2C566&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Liberal MP Sarah Henderson, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6ebn0JSN9cw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, July 2, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>We’ve delivered more than a million jobs in the last year.</p>
<p>And 65,000 or so new businesses have started up.</p>
<p>Now, in Labor’s last year, 61,000 businesses closed.</p>
<p><strong>– Liberal MP Sarah Henderson, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ebn0JSN9cw&feature=youtu.be">speaking on Q&A</a>, July 2, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>On Q&A, Liberal MP Sarah Henderson made the case for company tax cuts, saying the Coalition government’s “focus on backing business” was paying dividends. </p>
<p>“We are seeing a renewed sense of confidence because of our focus on backing business – small, medium and large – giving them the incentive to grow, to invest and to employ more people.”</p>
<p>Henderson said the Coalition had “delivered more than a million jobs in the last year, and 65,000 or so new businesses have started up”.</p>
<p>The member for Corangamite added that “in Labor’s last year, 61,000 businesses closed”. </p>
<p>Are those numbers correct?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources, Henderson pointed to Australian Bureau of Statistics <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8165.0">Counts of Australian Businesses data</a> that show:</p>
<ul>
<li>an increase of 66,755 businesses in the 2016-17 financial year, and</li>
<li>a decrease of 61,614 businesses in the 2012-13 financial year (the last financial year of the Labor government).</li>
</ul>
<p>Regarding the employment figures, Henderson told The Conversation she had made an error, and had meant to say that more than one million jobs had been created over nearly five years. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Liberal MP Sarah Henderson’s statement that the Coalition government “delivered more than a million jobs in the last year” was incorrect.</p>
<p>As Henderson noted in her response to The Conversation, growth in employment of “more than a million jobs” took place over more than four years.</p>
<p>Depending on which interpretation of “last year” we use – whether financial, calendar or year-to-date – the growth in the number of people employed was between 251,500 and 383,000.</p>
<p>In terms of whether the Coalition “delivered” these jobs, it’s important to remember that government policy is only one of many factors that determine employment dynamics. Changes in employment levels are never solely due to the efforts of any one government.</p>
<p>Regarding the numbers of businesses opening and closing, Henderson was correct.</p>
<p>In 2016-17 (the last financial year for which data are available), the total number of businesses in Australia increased by 66,755. </p>
<p>In the last financial year of the Labor government (2012-13), the total number of businesses decreased by 61,614.</p>
<p>It appears that the annual balance between business entrants and exits is correlated with the economic cycle.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Did the Coalition deliver ‘more than a million jobs in the last year’?</h2>
<p>No. </p>
<p>As Henderson noted in her response to The Conversation, this statement was incorrect. </p>
<p>The growth in the number of people employed in “the last year” was between 251,500 and 383,000, depending on which interpretation of “last year” we use – whether financial year, calendar year or year-to-date. </p>
<p>The latest available employment data are the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0May%202018?OpenDocument">Australian Bureau of Statistics Labour Force figures</a> ending in May 2018.</p>
<p>The labour force survey includes three different series of employment data: original, trend, and seasonally adjusted. </p>
<p>The “original” series simply counts how many people are employed at any given time. </p>
<p>The “seasonally adjusted” series adjusts the original series to account for regular fluctuations in employment due to the calendar or seasonal pattern of certain economic activities – for example, tourism.</p>
<p>The “trend” component tells the story of the underlying, longer-term dynamics of employment by smoothing out the peaks and troughs due to short-term fluctuations in economic activity.</p>
<p>Any of the three measures can be used, but trend or seasonally adjusted employment are typically more relevant when it comes to economic policy-making. So in this FactCheck, I’ll look at the trend data.</p>
<p>These show that for the 12 months from June 2017 to the end of May 2018, the number of people employed in Australia increased by 277,300. </p>
<p>If we look at the last financial year for which we have complete data, ending June 2017, trend employment increased by 251,500 people.</p>
<p>And if we look at the last completed calendar year – 2017 – then the increase in employment amounts to 383,000. </p>
<p>To count “more than a million jobs”, we need to look back around four or five years.</p>
<p>Trend employment data show an increase of one million people employed between June 2014 and May 2018, and looking a little further back, between September 2011 and June 2017.</p>
<p>In terms of whether the Coalition “delivered” these jobs, it’s important to remember that government policy is only one of many factors that determine employment dynamics in a given period of time. Changes in employment levels are never solely due to the efforts of any one government.</p>
<p>Other factors that influence employment levels include (and are certainly not limited to):</p>
<ul>
<li>federal policies</li>
<li>economic conditions in trading partner countries</li>
<li>changes in the international price of commodities, and</li>
<li>variations in the level of the interest rate and/or the exchange rate.</li>
</ul>
<p>It’s difficult to establish with certainty the relative contribution to employment growth of each of these factors.</p>
<h2>How many businesses started and closed?</h2>
<p>To test these claims, we can look to the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8165.0">Australian Bureau of Statistics Business Register</a>. The register provides a count of actively trading Australian businesses, excluding those with turnover below $75,000 that have not registered for GST. </p>
<p>In the 2016-17 financial year – the last full year of data under this Coalition government – 328,205 new business were registered and 261,450 existing businesses were closed.</p>
<p>This leaves us with a net increase of 66,755 businesses – in line with the “65,000 or so” quoted by Henderson.</p>
<p>Labor’s last term in government ended in September 2013. In the 2012-13 financial year, 239,229 new businesses were registered and 300,843 existing businesses were closed.</p>
<p>The net balance was a loss of 61,614 businesses. Again, this figure is in line with Henderson’s statement. </p>
<p>The annual turnover rate (the sum of exits and entries in proportion to total business) between 2007 and 2017 was around 30%. </p>
<p>It appears that that the annual balance between business entrants and exits is correlated with the economic cycle. That is – the more severe economic contractions are associated with higher exits, and lower entries. <strong>– Fabrizio Carmignani</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The conclusions in this FactCheck are correct. </p>
<p>I would have used employment changes from the same month in the previous year.</p>
<p>The practice of politicians to claim that they have “delivered” the change in total employment over a period is erroneous.</p>
<p>Isolating the contribution of government policy to employment growth is a much more complex exercise. <strong>– Tim Robinson</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99378/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrizio Carmignani has received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the estimation of the piecewise continuous linear model and its macroeconomic applications.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>In addition to the jobs claim, Liberal MP Sarah Henderson said 65,000 new businesses had started in the last year, compared to the closure of 61,000 businesses in Labor’s last year. Is that right?Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/955142018-05-07T08:43:15Z2018-05-07T08:43:15ZFactCheck Q&A: do ‘about 30% of homeless people have a job’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216079/original/file-20180424-94132-176hhaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1278%2C718&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social researcher and author Rebecca Huntley, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/69G2bzYhsw8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, April 23, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>What’s incredible when you look at those numbers is about 30% - it’s hard to tell often - about 30% of those homeless people have a job.</p>
<p><strong>– Rebecca Huntley, social researcher and author, speaking on Q&A, April 23, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Inequality, class and social mobility in Australia were key issues discussed on a recent episode of Q&A.</p>
<p>Social researcher and author Rebecca Huntley noted an uptick in the idea of “the undeserving poor” in Australia – particularly where homeless people are concerned.</p>
<p>Huntley noted the perception held by some that homeless Australians are simply “not working hard enough”.</p>
<p>Challenging that narrative, Huntley said “about 30% of those homeless people have a job”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources, Huntley provided data from the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2049.0">Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2016</a> report, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in March 2018.</p>
<p>Huntley also pointed to the article: “<a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2018/04/21/the-rise-homelessness-and-hunger/15242328006116">The rise of homelessness and hunger</a>”, written by Mike Seccombe and published in The Saturday Paper, and the website of “<a href="http://www.nhc.edu.au/sessions/everybodys-home-a-national-housing-campaign/">Everybody’s Home – A National Housing Campaign</a>”.</p>
<p>Huntley added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/2049.0?OpenDocument">definition of homelessness</a> in the Census is probably broader than community perceptions about homelessness – that is, that all homeless people are sleeping rough on the streets.</p>
<p>People who are couch surfing or living in their car or living in overcrowded accommodation may well fit into this definition. They may also be working in the gig economy or getting work here and there (the double whammy of insecure work and insecure housing is quite terrible).</p>
<p>What the Census 2016 data show is that there are people with post compulsory education, with various levels of work and hours worked across all categories of people living in insecure housing arrangements.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Based on the best available data, Rebecca Huntley’s statement that “about 30% of … homeless people have a job” is correct. </p>
<p>According to Census 2016 data, about 30% of people who were recorded as being homeless on Census night (using the Australian Bureau of Statistics definition of homeless) were also recorded as being in the work force.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What does it mean to be ‘homeless’?</h2>
<p>When we talk about “homelessness”, many of us would think about people “sleeping rough” on the street. This is arguably the most severe and literal form of homelessness. But the state of being homeless is more complex than that. </p>
<p>Under the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2049.0Appendix12016?opendocument&tabname=Notes&prodno=2049.0&issue=2016&num=&view=">definition</a>, a person can be considered homeless if their current living arrangement:</p>
<ul>
<li>is in a dwelling that is inadequate</li>
<li>has no tenure, or if their initial tenure is short and not extendable, or</li>
<li>does not allow them to have control of, and access to space for social relations.</li>
</ul>
<p>The ABS presents its estimates of homelessness using these groupings: </p>
<ul>
<li>People living in improvised dwellings, tents or sleeping out</li>
<li>People in supported accommodation for the homeless</li>
<li>People staying temporarily with other households</li>
<li>People living in boarding houses</li>
<li>People in other temporary lodgings, and</li>
<li>People living in “severely” crowded dwellings.</li>
</ul>
<p>On the night of the 2016 Census, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2049.0Explanatory%20Notes12016?OpenDocument">more than 116,000 people</a> were counted as being homeless. This includes both children and adults. The estimates of the employment rate include only those age 15 and over.</p>
<p>This may be a conservative count, because some groups of people may be underenumerated (under counted) in the Census. </p>
<p>For example, the ABS <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2049.0Explanatory%20Notes12016?OpenDocument">notes</a> that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ are “more likely to be both underenumerated and over represented in the homeless population”, and that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>So called rough sleepers and people staying in supported accommodation for the homeless are also at risk of being underenumerated in the Census.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What constitutes ‘a job’?</h2>
<p>In the Census data, people are counted as being employed if they are of working age (age 15 and over) and:</p>
<ul>
<li>employed and working full-time</li>
<li>employed and working part-time, and/or</li>
<li>employed but away from work.</li>
</ul>
<p>However, not all people age 15 and over who were experiencing homelessness were counted in the Census labour force statistics. For some people, no information was recorded.</p>
<h2>Known employment rates for homeless people</h2>
<p>If we calculate the <em>known</em> employment rate for homeless people (using the ABS definition of homelessness outlined above), we find that around 30% are employed, as Rebecca Huntley said on Q&A.</p>
<p>But the employment rate among homeless people could be higher. </p>
<p>That’s because we don’t have employment information for <em>all</em> homeless people. In the Census statistics, there are large numbers of people for whom information on employment status is missing, or not stated. </p>
<p>Overall, we don’t have records of the employment status of about 18% of the total homeless population.</p>
<p>Also, many people experiencing homelessness could be in situations where they wouldn’t be expected to work. For example, full-time students or the elderly. </p>
<p>This makes 30% likely to be the lower bound.</p>
<p>If we assume that the employment rate of those with missing information is the same as those with recorded information, the employment rate would increase to 36%. If we also excluded full-time students and the elderly from these statistics, the rate would be even higher.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/papGo/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>Employment rate for people ‘sleeping rough’</h2>
<p>“Sleeping rough”, or sleeping on the street, is arguably the most severe form of homelessness. </p>
<p>People sleeping rough are the group with the highest proportion of missing information on labour force status. The <em>known</em> employment rate for people sleeping rough is 10%.</p>
<p>If about half of the people with missing information were employed, the rate would go up to 30%. My assumption for this group is that most of those people with missing information are not employed.</p>
<p>So for those sleeping rough, the employment rate is probably closer to 10-15%. </p>
<p>The employment rate for people in supported accommodation is also likely to be around 10-15%. These two groups are those usually considered when a more literal definition of homelessness is used.</p>
<p>But as outlined in this FactCheck, the state of being “homeless” is more complex and wide ranging than that. </p>
<h2>‘Journeys Home’ survey</h2>
<p>Another useful data set on homelessness and employment is the Melbourne Institute’s <a href="http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2202838/Scutella_et_al_Journeys_Home_Research_Report_W1.pdf">Journeys Home</a> survey, of which I was the Deputy Director. </p>
<p>This longitudinal survey, which began in 2011 and concluded in 2014, included 1,682 people in Australia flagged by Centrelink as either “homeless” or “at-risk of homelessness”. </p>
<p>The survey also included a group of income support recipients who were not flagged as homeless, but who had characteristics similar to those who had been homeless. </p>
<p>The overall rate of employment among all respondents was 27%. Of those who were homeless, 19% were employed. </p>
<p>In our study, however, we did not include those in overcrowded accommodation as being homeless. (These people are identified as being homeless in the Census).</p>
<p>This highlights the importance of the definition of “homelessness” used when considering the characteristics of the homeless population.</p>
<p>It’s also important to remember that just because someone isn’t employed doesn’t mean they don’t <em>want</em> to be employed, or aren’t seeking employment. Being homeless is a significant barrier to gaining – and retaining – a job. <strong>– Rosanna Scutella</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the verdict of this FactCheck that the overall rate of employment among people experiencing or being at-risk of homelessness is in the vicinity of 30%.</p>
<p>I would add that findings from <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-grim-cycle-of-homelessness-and-unemployment">my research</a> using the Journeys Home data reveal that homelessness is more strongly associated with difficulty in <em>retaining</em> employment than with finding employment. <strong>– Neha Swami</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosanna Scutella was Deputy Director of the Journeys Home study, which was funded by the Commonwealth Department of Social Security.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neha Swami 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>On Q&A, social researcher and author Rebecca Huntley said “about 30%” of homeless people have a job. Is that right?Rosanna Scutella, Senior Research Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/941022018-04-15T20:12:07Z2018-04-15T20:12:07ZFactCheck: is domestic violence the leading preventable cause of death and illness for women aged 18 to 44?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212387/original/file-20180328-109169-1q71w2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C1920%2C1264&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's not the leading cause but it is the leading contributor.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://photos.aap.com.au/search/domestic%20violence?q=%7B%22pageSize%22:25,%22pageNumber%22:22,%22Categories%22:%5B%22australian%20news%22%5D%7D">Simone Ziaziaris/AAP</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>… the leading preventable cause of death and illness for women aged 18 to 44 is violence by a partner or former partner …</p>
<p><strong>– Extract from <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/sexual-harassment-laws-in-need-of-review-20180313-p4z47x.html">an editorial</a> in The Age, March 13, 2018</strong></p>
<p>The latest available data shows that the top five causes of death, disability and illness combined for Australian women aged 15-44 years are anxiety and depression, migraine, type 2 diabetes, asthma and schizophrenia.</p>
<p>Violence (let alone the subset of family violence) doesn’t make the list.</p>
<p><strong>– Statement published on the One in Three Campaign <a href="http://www.oneinthree.com.au/misinformation/">website</a>, March 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Violence within intimate and domestic relationships in Australia is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/domestic-violence-1115">serious social problem</a> that has devastating consequences. </p>
<p>The statement that intimate partner violence or family violence is the leading preventable cause of death and illness for women aged between 15 (or 18) to 44, has been quoted by <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/sexual-harassment-laws-in-need-of-review-20180313-p4z47x.html">numerous</a> <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/gps-the-front-line-in-reporting-domestic-violence/4454916">media outlets</a> and <a href="https://honey.nine.com.au/2018/03/08/09/44/international-womens-day-ipsos-domestic-abuse-sexual-harassment">advocacy groups</a>. </p>
<p>But the One in Three Campaign, an advocacy group focused on the male victims of family violence, says these statistics are misleading.</p>
<p>Who is correct?</p>
<h2>Checking the sources</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources, a spokesperson for The Age pointed The Conversation to <a href="https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/our-work/preventing-violence-against-women">the website</a> of the Victorian health promotion agency, VicHealth.</p>
<p>A VicHealth spokesperson told The Conversation VicHealth’s 2004 report <a href="https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/search/the-health-costs-of-violence">The health costs of violence: Measuring the burden of disease caused by intimate partner violence</a> focused on Victorian women aged 15 to 44.</p>
<p>Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) did a <a href="https://anrows.org.au/resources/news/further-examination-the-burden-disease">follow-up report in 2016</a> using similar methodology, but on a national scale. The <a href="http://media.aomx.com/anrows.org.au/s3fs-public/28%2010%2016%20BOD%20Compass.pdf">ANROWS report</a> focuses on Australian women aged 18 to 44, which corresponds to The Age’s statement. </p>
<p>A spokesperson for the One in Three Campaign pointed to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/burden-of-disease-injury-australia-2003/contents/table-of-contents">Australian Burden of Disease Study 2003</a> (the current source cited on their website). The spokesperson also pointed to the more recent <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/abds-impact-and-causes-of-illness-death-2011/data">Australian Burden of Disease Study 2011</a>.</p>
<p>You can read the full response from The One in Three Campaign <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-for-a-spokesperson-for-the-one-in-three-campaign-for-a-factcheck-on-domestic-violence-statistics-94894">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The Age editorial used the words “leading preventable <em>cause</em> of death and illness for women aged 18 to 44”. This is incorrect. </p>
<p>It’s important to make a distinction between <em>cause</em> and <em>contributor</em> to death and illness.</p>
<p>If The Age editorial used the words “contributor to”, it would be correct, i.e. “leading preventable <em>contributor to</em> death and illness for women aged 18 to 44”.</p>
<p>The One in Three Campaign has correctly quoted the AIHW <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/burden-of-disease-injury-australia-2003/contents/table-of-contents">Australian Burden of Disease Study 2003</a>. But it is not accurate to say the 2003 report is the “latest available data”, as the <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/d4df9251-c4b6-452f-a877-8370b6124219/19663.pdf.aspx?inline=true">Australian Burden of Disease Study 2011</a> is the most recent data. </p>
<p>The findings, however, did not change a great deal between the 2003 and 2011 Australian Burden of Disease reports, in terms of the top causes of death, injury and illness. </p>
<p>If One in Three used the words “previous and current data shows”, and updated its reference, the claim would be correct.</p>
<p>While both of these claims are close to being correct, neither is complete. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Cause versus contributor</h2>
<p>To give the full picture of how domestic violence is related to death, injury and illness, we need to look at causes of death, injury and illness, <em>and</em> the contributors to those causes. </p>
<p>If we were talking about lung disease, for instance, we would treat that as a “cause” of illness, but we would also consider whether a person was a heavy smoker (a contributor). </p>
<p>Likewise, if we were to look at the number of people whose deaths were due to type 2 diabetes (the cause), we would be interested in knowing whether those people had an unhealthy diet (a contributor). </p>
<p>Intimate partner violence can be treated as either a cause of death, injury and illness in its own right (as a subset of violence), or a contributor to other causes, such as depression and anxiety. </p>
<p>Intimate partner violence can be a leading <em>contributor</em> to death, injury and illness among women, without being among the leading <em>causes</em>. Looking at it from one perspective alone doesn’t provide a complete picture. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-there-a-link-between-early-and-easier-access-to-violent-tv-and-domestic-violence-51461">FactCheck: is there a link between early and easier access to violent TV and domestic violence?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>One in Three: causes of illness and death</h2>
<p>The claim by the One in Three Campaign is based on the AIHW <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/burden-of-disease-injury-australia-2003/contents/table-of-contents">Australian Burden of Disease Study 2003</a>. This looks at the burden of death, injury and illness for all Australians, as well as providing breakdowns by age and sex. </p>
<p>The 2003 AIHW report is not the latest available data but the more recent <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/d4df9251-c4b6-452f-a877-8370b6124219/19663.pdf.aspx?inline=true">Australian Burden of Disease Study 2011</a> contains basically the same results, in terms of the top causes of death, injury and illness. </p>
<p>The report used a range of data sources to look at different types of death, injury and illness, and considered how each of those contributed to the total “burden of disease”. </p>
<p>The “burden of disease” is based on a calculation of the number of years lost across a specified population due to premature death and years of “healthy” life lost due to disability arising from injury or illness. These years are called “disability-adjusted life years”. </p>
<p>According to that report, intimate partner violence was not among the top causes of death for women. Homicide and violence is the 26th highest cause of death, disability and illness.</p>
<p>The One in Three Campaign talked about the top five <em>causes</em> of death, disability and illness. The illnesses they referred to were the leading causes of “disability-adjusted life years”. </p>
<p>So this claim is about intimate partner violence as a <em>cause</em> of death, injury and illness rather than as a <em>contributor</em> to other causes.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="4Q6Is" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4Q6Is/7/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>It is important to note, however, that the 2003 AIHW report also estimated the contribution of intimate partner violence to the development of burdens such as depression and anxiety. </p>
<p>The report found intimate partner violence to be a leading risk for the development of depression and anxiety. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-domestic-violence-in-australia-on-the-decline-54043">FactCheck Q&A: is domestic violence in Australia on the decline?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The Age: contributors to illness and death</h2>
<p>The Age appears to be referring to a 2016 report commissioned by the not-for-profit group <a href="https://anrows.org.au/">Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety</a> (ANROWS), which superseded the 2004 VicHealth <a href="https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/search/the-health-costs-of-violence">burden of disease</a> report. </p>
<p>The ANROWS report, <a href="http://media.aomx.com/anrows.org.au/s3fs-public/28%2010%2016%20BOD%20Compass.pdf">Examination of the burden of disease of intimate partner violence against women in 2011: Final report</a>, examined the prevalence and health impacts of intimate partner violence on Australian women. It found intimate partner violence and emotional abuse, in both cohabiting and non-cohabiting relationships:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>contributes more to the [disease] burden than any other risk factor in women aged 18-44 years, more than well known risk factors like tobacco use, high cholesterol or use of illicit drugs.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ANROWS report draws very strongly on methods and data used in the AIHW Australian Burden of Disease Study 2011, and focuses on intimate partner violence victimisation as a risk factor for death and other outcomes, such as mental and physical illness. </p>
<p>In other words, The Age claim is based on a report looking at the <em>contribution</em> of intimate partner violence to other causes of death, injury and illness – rather than as a cause in itself.</p>
<p>The report suggests intimate partner violence contributes to around 5.1% of the total “burden of disease” among women aged 18-44, making it the largest single contributor to the “burden of disease” for that group of women.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="zTqcl" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zTqcl/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The estimates reported are generally similar to other estimates (including those provided by AIHW reports) in terms of the magnitude of the burden, the diseases contributing to it and its ranking among other risk factors. </p>
<p>However, they may be slightly different due to the ANROWS report using a broad definition of intimate partner violence which includes emotional, as well as physical, abuse.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-up-to-21-fathers-dying-by-suicide-every-week-87308">FactCheck: are 'up to 21 fathers' dying by suicide every week?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Different perspectives</h2>
<p>Both claims rest on information drawn from very similar sources: the AIHW Burden of Disease Study 2011 and the previous study from 2003. Although all datasets and methods come with caveats and cautions, there is no reason to believe that those sources are inaccurate.</p>
<p>The inconsistency between the claims arises from different ways of looking at the question, and different interpretations of essentially the same data. </p>
<p>Based on the reports above, a more accurate thing to say is that although intimate partner violence is not a leading <em>cause</em> of death, injury and illness among Australian women aged 18-44, it does appear to be a leading <em>contributor</em>. – <strong>Samara MacPhedran</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the conclusions of this FactCheck. It is a balanced examination of the alternative claims about the impact of domestic violence on women’s health, and highlights the differences in the direct claims of causation, as against the more indirect claims of contribution.</p>
<p>The FactCheck also rightly highlights that the definition of domestic violence has been expanded widely to move beyond physical violence, to capture more abstract forms such as emotional, psychological and financial abuse. – <strong>Terry Goldsworthy</strong></p>
<p><em>* This article has been updated after publication to clarify the data in the first chart.</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212382/original/file-20180328-109169-1er5jzb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212382/original/file-20180328-109169-1er5jzb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212382/original/file-20180328-109169-1er5jzb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212382/original/file-20180328-109169-1er5jzb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212382/original/file-20180328-109169-1er5jzb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212382/original/file-20180328-109169-1er5jzb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212382/original/file-20180328-109169-1er5jzb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94102/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samara McPhedran receives funding from the Commonwealth of Australia through its Criminology Research Grant scheme (CRG 11/16-17).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Goldsworthy is affiliated with the Gold Coast Centre Against Sexual Violence.</span></em></p>Are claims that intimate partner violence is the leading cause of death for Australian women aged 18-44 substantiated?Samara McPhedran, Senior Research Fellow, Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/935942018-03-26T03:40:36Z2018-03-26T03:40:36ZFactCheck Q&A: are South Australia’s high electricity prices ‘the consequence’ of renewable energy policy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211112/original/file-20180320-31602-918p7m.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9JRkHDUAAH0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, March 19, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Now, the consequence of [Jay Weatherill’s] policies was that South Australians faced the highest electricity charges, the highest retail electricity charges, in the country.</p>
<p><strong>– Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher, <a href="https://youtu.be/9JRkHDUAAH0">speaking on Q&A</a>, March 19, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>During an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4805964.htm">episode of Q&A</a>, Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher said that South Australia has the “highest retail electricity charges in the country”. That statement in itself <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928">is correct</a>.</p>
<p>But Fletcher went on to say that the high prices were “the consequence” of former SA Premier Jay Weatherill’s renewable energy policies, which included the introduction of a 50% renewable energy target, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/south-australia-renewable-energy-target-reached-early/8429722">met in 2017</a>.</p>
<p>Was Fletcher right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to a request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Fletcher pointed The Conversation to the Australian Energy Market Commission’s 2017 Residential Electricity Price Trends <a href="https://www.aemc.gov.au/markets-reviews-advice/2017-residential-electricity-price-trends">report</a>, wholesale electricity price data from the Australian Energy Market Operator, and a 2017 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20report%20-%2013%20November%202017.pdf">report</a>, which stated that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the combination of significant network investment over the past decade, recent increases to gas prices, more concentrated wholesale markets, and the transition from large scale synchronous generation to variable and intermittent renewable energy resources has had a more pronounced effect on retail prices and number of offers in South Australia than any other state in the National Electricity Market.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the full response from Fletcher’s office <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokesperson-for-paul-fletcher-for-a-factcheck-on-electricity-prices-and-renewable-energy-93662">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Paul Fletcher was correct to say that South Australia has the highest retail electricity prices in Australia.</p>
<p>Current prices for the typical South Australian customer are 37.79 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh). The Australian Capital Territory has the lowest retail electricity prices in Australia, at around 23.68 c/kWh.</p>
<p>But there are many factors that affect retail electricity prices. Increasing levels of renewable energy generation is just one.</p>
<p>Other factors include network costs, gas prices, changes in supply and demand dynamics and market competition issues.</p>
<p>Therefore, Fletcher’s assertion that South Australia’s high retail electricity prices are “the consequence” of former Premier Jay Weatherill’s renewable energy policies is incorrect.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928">FactCheck: does South Australia have the 'highest energy prices' in the nation and 'the least reliable grid'?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Does South Australia have the highest retail electricity prices in the nation?</h2>
<p>First, a quick terminology reminder. “Energy” is a broad term that includes sources such as petrol, diesel, gas and renewables, among other things. “Electricity” is a specific form of energy that can be produced from many different sources.</p>
<p>The “retail electricity price” is what you’ll typically see in your home electricity bill, and is usually expressed in cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh). </p>
<p>According the Australian Energy Market <a href="https://www.aemc.gov.au/markets-reviews-advice/2017-residential-electricity-price-trends">2017 Residential Electricity Price Trends</a> report, South Australia does indeed have the highest retail prices in the nation. Current prices for the typical South Australian customer are 37.79c/kWh.</p>
<p>The lowest retail electricity prices in the country are in the Australian Capital Territory, where the typical customer pays around 23.68c/kWh. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="1BYc9" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1BYc9/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The retail electricity price includes the wholesale price of the electricity, the network costs (or the “poles and wires” that bring the electricity to your home), retailing costs, and levies related to “green schemes” (such as the renewable energy target or solar feed-in tariffs). </p>
<p>The chart below shows how the different components contributed the electricity price increase in South Australia between 2007-08 and 2015-16.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/NujQW/6/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="450"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>For many years the drivers for retail prices have been network costs – which have very little to do with renewables.</p>
<p>But over the past 18 months, there has also been a increase in <em>wholesale</em> electricity prices across the entire National Electricity Market – the interconnected power system that covers Queensland, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.</p>
<p>A range of factors have contributed to this.</p>
<p>These include the increase in gas prices, and the tightening of the supply-demand balance.</p>
<p>The closures of South Australia’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Power_Station_(South_Australia)">Northern Power Station</a> in 2016 and Victoria’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station">Hazelwood Power Station</a> have contributed to a reduction in electricity supply (capacity).</p>
<p>The ACCC is also <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20report%20-%2013%20November%202017.pdf">investigating</a> “transfer pricing” – which is when a business that’s an energy generator as well as a retailer shifts costs from one part of its business to another. </p>
<h2>Are the prices ‘the consequence’ of Weatherill’s renewable energy policy?</h2>
<p>No. Even if wholesale prices become the main driver of retail prices, it’s not accurate to place the blame squarely on renewables. </p>
<p>Increased renewable energy generation may have contributed to decisions for some power plants to close. But so would other factors – such the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-01/worksafe-notices-detail-extent-of-repairs-needed-at-hazelwood/8082318">A$400 million safety upgrade</a> required for the Hazelwood power plant to have stayed open.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, other factors such as gas prices and competition issues have also contributed to increases in wholesale electricity prices. And as shown below, these are not confined to South Australia.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Electricity futures prices for 2017–18.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ACCC 2017, Retail Electricity Pricing
Inquiry, Preliminary report (page 56)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Gas prices are particularly important in the South Australian context, which is the most gas-dependent region in the National Electricity Market. </p>
<p>In addition, the South Australian market is the <a href="https://www.aer.gov.au/publications/state-of-the-energy-market-reports/state-of-the-energy-market-may-2017">most concentrated in terms of competition</a>.</p>
<p>So, Fletcher was not correct to say that South Australia’s high electricity prices are “the consequence” of Weatherill’s renewable energy policies. </p>
<p>Indeed, a large proportion of the existing renewable investment in South Australia has been financed as a result of the federal Renewable Energy Target, introduced by the Howard government, rather than state policy. <strong>– Dylan McConnell</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the verdict.</p>
<p>The price question is not contentious. South Australia has the highest retail electricity prices in Australia.</p>
<p>But no single factor or decision is responsible for the electricity prices we endure today.</p>
<p>The prices are the result of <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-high-price-for-policy-failure-the-ten-year-story-of-spiralling-electricity-bills-89450">many different policies and pressures</a> at every step of the electricity supply chain. <strong>– David Blowers</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93594/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dylan McConnell has received funding from the AEMC's Consumer Advocacy Panel and Energy Consumers Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Blowers 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>On Q&A, Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher said South Australia’s high electricity prices were “the consequence” of Jay Weatherill’s renewable energy policies. Is that right?Dylan McConnell, Researcher at the Australian German Climate and Energy College, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/929952018-03-17T03:48:45Z2018-03-17T03:48:45ZFactCheck: is South Australia’s youth population rising or falling?<blockquote>
<p><strong>Nick Xenophon:</strong> The key issue here – and what I find most galling and emblematic of what is wrong – is we now have fewer young people in South Australia than we did 36 years ago, when our population was 400,000 fewer.</p>
<p><strong>Jay Weatherill:</strong> And Nick – you’ve done it before. You’ve said that there are fewer young people here than there were in 1982. You know what you need to do to actually reach that conclusion? </p>
<p>You take the high point in 1981 – it falls all the way to 2002. Since 2002 to now, it’s grown by 36,000.</p>
<p>Sure, it’s less than 1981-82 now, but you have to ignore the fact that, under the entire life of this government, it has actually grown, the number of young people has grown.</p>
<p><strong>– SA Best leader Nick Xenophon and Premier Jay Weatherill, speaking at the <a href="https://iview.abc.net.au/programs/sa-votes-leaders-debate/NS1806S001S00">SA Votes: Leaders’ Debate</a>, Adelaide, March 5, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a leaders’ debate ahead of the South Australian election, Premier Jay Weatherill and SA Best leader Nick Xenophon disagreed over the extent to which young people were leaving the state in search of better opportunities. </p>
<p>Xenophon claimed that “we now have fewer young people in South Australia than we did 36 years ago, when our population was 400,000 fewer”. </p>
<p>Weatherill agreed that there are fewer young people in South Australia now than there were in 1981-82, but said that in quoting that figure, Xenophon had ignored “the fact that, under the entire life of this [Labor] government … the number of young people has grown”.</p>
<p>Were the leaders right? And what’s behind these trends?</p>
<h2>Checking the sources</h2>
<p>In response to a request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Xenophon pointed The Conversation to the 2017 Deloitte report <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/future-of-cities/deloitte-future-of-cities-make-it-adelaide-280717.pdf">Shaping Future Cities: Make it big Adelaide</a>, which states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fewer people aged between 15 and 34 live in South Australia today than in the mid-1980s, despite the fact that the population has increased by around 340,000 people in that time.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The claim Xenophon made during the debate echoed a quote from an <a href="https://sabest.org.au/state-policies/growing-sa/">SA Best policy document</a>, which states that there are “fewer young people – 18-to-34 year olds – living in South Australia today than 35 years ago”, and that this is “emblematic of the state’s decline”. So we’ll take 18-34 as Xenophon’s reference point. </p>
<p>A spokesperson for Jay Weatherill referred The Conversation to a <a href="https://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/docs/issues-papers/saces-economic-issues-49.pdf">2018 report</a> from the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, and pointed to Australian Bureau of Statistics data showing that in the 0-24 age group, there was a decrease of 53,395 people between 1982 and 2002, followed by an <em>increase</em> of 36,742 people between 2002 (when Labor was returned to office under) and June 2017.</p>
<p>You can read the full response from Weatherill’s spokesperson <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokesperson-for-jay-weatherill-for-a-factcheck-on-young-people-in-south-australia-93431">here</a>. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>During a South Australian leaders’ debate, SA Best leader Nick Xenophon and Premier Jay Weatherill provided different narratives about youth population trends. </p>
<p>Xenophon said “we now have fewer young people in South Australia than we did 36 years ago, when our population was 400,000 fewer” – a statistic he said was “emblematic” of employment issues in the state.</p>
<p>Both leaders used different definitions of “young people”.</p>
<p>Using SA Best’s own definition, Xenophon was incorrect. There were more people aged 18 to 34 in South Australia in 1982 than today. However, based on Weatherill’s definition (people 0 to 24 years), and another relevant definition (people 15 to 24 years), Xenophon’s statement is correct.</p>
<p>Weatherill was correct to say that since 2002, “under the entire life of this [Labor] government … the <em>number</em> of young people has grown”. </p>
<p>The <em>proportion</em> of young people in South Australia’s total population (across all three definitions) has declined since the early 1980s, but the decline has slowed since 2002.</p>
<p>However, none of the numbers are a simple reflection of the failure or success of government policies. There are also a number of longer term economic and social trends at play.</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<h2>How do we define ‘young people’?</h2>
<p>There’s no single definition of “young people” – and as you would expect, different definitions provide different outcomes.</p>
<p>During the campaign, the relevant policy document from Xenophon’s SA Best party <a href="https://sabest.org.au/state-policies/growing-sa/">described</a> “young people” as being between the ages of <a href="https://sabest.org.au/state-policies/growing-sa/">18 and 34</a>.</p>
<p>Weatherill used a definition of young people as those aged between 0 and 24. (Keeping in mind that young people aged 0-17 are unlikely to leave the state of their own accord).</p>
<p>Each leader chose to highlight the numbers that best supported their own narrative.</p>
<p>Another way of examining this issue is to look at young people aged 15-24.</p>
<p>This is an age when many young people become independent, and may move away from South Australia to finish their education or find employment. </p>
<p>So here are the age ranges we’ll be looking at:</p>
<ul>
<li>0-24 year olds (Weatherill’s definition)</li>
<li>15-24 year olds (highly mobile demographic), and </li>
<li>18-34 year olds (Xenophon’s definition).</li>
</ul>
<h2>Did the leaders quote their numbers correctly?</h2>
<p>Xenophon said “we now have fewer young people in South Australia than we did 36 years ago, when our population was 400,000 fewer”.</p>
<p>According to Census data, South Australia’s population in 1981 was 1,285,042. In 2016, the Census recorded 1,676,653 people – a difference of 391,611. </p>
<p>Given that Xenophon was speaking in a live debate, rounding this number up to 400,000 is understandable. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dGmJG/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Ci9C6/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>In 1982, there were around 378,000 people aged 18-34 in South Australia, compared to just over 390,000 in 2017. In terms of <em>raw numbers</em>, that’s an increase of around 12,000 people. So on those calculations (using his own definition), Xenophon was incorrect.</p>
<p>However, based on the numbers for 0 to 24 year olds (Weatherill’s definition), and 15 to 24 year olds, Xenophon’s statement is correct.</p>
<p>The <em>proportion</em> of 18-34 year olds also fell from around 28% of the total population in 1982, to around about 23% in 2017.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4bzZh/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<h2>Do Weatherill’s numbers stack up?</h2>
<p>Weatherill pointed to 1981 as being a “high point” in youth population in South Australia. </p>
<p>It’s true that in the early 1980s, youth population numbers and youth as a proportion of the total population were higher.</p>
<p>It’s also true that the <em>raw numbers</em> of young people in South Australia then declined until the early 2000s. As the first chart in this FactCheck shows, after 2002 there was growth in the numbers of young people across all three definitions.</p>
<p>(Labor was returned to office in 2002, led by Mike Rann. Weatherill became premier in 2011.)</p>
<p>So, in terms of raw population numbers, Weatherill was correct to say that “under the entire life of this government … the number of young people has grown”.</p>
<p>Using Weatherill’s own definition (0-24 year olds), there was an increase of 36,742 people (in line with his original quote of 36,000). </p>
<p>The <em>proportion</em> of young people across all three definitions has declined since the early 1980s (though that decline has slowed since 2002).</p>
<p>Interestingly, as the chart shows, the decline in the proportion of 0-24 year olds has been greater than the proportions of the 15-24 and 18-34 cohorts, which have stayed relatively static under the four terms of the Labor government.</p>
<p>This is where the numbers tell us a new story – the biggest decline has been in the proportion of younger children. This suggests that <em>falling fertility rates</em> may have been a driver. </p>
<p>As you can see from the chart below, total fertility rates in South Australia did fall between 2008 and 2016.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/lINMQ/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>What’s driving these trends?</h2>
<p>The leaders were discussing these numbers in the context of the viability of South Australia as a place where young people can find work and affordable housing, and preventing the so-called “brain drain” that occurs when young people leave the state in search of opportunities elsewhere. </p>
<p>During the debate, Xenophon (and SA Liberal leader Steven Marshall) painted a picture of increasing numbers of young people leaving South Australia, while Weatherill told the story of youth population growth “under the entire life of this [Labor] government”. </p>
<p>None of the numbers are a simple reflection of the failure or success of government policies that may help to retain youth populations. There are larger historical trends at play.</p>
<h2>Understanding the ‘Baby Boomer’ effect</h2>
<p>We cannot fully understand why South Australia had more young people in the 1980s and 1990s than it does today without looking back to the postwar period of 1946 to 1964 – the years when the “Baby Boomer” generation was born. </p>
<p>The baby boom was particularly pronounced in South Australia, and <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/128776/sub034-labour-mobility-attachment.pdf">coincided with</a> a strong manufacturing sector that attracted young people from other states, and migrants during a period of high immigration rates (migrants also tend to be young).</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YGbv5/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>This convergence meant that the early 1980s was a unique time in South Australian population trends.</p>
<p>The first wave of the Baby Boomers (born in the late 1940s and early 1950s) were having children, and those children would have been counted in the 1981 Census. <em>At the same time</em>, the <em>late</em> cohort of Baby Boomers (those born in the late 1950s and 1960s) would still have been included in the 20-24 year old Census cohort. </p>
<p>This was followed by a “baby bust”, or falling fertility rate. From a peak in the early 1960s, <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/128776/sub034-labour-mobility-attachment.pdf">family sizes declined</a>, reflecting national trends. </p>
<h2>Economic factors are also at play</h2>
<p>A number of economic events that took place in the early 1990s also had an impact on South Australia’s population profile. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/docs/issues-papers/saces-economic-issues-49.pdf">2018 report</a> published by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES) noted that, in addition to the national recession, South Australia was affected by:</p>
<ul>
<li>the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Bank_of_South_Australia">collapse of State Bank</a> in 1991 </li>
<li>the loss of headquartered companies around the same time, and</li>
<li>the loss of “mass manufacturing” employment, which began in the 1980s and accelerated in the early 1990s.</li>
</ul>
<p>The SACES report found that between 1993-94 and 2001-02, South Australia’s population growth was affected by “sharply reduced overseas immigration and increased outward migration to interstate”. The authors added that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The dominant cohorts of those who left South Australia were young people and young families. </p>
<p>They did not return and they married and/or had children adding to other states’ younger aged profile while depleting our own.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It would be interesting to see how the numbers of international students in South Australia affect the composition of youth populations. People on student visas who are residents of South Australia are captured in Census data, but the data we need to properly analyse this factor are not readily available. <strong>– Helen Barrie</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The author offers a sound consideration of the available evidence.</p>
<p>The proportion of young people in South Australia has declined <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Jun%202017?OpenDocument">since the early 1980s</a> – whether defined as those aged 0-24, 15-24, or 18-34 years.</p>
<p>Despite the decline in the proportion of young people, <a href="https://theconversation.com/bloom-and-boom-how-babies-and-migrants-have-contributed-to-australias-population-growth-78097">population momentum</a> means that the South Australian population is still growing, albeit not as strongly as the Australian population overall. <strong>– Liz Allen</strong></p>
<p><em>The Conversation thanks Liz Allen for providing the data used to create the charts in this FactCheck.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>The Conversation thanks <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversation-is-fact-checking-the-south-australian-election-and-we-want-to-hear-from-you-92809">The University of South Australia</a> for supporting our FactCheck team during the South Australian election.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92995/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Barrie receives funding from Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Health (Federal) and Office for the Ageing (SA). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liz Allen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a South Australian leaders’ debate, Jay Weatherill and Nick Xenophon disagreed over the extent to which young people are leaving the state in search of better opportunities. We asked the experts.Helen Barrie, Deputy Director of the Australian Migration and Population Research Centre, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/929282018-03-13T10:33:48Z2018-03-13T10:33:48ZFactCheck: does South Australia have the ‘highest energy prices’ in the nation and ‘the least reliable grid’?<blockquote>
<p>Look, this is probably the single most important issue to most households in South Australia — what they’ve been left with now are the highest energy prices in Australia — some say in the world — and the least reliable grid.</p>
<p>And it’s all because this government decided we had to go headlong into intermittent renewable energy without the baseload to support that transition.</p>
<p><strong>– SA Liberal Party leader Steven Marshall, speaking at the <a href="http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/sa-votes-leaders-debate/NS1806S001S00">SA Votes: Leaders’ Debate</a>, Adelaide, March 5, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Electricity prices and the reliability of South Australia’s energy grid will be key issues for voters in this Saturday’s state election. </p>
<p>During a public leaders’ debate, SA Liberal Party leader Steven Marshall claimed that, under the Weatherill Labor government, South Australians had been left with “the highest energy prices in Australia – some say in the world – and the least reliable grid”.</p>
<p>Marshall said this was “all because this [Labor] government decided we had to go headlong into intermittent renewable energy without the baseload to support that transition”.</p>
<p>Let’s look at the evidence.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>A spokesperson for Marshall told The Conversation that when the opposition leader said energy prices, he was referring to retail electricity prices.</p>
<p>To support Marshall’s statement, the spokesperson provided The Conversation with <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/45/ESOO_2017_AEMO20180326-22189-ni1kvl.PDF?1522072784">two</a> <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/46/SA_System_Strength_201720180326-22189-lnq050.pdf?1522072786">2017 documents</a> from the Australian Energy Market Operator, one 2015 document from the <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/47/AER_State_of_the_energy_market20180326-22189-3tnyfb.pdf?1522072788">Australian Energy Regulator</a>, <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/48/20170609-Electricity-1July2016SAElectricityPriceIncreases-AdviceToTreasu.._20180326-22189-16wvsmj.pdf?1522072790">a letter</a> from the Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA) to the SA Minister for Energy Tom Koutsantonis, and a <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/49/highest_prices_AFR20180326-22189-lq1iyd.PDF?1522072792">2017 article</a> from the Australian Financial Review.</p>
<p>Regarding the reliability of South Australia’s grid, the spokesperson said the Australian Energy Market Operator’s <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/45/ESOO_2017_AEMO20180326-22189-ni1kvl.PDF?1522072784">Electricity Statement of Opportunities</a> shows that “in 2017-18 South Australia has the highest percentage of unserved energy at 0.0025%”, adding that “the reliability standard is 0.0020%”. </p>
<p>You can read the full response from Marshall’s office <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-steven-marshall-for-a-factcheck-on-electricity-prices-in-south-australia-93131">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>SA Liberal Party leader Steven Marshall said South Australia has “the highest energy prices in Australia — some say in the world”.</p>
<p>It’s true that South Australia has the highest retail electricity prices in Australia (although not in the world). </p>
<p>Marshall also said South Australia has the “the least reliable grid”. </p>
<p>In the energy industry, the word “reliability” means having enough energy generation capacity and inter-regional network capacity to supply customers.</p>
<p>The Australian Energy Market Operator is currently preparing estimates of unserved energy (the measure of reliability) for 2016-17. It is possible that there will be unserved energy for South Australia over this period.</p>
<p>However, it’s far from clear that South Australia would have had the highest level of unserved energy in the National Electricity Market.</p>
<p>People in South Australia do experience interruptions to their electricity supply. </p>
<p>But more than 97% of these are due to distribution outages (caused by things like trees falling on power lines) and are unrelated to the source of electricity – renewable or otherwise – flowing through the power lines.</p>
<p>There are many factors that affect electricity prices, grid reliability and power outages. Increasing levels of renewable energy generation is one factor. </p>
<p>Therefore, Marshall’s assertion that these outcomes are “all because this [Labor] government decided we had to go headlong into intermittent renewable energy without the baseload to support that transition” is incorrect.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Responding to the sources</h2>
<p>The sources provided by Marshall’s spokesperson are from reputable government agencies. However, it’s far from clear that the sources support the conclusions Marshall drew in the leaders’ debate. </p>
<p>For example, the spokesperson cited an Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) report stating that South Australia would breach the regulator’s reliability standard in 2017-18.</p>
<p>But this is a projection, and doesn’t include some measures that have already been taken to ensure that the grid is reliable in 2017-18. </p>
<p>You can read more analysis of the sources provided by Marshall’s office <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokesperson-for-steven-marshall-for-a-factcheck-on-electricity-issues-in-south-australia-93131">here</a>.</p>
<h2>‘Energy’ vs ‘electricity’ prices</h2>
<p>In making his statement, Marshall referred to “energy” prices. Energy and electricity prices are different things. Marshall’s spokesperson later told The Conversation that the MP was referring to “household electricity prices”.</p>
<p>Energy is a broad term that includes sources such as petrol, diesel, gas and renewables, among other things. Electricity is a specific form of energy that can be produced from many different sources.</p>
<p>The retail electricity price is what you’ll typically see in your home electricity bill, and is usually expressed in cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh). </p>
<h2>Does South Australia have the highest retail electricity prices in the nation?</h2>
<p>According the Australian Energy Market <a href="https://www.aemc.gov.au/markets-reviews-advice/2017-residential-electricity-price-trends">2017 Residential Electricity Price Trends</a> report, South Australia does indeed have the highest retail prices in the nation. Current prices for the typical SA customer are 37.79c/kWh.</p>
<p>According to that report, the Australian Capital Territory has the lowest retail electricity prices in Australia, at around 23.68 c/kWh.</p>
<p>The retail electricity price includes the wholesale price of the electricity, the network costs (or the “poles and wires” that bring the electricity to your home), retailing costs, and levies related to “green schemes” (such as the renewable energy target or solar feed-in tariffs). </p>
<p>The chart below shows how the different components contributed the electricity price increase in South Australia between 2007-08 and 2015-16.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/NujQW/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="450"></iframe>
<p>For many years the drivers for retail prices have been network costs – which have very little to do with renewables.</p>
<p>But over the past 18 months, there has also been a increase in <em>wholesale</em> electricity prices across the entire National Electricity Market. A range of factors have contributed to this. These include the increase in gas prices, and the tightening of the supply-demand balance.</p>
<p>The closures of South Australia’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Power_Station_(South_Australia)">Northern Power Station</a> in 2016 and Victoria’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station">Hazelwood Power Station</a> have contributed to a reduction in electricity supply (capacity).</p>
<p>The ACCC is also <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20report%20-%2013%20November%202017.pdf">investigating</a> “transfer pricing” – which is when a business that’s an energy generator as well as a retailer shifts costs from one part of its business to another. </p>
<p>But as I’ll explain below, even if wholesale prices become the main driver of retail prices, it’s not accurate to place the blame squarely on renewables.</p>
<h2>Does South Australia have the highest retail electricity prices in the world?</h2>
<p>Because of differences in tax structures and energy systems, it’s no simple matter to compare energy and electricity prices between countries. </p>
<p>A 2017 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20report%20-%2013%20November%202017.pdf">compared retail electricity prices</a> among countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).</p>
<p>Australian prices were in the lower end of the range, but above the OECD total. While SA prices are above the Australian national average, they would still not be the most expensive in the OECD on a <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-australians-paying-twice-as-much-for-electricity-as-americans-69980">purchasing power parity</a> basis. </p>
<h2>Does South Australia have the ‘least reliable grid’?</h2>
<p>In the context of energy supply, the word “reliable” will mean different things to different people. </p>
<p>The Australian Energy Market Commission defines “reliability” as having sufficient generation, demand side response, and interconnector capacity in the system to generate and transport electricity to meet consumer demand.</p>
<p>Under this definition, the National Energy Market meets a <a href="https://www.aemc.gov.au/markets-reviews-advice/reliability-standard-and-settings-review-2018">reliability standard</a> as long as the maximum expected amount of “unserved energy” in any region doesn’t exceed 0.002% of the region’s annual energy consumption.</p>
<p>“Unserved energy” means the amount of customer demand that can’t be supplied within a region of the National Electricity Market, <em>specifically</em> due to a shortage of generation or interconnector capacity.</p>
<p>Marshall’s office did refer The Conversation to the AEMO’s <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/45/ESOO_2017_AEMO20180326-22189-ni1kvl.PDF?1522072784">Electricity Statement of Opportunities</a>, which predicts South Australia’s unserved energy over 2017-18 at 0.0025%, just above the reliability standard.</p>
<p>However, and crucially, these projections do not include the new state-owned diesel generators (which can provide up to 276 megawatts) <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-steven-marshall-for-a-factcheck-on-electricity-prices-in-south-australia-93131">among other things</a>. And these projections are made in order for the market to respond, and prevent the shortfall from occurring.</p>
<p>Between 2010-11 and 2015-16, the amount of unserved energy in the National Electricity Market was zero. </p>
<p>AEMO is currently preparing estimates of unserved energy for 2016-17. It is possible that there will be unserved energy for South Australia over this period.</p>
<p>However, it’s far from clear that South Australia would have had the highest level of unserved energy.</p>
<p>In fact, AEMO directed more <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/media/Files/About%20the%20industry/Fact%20sheets/AEMO_FactSheet_LoadShedding_2015.pdf">load-shedding</a> in New South Wales than South Australia on proportional basis. If this load-shedding were to be considered unserved energy, then New South Wales may technically have been less reliable.</p>
<h2>Then why has South Australia had so many blackouts?</h2>
<p>The technical definition above might not be of much comfort to South Australians experiencing power outages.</p>
<p>The average South Australian experienced <a href="https://www.aer.gov.au/networks-pipelines/network-performance/sa-power-networks-network-information-rin-responses">970 cumulative minutes of blackout in 2016-17</a>. This was extraordinarily high due to the statewide blackouts in September 2016 caused by extreme weather. In 2015-16, the average total was <a href="https://www.aer.gov.au/networks-pipelines/network-performance/sa-power-networks-network-information-rin-responses">173 minutes</a>. </p>
<p>But across the National Electricity Market the vast majority of these – over 97% – are due to distribution outages, which can be caused by anything from trees falling on power lines to “<a href="https://www.sapowernetworks.com.au/centric/customers/power_outages_information/high_voltage_interruptions_and_causes.jsp">possum flashovers</a>”. These occur regardless of the source of electricity flowing through the power lines.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209478/original/file-20180308-146675-yz0t0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209478/original/file-20180308-146675-yz0t0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209478/original/file-20180308-146675-yz0t0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209478/original/file-20180308-146675-yz0t0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209478/original/file-20180308-146675-yz0t0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209478/original/file-20180308-146675-yz0t0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209478/original/file-20180308-146675-yz0t0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sources of supply interruptions in the NEM: 2007-08 to 2015-16.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AEMC 2017, Reliability Frameworks Review, Interim Report (page 54)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>South Australia may have the highest number of supply interruptions, but this is essentially unrelated to electricity supply mix. </p>
<h2>Is this ‘all because’ of state Labor policy?</h2>
<p>No. Even if wholesale prices become the main driver of retail prices, it’s not accurate to place the blame squarely on renewables. </p>
<p>Increased renewable energy generation may have contributed to decisions for some power plants to close. But so would other factors – such the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-01/worksafe-notices-detail-extent-of-repairs-needed-at-hazelwood/8082318">A$400 million safety upgrade</a> required for the Hazelwood power plant to have stayed open.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, other factors such as gas prices and competition issues have also contributed to increases in wholesale electricity prices. And as shown below, these are not confined to South Australia.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Electricity futures prices for 2017–18.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ACCC 2017, Retail Electricity Pricing
Inquiry, Preliminary report (page 56)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gas prices are particularly important in the South Australian context, which is the most gas-dependent region in the National Electricity Market. </p>
<p>In addition, the SA market is the <a href="https://www.aer.gov.au/publications/state-of-the-energy-market-reports/state-of-the-energy-market-may-2017">most concentrated in terms of competition</a>.</p>
<p>In this sense, Marshall was not correct to say that price increases are “all because this [Labor] government decided we had to go headlong into intermittent renewable energy without the baseload to support that transition”. </p>
<p>Indeed, a large proportion of the existing renewable investment in South Australia has been financed as a result of the federal Renewable Energy Target, introduced by the Howard government, rather than state policy. <strong>– Dylan McConnell</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I broadly agree with the verdict.</p>
<p>The price question is not contentious. South Australia has the highest retail electricity prices in Australia – but not in the world.</p>
<p>An argument could be made for South Australia being the least reliable system in the National Energy Market – if you look beyond the technical definition. A series of power losses and near misses in 2016-17 clearly raise questions for SA residents.</p>
<p>But, as the author rightly points out, the vast majority of these were caused by storms and other technical issues – not by renewables. <strong>– David Blowers</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>The Conversation is fact-checking the South Australian election. If you see a ‘fact’ you’d like checked, let us know by sending a note via <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>, <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>The Conversation thanks <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversation-is-fact-checking-the-south-australian-election-and-we-want-to-hear-from-you-92809">The University of South Australia</a> for its support.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92928/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dylan McConnell has received funding from the AEMC's Consumer Advocacy Panel and Energy Consumers Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Blowers 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>SA Liberal Party leader Steven Marshall said that state Labor policy had left South Australians with ‘the highest energy prices in Australia’ and ‘the least reliable grid’. Is that right?Dylan McConnell, Researcher at the Australian German Climate and Energy College, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/931892018-03-13T10:33:18Z2018-03-13T10:33:18ZFactCheck: would pokies reform in South Australia wipe out ‘many’ of 26,000 jobs?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209872/original/file-20180312-30994-1tzmw8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C3%2C1017%2C706&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Australian Hotels Association (South Australia) has campaigned against the SA Best party's proposed poker machine reforms.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/threthny/4853564182/in/photolist-8oTMx5-5QFRFa-4wy4pE-bA8vTo-bD7Z7u-4wy3QQ-9BUVPQ-6wLx96-KcQZ4j-4wy4tG-8sHLLK-AWggWg-4wtUrH-4EStJF-4NA64S-8j1Nea-8ypaEx-7DTtwD-asQgRY-7Zi8H3-brw3CQ-asQgTm-p8WtE-p8TF8-p8JR3-p8KL9-p8JkF-4ESu6c-4wy5f3-dMW9LX-4wy5by-8Fdwbz-6ezmJt-4wtTtg-4wy3M5-nepi4-8kr4kt-9bZVNf-4wtUki-BTuBzv-4wy4cU-7snQNm-8J8PhA-fr6Gnu-Kf9kF5-JjtovB-Ki4J3k-4wy48q-4wtT8z-4wtTMB">Threthny/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>This plan will decimate hotels across South Australia, wiping out many of the 26,000 jobs it directly creates.</p>
<p><strong>Australian Hotels Association (South Australia) chief executive Ian Horne, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/19/sa-best-gambling-policy-deal-maker-and-deal-breaker-nick-xenophon-says">quoted in The Guardian</a>, February 21, 2018</strong></p>
<p>… a majority of pub employees (over 26,000 in SA!) will likely lose their jobs.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/32/Lonsdale_Letter.pdf?1520471911">Letter</a> signed by the McCallum family, owners of The Lonsdale Hotel, February-March, 2018</strong> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>SA Best leader Nick Xenophon has said that if his party wins the balance of power in this Saturday’s South Australian state election, poker machine reform would be “a key issue in any negotiations” about the formation of the next government. </p>
<p>Among other reforms, Xenophon has <a href="https://sabest.org.au/state-policies/gambling-reform/">proposed</a> a reduction in the number of poker machines in some pubs by 50% over five years, and the introduction of a $1 maximum bet per spin for machines in all venues other than the Adelaide casino. </p>
<p>The South Australian branch of the Australian Hotels Association (AHA SA), led by chief executive Ian Horne, says the SA Best policy would “decimate hotels across South Australia, wiping out many of the 26,000 jobs it directly creates”. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/32/Lonsdale_Letter.pdf?1520471911">letter signed</a> and shared by the owners of one Adelaide hotel went further, saying “a majority” of 26,000 South Australian pub employees would “likely lose their jobs”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to a request for sources to support the claim made in the Lonsdale Hotel letter, Keith McCallum referred The Conversation to the AHA SA. </p>
<p>A spokesperson for the AHA SA pointed The Conversation to a <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/38/Ferrier_Hodgeson_Newsletter_February_2018.pdf?1520737924">February 2018 newsletter</a> from Ferrier Hodgson Adelaide partner David Kidman, and the <a href="http://www.nowaynick.com.au/">‘No Way Nick’ website</a>, authorised by AHA SA chief executive Ian Horne.</p>
<p>The Conversation asked the AHA spokesperson to quantify what the association meant by “many” jobs, but did not receive a response to that question.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The claim made by Australian Hotels Association of South Australia that proposed poker machine reforms would wipe out “many of the 26,000 jobs” in the South Australian hotel industry appears to be grossly exaggerated.</p>
<p>The Australian Hotels Association did not provide modelling or evidence to show how “many” jobs might be affected.</p>
<p>The number of gaming related jobs in South Australian hotels in 2015 was around 3,000. In the same year, less than 20% of the South Australian hotel industry’s revenue came from gaming. </p>
<p>The reforms proposed by SA Best aim to reduce the number of poker machines in some hotels, and reduce maximum bet limits, rather than removing the machines entirely. </p>
<p>Based on these factors, the Australian Hotels Association claim greatly overstates potential job losses.</p>
<p>In addition, at least some of the money not spent on poker machines would be spent on other recreational activities.</p>
<p>This means that potential job losses due to poker machine reforms may be partially offset by increases in employment elsewhere in the economy – or even within the same hotels.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What changes is SA Best proposing?</h2>
<p>Among a suite of reforms, the SA Best party <a href="https://sabest.org.au/state-policies/gambling-reform/">wants</a> to reduce the number of poker machines in pubs with 10 or more machines by 10% each year over the next five years. This reduction wouldn’t apply to not-for-profit community clubs or the Adelaide Casino. </p>
<p>SA Best is also proposing the introduction of a $1 maximum bet per spin and a maximum win of $500 for machines in pubs and and not-for-profit community clubs. </p>
<p>SA Best leader Nick Xenophon said these reforms would reduce the number of poker machines in South Australia from <a href="http://www.ahasa.com.au/__files/f/19639/Economic_Contribution_of_the_Hotel_Industry_in_South_Australia.pdf">around 12,000</a> to around 8,000, and reduce potential personal losses on pokies in pubs and community clubs from around $1,200 an hour to around $120 per hour.</p>
<p>The policy includes a poker machine buyback scheme, a “jobs fund” to assist affected employees, and the possibility of compensation for smaller poker machine operators.</p>
<h2>Would ‘many of 26,000 jobs’ be wiped out?</h2>
<p>First of all, let’s look at how many people work in the hotel industry in South Australia, and how many of those jobs are related to gaming. </p>
<p>This information is not available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.</p>
<p>However, in January 2016, the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies published a <a href="http://www.ahasa.com.au/__files/f/19639/Economic_Contribution_of_the_Hotel_Industry_in_South_Australia.pdf">report</a> that examined the economic contribution of the hotel industry in South Australia. </p>
<p>The report was commissioned by the AHA SA, but it adopts a sound statistical approach to measuring employment in the hotel sector.</p>
<p>According to that report, a total of 26,250 staff were employed in hotels in South Australia in 2015. Of those, 3,048 were classified as gaming staff (or 11.6% of total employment).</p>
<p>Of the 26,250 people employed across the industry, the majority were casual staff (rather than permanent or part-time staff).</p>
<p>The SA Best proposal is to reduce poker machine numbers and maximum bets in some venues, as opposed to removing pokies entirely. So it’s clear that not all 3,000 gaming staff would be at risk.</p>
<p>However, the AHA SA is arguing that reduced revenue from pokies would threaten other jobs. </p>
<p>According to the same <a href="http://www.ahasa.com.au/__files/f/19639/Economic_Contribution_of_the_Hotel_Industry_in_South_Australia.pdf">report</a>, in 2015, 17% of the South Australian hotel industry’s annual revenue came from gaming. Around 80% of revenue came from liquor sales, food and beverage sales and accommodation.</p>
<p>So even in light of reduced gaming revenue, assertions that “many” or “the majority” of 26,000 pub employees would be affected appear to be unsubstantiated. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fN5nA/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>Jobs may be shifted elsewhere</h2>
<p>To understand what might happen if Xenophon’s proposed reforms were introduced, we need to take two factors into account.</p>
<p>On the one hand, if less money is spent on poker machines, then the number of hours requested to service gaming activities decreases. This could result in less demand for labour, and hence a potential reduction in the number of those roles.</p>
<p>On the other hand, money not spent on gaming could be redirected to other recreational activities – like going to cafes, restaurants and cinemas – or to the retail sector. This would mean that new jobs would be created in other parts of the economy. </p>
<p>Spending diverted to food and beverage sales and other forms of entertainment could also see new jobs created within the same venues.</p>
<p>Another <a href="https://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/docs/the-south-australian-gambling-industry.pdf">report conducted in 2006</a> by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, commissioned by the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority, found that following the introduction of electronic gaming machines in South Australia, employment in hotels did increase. </p>
<p>However, most of this increase came at the expense of other businesses, like cafes and restaurants. This shows that there is a strong substitution effect in employment between gaming activities and other recreational activities. </p>
<p>Having been published in 2006, the exact numbers in the report are dated. But the qualitative argument is unlikely to have changed. This conclusion is also supported by <a href="https://www.socialactionresearchcentre.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Removing-poker-machines-from-hotels-and-clubs-in-Tasmania-Economic-Considerations.pdf">more recent studies</a>.</p>
<p>In summary, while some of the 3,000 gaming-related jobs in the hotel industry may be lost as a result of the proposed poker machine reforms, claims that “many” or “the majority” of 26,000 jobs would be lost are grossly exaggerated, and not supported by available evidence or existing research. <strong>– Fabrizio Carmignani</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the conclusions of this FactCheck.</p>
<p>The assertions that “a majority” or “many” of the 26,000 jobs in the South Australian hotel industry would be lost if the proposals put forward by SA Best were to be implemented are gross exaggerations.</p>
<p>They might not be quite as gross an exaggeration as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-around-5-000-jobs-at-risk-if-pokies-are-removed-from-pubs-and-clubs-in-tasmania-91149">analogous assertions</a> made in Tasmania during that state’s recent election campaign, but they are an exaggeration, nonetheless. <strong>– Saul Eslake</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>The Conversation is fact-checking the South Australian election. If you see a ‘fact’ you’d like checked, let us know by sending a note via <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>, <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>The Conversation thanks <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversation-is-fact-checking-the-south-australian-election-and-we-want-to-hear-from-you-92809">The University of South Australia</a> for its support.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you 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 <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link or a photo if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93189/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrizio Carmignani received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the estimation of the linear continuous piecewise model and its application in macroeconomics.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saul Eslake does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Australian Hotels Association of South Australia claims poker machine reforms proposed by Nick Xenophon’s SA Best party would wipe out ‘many of the 26,000’ jobs in the hotel industry. Is that right?Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.