tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/malcolm-roberts-30030/articlesMalcolm Roberts – The Conversation2017-10-29T08:50:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/863892017-10-29T08:50:48Z2017-10-29T08:50:48ZPalaszczuk must grapple with One Nation, and history, in unpredictable Queensland election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192318/original/file-20171029-13331-1rhj2ah.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Annastacia Palaszczuk is seeking a second term as premier when the state goes to the polls on November 25.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Darren England</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Queensland’s state election <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-29/queensland-election-date-set-for-november-25/9095036">has been called</a> for November 25. The outcome is, at this stage, anyone’s guess.</p>
<p>Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk cited <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/queensland/labor-dumps-controversial-mp-rick-williams-ahead-of-election-20171027-p4ywos.html">her disendorsement</a> of sitting MP Rick Williams, and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-07/bill-byrne-quits-queensland-parliament-due-to-illness/9026260">the resignation</a> for health reasons of minister Bill Byrne, as triggers for an election months before it was due.</p>
<p>Williams’ subsequent resignation from the ALP to contest his seat as an independent leaves the Labor minority government and Liberal National Party opposition both holding 41 seats in the 89-seat state parliament.</p>
<p>Polling has typically had the government <a href="http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/0bcfa7c63baa8e8a742d5efe9f71aa2b?width=1024">slightly ahead</a> in two-party-preferred terms. But narrowing poll margins and the major parties’ shrinking primary vote share point to a tight result – and potentially <a href="https://theconversation.com/hung-parliament-for-queensland-expect-more-nuance-than-chaos-37038">another hung parliament</a>.</p>
<p>In this scenario, the election “winner” could be forced into tricky negotiations with minor parties to form government. Yet <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/labor-says-no-deal-to-one-nation-coalition-after-next-state-election-20170220-gugxgi.html">Palaszczuk</a> and Opposition Leader <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-government/lnp-convention-party-votes-down-push-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-accord/news-story/a4463d0d5054b46ea926930240461443">Tim Nicholls</a> have both pledged not to govern in coalition with the likes of One Nation and Bob Katter’s Australian Party. So where will that leave the make-up of Queensland’s next government?</p>
<h2>A typical contest?</h2>
<p>On one hand, this election looks set to be a conventional state contest, fought over economic, employment and cost-of-living issues.</p>
<p>With ink still drying on the federal government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/federal-government-unveils-national-energy-guarantee-experts-react-85823">new energy policy</a>, the main parties in Queensland have all made recent announcements playing to voters’ worries of rising power bills.</p>
<p>Campaign attention is expected to focus on regional voters’ concerns – especially in the many marginal seats – over local employment opportunities and industry downturns. Memories are still fresh in and around Townsville of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-11/queensland-nickel-refinery-in-crisis-timeline/7239040">painful job losses</a> from the closure of the Yabulu nickel refinery.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, attracting votes – and Greens preferences – in the state’s southeast corner will be critical. Population pressures have given rise to transport infrastructure projects (like Brisbane’s <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/early-work-starts-on-cross-river-rail-but-it-could-still-get-dumped-20170829-p4yvm2.html">Cross River Rail</a>) and school building proposals that, in some cases, have become political footballs.</p>
<h2>Adani and voting changes add to unpredictability</h2>
<p>On the other hand, this election shapes as unpredictable and intriguing.</p>
<p>Uncertainty looms over key economic projects – principally the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-we-still-pursuing-the-adani-carmichael-mine-85100">Adani Carmichael coalmine</a> and state-federal <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-1-billion-loan-to-adani-is-ripe-for-a-high-court-challenge-85077">financing arrangements</a> for the proposal.</p>
<p>The Adani mine has dominated Queensland’s political landscape – and divided community opinion – like few other recent issues. Party positions on the mine’s approval could prove decisive in many areas.</p>
<p>Similarly, the state and federal governments’ management of the Great Barrier Reef has contributed to volatility in public sentiment.</p>
<p>This, along with the Adani proposal and the state government’s inability to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-19/queensland-parliament-tree-clearing-laws-fail-unesco-fears/7765214">reinstate tree-clearing restrictions</a>, has been an environmental sore point for Queensland’s left-dominated ALP caucus. Negative public reaction has even fed speculation that Deputy Premier Jackie Trad could <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/greens-set-to-oust-deputy-premier-jackie-trad-in-south-brisbane/news-story/440b86d94d3b79d74b7738a5f56ad6eb">face a realistic challenge</a> from the Greens in her South Brisbane seat.</p>
<p>Adding to the unpredictability is a handful of “unknowns”. These include the introduction of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-states-have-gone-that-way-but-fixed-four-year-federal-terms-are-unlikely-56674">four-year fixed parliamentary terms</a>, a redrawing of the state’s electoral map from 89 <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/qld-redistribution-2017/">to 93 seats</a>, and the reintroduction of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-21/compulsory-prefential-voting-returns-qld-parliament-passes-bill/7348172">compulsory preferential voting</a>. The latter especially makes predicting results in most electorates fraught with difficulty.</p>
<p>Even the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/extraordinary-100000-new-voters-join-electoral-roll-boosting-hopes-for-yes-campaign-20170825-gy466w.html">swelling of numbers</a> on the electoral roll (primarily of younger voters) as a result of the national same-sex marriage survey adds an unpredictable element.</p>
<h2>The One Nation question mark</h2>
<p>On top of all this is the presence of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.</p>
<p>Since <a href="https://theconversation.com/defiant-hanson-will-test-a-coalition-government-61985">bursting back</a> onto the political stage at last year’s federal election, One Nation’s popularity in its “home” state has again seen the major parties in Queensland and federally jumping at shadows.</p>
<p>It did not go unnoticed when Pauline Hanson <a href="https://www.qt.com.au/news/hanson-gets-show-society-project-started-with-89-m/3232818/">recently announced</a> federal-government-funded projects in Ipswich and elsewhere. This <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/barnaby-joyce-warns-pm-that-queensland-mps-are-on-warpath-over-favours-to-one-nation/news-story/cd2a8cda48443e39fcb92d86f1116871">reportedly prompted</a> a furious rebuke from federal Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce.</p>
<p>One Nation even enters this election defending a seat, after <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/lnp-mp-steve-dickson-defects-to-one-nation/8180502">the defection</a> of former LNP MP Steve Dickson in January this year.</p>
<p>The party’s wildcard quality was made more stark after the announcement that Malcolm Roberts – having had his Senate election ruled invalid by the High Court – <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/state-election-malcolm-roberts-hits-campaign-trail-in-ipswich/news-story/09d5241ee45764a533ee3275dc1cb374">would stand</a> in the seat of Ipswich at the state election.</p>
<p>One Nation has variously polled between 10% and 15% across Queensland, even exceeding 20% in some of the 50-plus seats in which it will field candidates.</p>
<p>Regional areas in particular, where high unemployment has fed voter dissatisfaction with the major parties at state and federal levels, is where One Nation’s presence will be felt most. Yet it is uncertain how preferences from the party’s voters will play out in different seats.</p>
<h2>What to expect in the campaign</h2>
<p>The Palaszczuk government will highlight its high-profile job-creating projects in Brisbane’s <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjj85jmipXXAhWGG5QKHRJdBkMQFggyMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fnews%2Fqueensland%2Ffuture-brisbane%2Ffuture-brisbane-3b-queens-wharf-to-supply-quarter-of-citys-new-jobs%2Fnews-story%2F54bfe588ae8e39f88cc9fc6d0b76915b&usg=AOvVaw3x-Axl-kRN27ubvfg_nXR_">Queen’s Wharf development</a> and <a href="https://www.qld.gov.au/about/newsroom/north-queensland-stadium">Townsville’s new sports stadium</a>. Recent jobs growth figures and statewide unemployment falling <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0Main+Features1Sep%202017?OpenDocument">below 6%</a> have provided the government with positive economic news.</p>
<p>The LNP will focus on government missteps, such as <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/commuters-hit-by-frequent-shutdowns-on-our-creaky-understaffed-rail-networks/news-story/7f2c2ac4eba473e65398ead429079e37">train system malfunctions</a> and ministerial blunders. It will also pursue a message of the Labor government as indecisive and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/queensland-government-review-waste-dumping-interstate/8810508">“do nothing”</a>, after ordering numerous reviews and overseeing a stubbornly high unemployment rate relative to the national average.</p>
<p>Voters will be asked whether Nicholls has done enough as opposition leader <a href="https://theconversation.com/nicholls-toppling-springborg-lays-bare-the-still-uneasy-marriage-of-queenslands-liberals-and-nationals-58993">in the last 18 months</a> to warrant a crack at the top job. </p>
<p>Labor will be keen to remind voters of Nicholls’ role as treasurer in the Newman government, particularly with the electorally poisonous public asset sale agenda and his supposed unpopularity in bush areas.</p>
<p>Ultimately, Palaszcuk will look to benefit from incumbency and her lead as preferred premier. Her Labor team will also benefit from an incumbent federal Coalition government that is dealing with the fallout from High Court rulings <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-high-court-sticks-to-the-letter-of-the-law-on-the-citizenship-seven-85324">that ousted</a> the Nationals’ leader and deputy from parliament. </p>
<p>History may be against Palaszczuk, though: she would be the first female Australian state premier to defend an election win.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86389/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Chris Salisbury is a Research Associate with Queensland's TJ Ryan Foundation.</span></em></p>Whichever major party ‘wins’ the Queensland election will likely be forced into tricky negotiations with minor parties to form government.Chris Salisbury, Lecturer in Australian Studies, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/853242017-10-27T07:24:54Z2017-10-27T07:24:54ZThe High Court sticks to the letter of the law on the ‘citizenship seven’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192169/original/file-20171027-13355-8drbd7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The High Court has ruled Scott Ludlam, Larissa Waters, Fiona Nash, Barnaby Joyce and Malcolm Roberts ineligible to have stood for parliament at the 2016 election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Shutterstock/The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today, the High Court <a href="https://theconversation.com/high-court-knocks-barnaby-joyce-out-in-dual-citizenship-case-as-byelection-looms-in-new-england-86470">announced</a> the fate of the “citizenship seven”, with only senators Nick Xenophon and Matt Canavan surviving the legal ordeal. (Although the victory will be of limited relevance to Xenophon, who has in the meantime <a href="https://theconversation.com/nick-xenophon-set-to-go-back-to-where-he-came-from-85338">announced</a> his resignation from the Senate to return to state politics in South Australia).</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA//2017/45.html">the case</a>, the High Court, acting as the Court of Disputed Returns, found that four of the six senators referred to it, and the only member of the House of Representatives (Barnaby Joyce), were disqualified under Section 44 of the Constitution. With the exception of Xenophon and Canavan, it was found that the MPs had never been validly elected.</p>
<p>The court has declared all five seats vacant. The senators will be replaced through a recount from the 2016 election. The House of Representative seat of New England will go to a byelection on December 2, which Joyce will contest. </p>
<p>In the meantime, Labor has refused to offer the Coalition a pair for Joyce’s absence, and the Coalition will maintain government on a knife-edge, with 74 seats plus the support of the crossbench, and, if necessary, the Speaker’s casting vote.</p>
<p>Leaving to one side the immediate political consequences of the decision, what did the High Court say about the interpretation of the restriction on foreign citizens running for parliament in Section 44? And is this the last time we will have to think about the matter?</p>
<h2>The possible interpretations of Section 44</h2>
<p>The crux of the constitutional case was the interpretation of Section 44 of the Constitution – specifically sub-section (i). That, relevantly, provides:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any person who … is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Importantly, if a person is found to be in breach of Section 44 at the time they nominated for election, they will never have been validly elected.</p>
<p>The High Court has held that if a person has never been validly elected, their parliamentary votes during the time they purported to sit would still be valid. </p>
<p>However, <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-high-court-decides-against-ministers-with-dual-citizenship-could-their-decisions-in-office-be-challenged-82688">questions have been raised</a> as to the validity of the decisions of ministers who were not validly elected. This means there are possibly further unresolved issues around the validity of decisions made by Joyce and Fiona Nash, who, unlike Canavan, did not step down from their ministerial posts while the High Court made its determination.</p>
<p>Another important point that the court has previously clarified is that foreign citizenship is determined according to the law of the foreign state concerned.</p>
<p>None of the interpretations that were urged by the parties on the High Court were strictly literal readings of the words “citizen of a foreign power”. All the parties accepted that there had to be some level of flexibility, allowing a person who was technically a foreign citizen to nonetheless be able to run for parliament.</p>
<p>The real argument in the case, then, was how much flexibility could be read into the section.</p>
<p>The reason all the parties accepted that there had to be some flexibility in the words, was that the High Court had held as much in a 1992 decision of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/60.html">Sykes v Cleary</a>. Relevantly, this case did not concern people who were unaware of their foreign citizenship, and so did not directly address the main point that was in issue for the citizenship seven.</p>
<p>Rather, the case stood for the proposition that a person may be a dual citizen and not disqualified under Section 44 if that person has taken “reasonable steps to renounce” their foreign nationality.</p>
<p>In the course of his dissenting judgment, however, Justice Deane made a comment that the provision should really only apply to cases “where the relevant status, rights or privileges have been sought, accepted, asserted or acquiesced in by the person concerned”. In this way, Deane suggested there was a mental element to being in breach of the provision.</p>
<p>Many of the interpretations urged on the court drew on this idea. They ranged from requiring voluntary retention or acquisition of citizenship or requiring actual knowledge of foreign citizenship, to a test of whether a person was on sufficient “notice” to check their citizenship status, to a need for the person to have real allegiance to the foreign power.</p>
<h2>The High Court opts for certainty</h2>
<p>The High Court opted for an interpretation of the Constitution that promotes certainty for future cases.</p>
<p>In a (rare) unanimous decision, it adopted a reading that, as far as possible, adhered to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words. It accepted that the literal meaning would be adopted, with the only exceptions those that had been established in Sykes v Cleary.</p>
<p>The court refused to read further exceptions into the provision based on knowledge, notice or actual allegiance. It said to do so would import a worrying element of uncertainty into the provision, which would be “apt to undermine stable representative government”.</p>
<h2>The application to the ‘citizenship seven’</h2>
<p>Once the High Court resolved the interpretation of Section 44, it had to apply this interpretation to each of the citizenship seven. The only two MPs who they found <em>not</em> to have fallen foul of this strict reading were Xenophon and Canavan.</p>
<p>Xenophon had what was referred to as “British overseas citizenship”. This had been inherited through his father, who migrated from Cyprus while it was still a British territory. The court accepted that Xenophon, while technically a type of British “citizen”, held no right of entry or right of abode, and thus he did not have “citizenship” for the purposes of Section 44.</p>
<p>Canavan’s facts were more complicated. His alleged citizenship turned on a change in Italian citizenship law that occurred because of a decision of the Italian Constitutional Court when he was two. The court received expert evidence on the Italian legal position, and it ultimately accepted that they could not be satisfied that Canavan was, in fact, a citizen of Italy.</p>
<p>Each of the other senators and Joyce accepted that there were, technically, citizens of a foreign country at the time of their nomination. But they argued they had not known of this when they nominated for parliament. The court’s strict interpretation of Section 44 offered them no comfort.</p>
<h2>Is this the end of the parliament’s Section 44 dramas?</h2>
<p>In the immediate aftermath of the High Court’s decision, the government has <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-10-27/media-statement">announced</a> it will refer the decision to the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters">Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters</a> to discuss, among other things, possible amendments to Section 44.</p>
<p>The issue, it would seem, is no longer the uncertainty around whether a person is or is not disqualified. Because of the strictness of the High Court’s interpretation, all potential parliamentarians are on notice to check thoroughly their citizenship status. Part of the referral to the committee is to investigate ways to “minimise the risk of candidates being in breach of Section 44”.</p>
<p>Rather, the more fundamental issue is now whether this is a desirable state of affairs given the large numbers of Australian citizens who are dual nationals, and who may not wish to renounce their citizenship to run for parliament. Thus, we as a nation stand to lose potential parliamentarians by excluding a pool of people that is likely to grow, not diminish.</p>
<p>Further, there is another question as to whether Section 44, when interpreted in this way, is apt to achieve its purpose. The High Court accepted that the purpose of Section 44 was to ensure that MPs do not have a split allegiance or loyalty. </p>
<p>Many might argue that this purpose is still an important one. Even if that is accepted, it would seem that denial of eligibility to a dual national is a particularly blunt instrument to achieve it. On the one hand, it captures many people who do not even know they are dual citizens. On the other hand, the relatively easy step (in most cases) of renouncement means that those people who do have a split allegiance, but who want to run for parliament, have only to fulfil these formalities to do so.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85324/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabrielle Appleby receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a constitutional consultant to the Clerk of the Commonwealth House of Representatives. </span></em></p>The question will now be whether Section 44 of the Constitution needs reform to enable dual citizens who may have a lot to offer to become MPs.Gabrielle Appleby, Associate Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/845212017-09-22T05:15:29Z2017-09-22T05:15:29ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the same-sex marriage postal campaign<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qdxhW-STAWU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Michelle Grattan speaks to University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Deep Saini about the week in Australian politics. In this discussion they look at the campaigning during the same-sex marriage ballot, John Howard’s concerns about rights and religious protections, Tony Abbott’s undermining of the government on marriage and energy, and One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts’ bizarre High Court hearing on his citizenship status.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84521/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>Michelle Grattan speaks to Deep Saini about campaigning during the same-sex marriage postal ballot and Tony Abbott’s continued undermining of the government.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraPaddy Nixon, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824992017-08-15T20:18:02Z2017-08-15T20:18:02ZTo the High Court we go: six MPs under clouds in decisions that could undermine the government<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182043/original/file-20170815-12098-kghj4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce is one of five MPs caught out in the ban in dual citizens holding seats.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Two green bottles and up to four blue ones. Falling from the parliamentary wall, unless the High Court saves them from the rules about <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html">MP qualifications</a>. The six are now-resigned Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, fellow upper house members Matt Canavan (LNP) and Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), and two government members of the lower house, Barnaby Joyce and <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-is-a-high-court-challenge-about-to-bring-down-the-turnbull-government-80671">David Gillespie</a> (both Nationals).</p>
<p>At least that’s the latest count, as of Monday’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/high-court-to-rule-on-whether-barnaby-joyce-is-a-new-zealander-82438">referral</a> of Joyce to the court. I hesitate to file this piece lest the number rise again today.</p>
<h2>What happens now?</h2>
<p>First, a word on process. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-at-threat-as-labor-plans-high-court-challenge-20170706-gx6b7q.html">Gillespie’s case</a> is different from the others, in two ways. He is not a dual citizen but faces claims about his “pecuniary interest” in a shop sub-leased to Australia Post. This is the constitutional rule that knocked out Family First senator Bob Day <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2017/14.html">in April</a>. </p>
<p>Also, Gillespie is being sued by his former Labor Party rival, acting as a <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cida1975507/">“common informer”</a> – a fancy term for an officious bystander who sues to enforce the law. </p>
<p>This avenue to challenge an MP has not been used before. It’s not entirely clear the court has power to declare Gillespie “not duly elected”. (As opposed to exacting a penalty from an MP, in the princely sum of A$200, for any day they sat while under a disqualification.)</p>
<p>The other five – facing dual citizenship claims – are not being sued at all. Rather, parliament has referred their positions to the court. A few things flow from that, aside from the Commonwealth almost certainly having to cover their legal costs.</p>
<p>One is that there is no belligerent plaintiff to argue against, say, Joyce. There will just be the solicitor-general, putting legal arguments for the Commonwealth, plus lawyers for whichever of the other four MPs or their parties choose to be represented. </p>
<p>Yet Joyce, Canavan and Roberts share a desire to convince the High Court that they are legitimate, arguing on related grounds that it might be unfair to unseat them.</p>
<p>Another is that while the election is long over, the High Court says it can <em>undo</em> an election on a reference from parliament. This is due to a quirky, <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1988/22.html">30-year-old ruling</a>. I say quirky because, for more than a century, there’s been an <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/61.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Rudolphy%20)">absolutely strict</a> time limit for challenging elections.</p>
<p>With electoral fraud, unlawful campaigning, or electoral commission <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/5.html">stuff-up</a>, a court case <em>must</em> begin within <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s355.html">40 days</a> of the election. Yet the High Court says it can undo election results, long afterwards, over qualifications issues. </p>
<h2>What will the MPs argue?</h2>
<p>We must await the arguments, but it seems that Joyce, Canavan and Roberts will argue that they either took reasonable steps to renounce (Roberts) or that it was unreasonable to expect them to have known of their dual citizenship (Joyce and Canavan). In a <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/60.html">1992 case</a>, the High Court softened the law against dual citizenship to allow a defence of “reasonable steps” of renunciation. </p>
<p>Roberts was born in India (after partition) to a Welsh father. He took some steps – three emails in one day on the eve of nominating, apparently – to renounce his UK inheritance. Was that enough, given the UK has a set application <a href="https://www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality/overview">form and fee</a> for renunciation? Roberts, some time after the election, received notice that his UK citizenship was expunged.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-matt-canavan-and-the-process-of-obtaining-italian-citizenship-81622">Canavan</a>, Australian-born, asserts that his mother took out Italian citizenship on his behalf, without his knowledge. </p>
<p>Similarly, Joyce, also Australian-born, says he was blindsided to learn he had New Zealand citizenship via his NZ-born father. They want the court to inject a subjective element – actual or constructive knowledge of dual nationality – to avoid a finding that taking no steps to renounce does not meet the idea of “reasonable steps”.</p>
<p>It’s possible Joyce will also argue the details of NZ law. For example, whether it automatically bestowed citizenship on him, or whether he was merely guaranteed it if he applied to activate it.</p>
<p>The Greens pair, by resigning, seemed to admit they were disqualified. But MPs cannot declare themselves improperly elected. Only the court can do that. </p>
<p>Ludlam (New Zealand) and Waters (Canada) were each born overseas, but to Australian parents. They left their birth countries at the tender ages of three years and 11 months respectively. </p>
<p>At least in Waters’ case, her family lore (not law) was that her nationalisation as an Australian toddler terminated any Canadian status. In some countries, you lose your birth citizenship when you take out another nationality. This was the law in Australia until recently.</p>
<p>The logic of the Greens’ political position is to have their two Senate seats filled ASAP. Yet, in substance, their pair are hardly more blameworthy than the other MPs, who seek to fight on. They have hemmed themselves in, however, by resigning. </p>
<p>If the court found their disqualifications were OK, the Greens could reappoint them or any other Greens member, under the old rule for filling a “<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s15.html">casual vacancy</a>”.</p>
<p>Finally, to legal consequences. If a senator is declared “unduly elected”, the Australian Electoral Commission conducts a recount. Invariably, the next candidate in the party’s original electoral ticket inherits the seat. </p>
<p>That windfall beneficiary can keep it, or the party could cajole them to resign in favour of … the unelected MP. Because <em>all</em> of these MPs, with sufficient paperwork and knowledge, can fix up their qualifications. </p>
<p>Roberts and Waters say they’ve done that. Joyce and doubtless Canavan have that in train.</p>
<p>In a lower house seat, however, a recount would be crazy. The seat would go to the rival major party, robbing the electorate. Instead, the court effectively triggers a byelection. </p>
<p>In a worst-case scenario for Joyce (or Gillespie), he would recontest that fresh election. A lot would be at stake in New England (or Port Macquarie). But it’s hard to see the electors there treating now-ex-Kiwi Joyce as a fifth columnist.</p>
<h2>The law is an unnecessary mess</h2>
<p>All this is a law professor’s picnic. </p>
<p>Section 44, as it applies to elections, <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/entitled-to-vote-then-you-should-be-entitled-to-run/">detracts from</a>, rather than adds to, democracy. Its technicalities are a thicket, catching many a candidate. It sits oddly in a Constitution that never guaranteed a right to vote, leaving that small matter to the national parliament.</p>
<p>It’s time for reform. We inherited the dual citizenship rule, an old rule about fealty to one Crown, from our English forebears. </p>
<p>The founders struck it in stone in the Constitution. Yet state parliaments are fine with dual citizens being elected. So too is New Zealand. And, funnily enough, so nowadays is <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/">the UK</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82499/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graeme Orr has previously received funding from the ARC and in-kind assistance from the Electoral Council of Australia in relation to researching electoral law - fruits of which include the books 'Realising Democracy' 2003/Federation Press edited with George Williams and Bryan Mercurio, 'The Law of Deliberative Democracy' 2016, Routledge with Ron Levy and 'The Law of Deliberative Constitutionalism' co-edited and forthcoming with CUP).</span></em></p>The High Court ruling over the five MPs’ legitimacy to hold seats may hang on whether they took reasonable steps to renounce their non-Australian citizenships.Graeme Orr, Professor of Law, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/819932017-08-04T05:40:12Z2017-08-04T05:40:12ZAnother attack on the Bureau, but top politicians have stopped listening to climate change denial<p>Has the Australian climate change debate changed? You could be forgiven for thinking the answer is no. </p>
<p>Just this week The Australian has run a series of <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/temperatures-plunge-after-bureau-orders-weather-station-fix/news-story/9230dd914ac532fa735700ffc7799203">articles</a> attacking the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather observations. Meanwhile, the federal and Queensland governments <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-30/adani-coal-mine-back-on-track-after-royalties-agreement/8573558">continue to promote Adani’s planned coal mine</a>, despite considerable <a href="https://theconversation.com/four-environmental-reasons-why-fast-tracking-the-carmichael-coal-mine-is-a-bad-idea-67449">environmental</a> and <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/mining/westpac-rules-out-adani-carmichael-coal-loan-20170428-gvuhp8">economic</a> obstacles. And Australia’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australias-carbon-pollution-soars-government-data-shows-20170804-gxpd71.html">carbon dioxide emissions are rising again</a>. </p>
<p>So far, so familiar. But something has changed. </p>
<p>Those at the top of Australian politics are no longer debating the existence of climate change and its causes. Instead, four years after the Coalition was first elected, the big political issues are rising power prices and the electricity market. What’s happening?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009">No, the Bureau of Meteorology is not fiddling its weather data</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A few years ago, rejection of climate science was part of the Australian political mainstream. In 2013, the then prime minister Tony Abbott repeated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/oct/29/climate-change-bushfires-smoking-denial-tony-abbott">a common but flawed climate change denial argument</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We’ve had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we’ve recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic [sic] global warming.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Abbott’s statement dodges a key issue. While fires and floods have always occurred, climate change can still alter their frequency and severity. In 2013, government politicians and advisers, such as Dennis Jensen and <a href="https://theconversation.com/maurice-newman-mad-bad-or-sad-41579">Maurice Newman</a>, weren’t shy about rejecting climate science either. </p>
<p>The atmosphere is different in 2017, and I’m not just talking about <a href="https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png">CO₂ levels</a>. Tony Abbott is no longer prime minister, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-04/denis-jensen-says-media-partly-to-blame-for-preselection-dumping/7295798">Dennis Jensen lost preselection</a> and his seat, and Maurice Newman is no longer the prime minister’s business advisor. </p>
<p>Which Australian politician most vocally rejects climate science now? It isn’t the prime minister or members of the Coalition, but One Nation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-nations-malcolm-roberts-is-in-denial-about-the-facts-of-climate-change-63581">Malcolm Roberts</a>. In Australia, open rejection of human-induced climate change has moved to the political fringe. </p>
<p>Roberts has declared climate change to be a <a href="http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/14_Appendix.pdf">“fraud” and a “scam”</a>, and talked about climate records being “<a href="https://twitter.com/QandA/status/765155774234439680">manipulated by NASA</a>”. He is very much a conspiracy theorist on climate, as he is on other topics including <a href="http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/14_Appendix.pdf">banks</a>, <a href="http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/14_Appendix.pdf">John F. Kennedy</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-one-nations-malcolm-roberts-and-sovereign-citizens">citizenship</a>. His approach to evidence is frequently at odds with mainstream thought. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"765155774234439680"}"></div></p>
<p>This conspiratorial approach to climate change is turning up elsewhere too. I was startled by the author list of the Institute of Public Affairs’ new <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/climate-change-the-facts-2017/news-story/8ae132fe19c923913b6aaf7cd5654d01">climate change book</a>. Tony Heller (better known in climate circles by the <a href="https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/who-is-steven-goddard">pseudonym Steven Goddard</a>) doesn’t just believe climate change is a “<a href="https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/892422707857444864">fraud</a>” and a “<a href="https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/891611164194422784">scam</a>”, but has also <a href="https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/so-what-really-happened-at-sandy-hook/">promoted conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook school massacre</a>. This is a country mile from sober science and policy analysis. </p>
<p>So where is the Australian political mainstream? It’s not denying recent climate change and its causes, but instead is now debating the policy responses. This is exemplified by political arguments about the electricity market, power prices, and the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/energy/national-electricity-market-review">Finkel Review</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-from-debating-science-with-trolls-30514">What I learned from debating science with trolls</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While this is progress, it’s not without serious problems. The debate may have rightly moved on to policy rather than science, but arguments for “<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2014-11-12/greg-hunt-clean-coal-technology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040">clean coal</a>” power are at odds with <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf">coal’s high CO₂ emissions</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/climate/kemper-coal-mississippi-clean-coal-project.html">failure thus far of carbon capture</a>. Even power companies show little interest in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-21/solar-wind-preferred-over-govt-coal-energy-plans-by-agl-ceo/8639992">new coal-fired power plants</a> to replace <a href="https://theconversation.com/hazelwood-power-station-from-modernist-icon-to-greenhouse-pariah-75217">those that have closed</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180908/original/file-20170803-5621-wso9uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180908/original/file-20170803-5621-wso9uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180908/original/file-20170803-5621-wso9uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180908/original/file-20170803-5621-wso9uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180908/original/file-20170803-5621-wso9uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180908/original/file-20170803-5621-wso9uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180908/original/file-20170803-5621-wso9uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180908/original/file-20170803-5621-wso9uq.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 closure of the Hazelwood power station was politically controversial.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeremy Buckingham/flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>History repeating?</h2>
<p>Have those who rejected global warming and its causes changed their tune? In general, no. They still imagine that scientists are up to no good. The Australian’s latest attacks on the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) illustrate this, especially as they are markedly similar to accusations made in the same newspaper three years ago.</p>
<p>This week, the newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-opens-cold-case-on-temperature-data/news-story/c3bac520af2e81fe05d106290028b783">wrote that the BoM was “caught tampering”</a> with temperature logs, on the basis of measurements of cold temperatures on two July nights at Goulburn and Thredbo. For these nights, discrepant temperatures were in public BoM databases due to automated weather stations that stopped reporting data. The data points were <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshFrydenberg/status/890791305667674112">flagged for BoM staff to verify</a>, but in the meantime an amateur meteorologist contacted Lloyd and the Institute of Public Affairs’ <a href="https://ipa.org.au/author/jennifermarohasy">Jennifer Marohasy</a>.</p>
<p>In 2014, Lloyd <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-records-contradict-bureau-of-meteorology/news-story/25f72046a3273048ca911ac562ecc480">cast doubt on the BoM’s</a> climate record by attacking the process of “homogenisation,” with a particular emphasis on data from weather stations in Rutherglen, Amberley and Bourke. <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=FAQs">Homogenisation</a> is used to produce a continuous temperature record from measurements that may suffer from artificial discontinuities, such as in the case of weather stations that have been upgraded or moved from, say, a post office to an airport.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180905/original/file-20170803-7132-3btv6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180905/original/file-20170803-7132-3btv6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180905/original/file-20170803-7132-3btv6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180905/original/file-20170803-7132-3btv6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180905/original/file-20170803-7132-3btv6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180905/original/file-20170803-7132-3btv6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180905/original/file-20170803-7132-3btv6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180905/original/file-20170803-7132-3btv6a.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 Tuggeranong Automatic Weather Station.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bidgee/Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lloyd’s articles from this week and 2014 are beat-ups, for similar reasons. The BoM’s ACORN-SAT long-term temperature record is compiled using daily measurements from <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-and-networks">112 weather stations</a>. Even Lloyd acknowledges that those 112 stations don’t include Goulburn and Thredbo. While <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml">Rutherglen</a>, <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/station-adjustment-summary-Amberley.pdf">Amberley</a> and Bourke do contribute to ACORN-SAT, homogenisation of their data (and that of other weather stations) <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-warming-trend-unaffected-by-fiddling-with-temperature-data-37700">does little to change the warming trend measured across Australia</a>. Australia has warmed over the past century, and The Australian’s campaigns won’t change that. </p>
<p>In 2014, the government responded to The Australian’s campaign by commissioning the <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Technical-Advisory-Forum">Technical Advisory Forum</a>, which has since reviewed ACORN-SAT and found it to be a “well-maintained dataset”. Prime Minister Abbott also considered a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/government-discussed-bom-investigation-over-climate-change/6799628">taskforce to investigate BoM</a>, but was dissuaded by the then environment minister Greg Hunt. </p>
<p>How will Malcolm Turnbull’s government respond to The Australian’s retread of basically the same campaign? Perhaps that will be the acid test for whether the climate debate really has changed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. I. Brown receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and Monash University, and has developed space-related titles for Monash University's MWorld educational app.
</span></em></p>Three years ago The Australian newspaper launched a broadside at the Bureau of Meteorology. But when it did it again this week, it seemed to get less traction from the top echelons of government.Michael J. I. Brown, Associate professor, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/817102017-07-27T12:14:46Z2017-07-27T12:14:46ZGrattan on Friday: If High Court disqualifies Canavan, Joyce will be scratching for cabinet replacement<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180012/original/file-20170727-8533-1kjfdua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Legal experts are unsure what the High Court may decide on Matt Canavan.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Senate, bordering on the farcical all year, has finally descended into burlesque, with the tale of the bright young cabinet minister whose mum made him a son of her parents’ old country.</p>
<p>Before the strange case of the Nationals’ Matthew Canavan burst into public view, the Senate had already lost four of its number, under various parts of the Constitution’s Section 44, including the Greens’ two co-deputies within a week.</p>
<p>And then there’s been the media chase after One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, in pursuit of documents to back his assertion he didn’t hold British citizenship when he nominated for the Senate.</p>
<p>Canavan’s story of how he was signed up for Italian citizenship – unknown to him, he says – by his Australian-born mother of Italian heritage, is as bizarre as they come.</p>
<p>It’s anyone’s guess whether the High Court will find he’s in breach of Section 44, which rules out dual citizens standing for parliament.</p>
<p>There are differences here with the circumstances of the two Greens, who were born overseas and hadn’t quashed their other citizenship, making their ineligibility clearer cut. Neither chose to dispute the situation. </p>
<p>Legal experts are unsure what the High Court may conclude on Canavan. There are also claims and counter-claims of what one is required, or not required, to do to become Italian.</p>
<p>So, it is not surprising the government has decided to fight for Canavan, who has resigned as a minister while his parliamentary status is determined.</p>
<p>For the Nationals, the stakes are particularly high and complicated.</p>
<p>If Canavan were found ineligible to have been elected, there’d be a countback, with his replacement being Joanna Lindgren, a former senator who lost in 2016. Lindgren is a grand-niece of the late Neville Bonner, the first Indigenous person elected to federal parliament.</p>
<p>A Liberal when she was a senator, Lindgren would likely find herself in the Nationals’ partyroom.</p>
<p>Where she sat would not be her decision but that of the Queensland Liberal National Party. The two parties are merged in that state, though they’re sharp-elbowed bedfellows, who break into their separate tribes once in Canberra. It is understood the LNP would not allow the loss of Canavan to disrupt the present balance of numbers coming out of Queensland.</p>
<p>Until the court case is decided – by year’s end on the optimistic assessment – Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce is acting in Canavan’s resources and northern Australia portfolio.</p>
<p>This will overload Joyce, who already looks under strain, this week making injudicious comments about the alleged theft of water by irrigators. Even if Canavan survives, his immediate absence from cabinet is a blow to Joyce, because he provides policy heft.</p>
<p>If the case goes against Canavan, Joyce would face a dilemma in who to elevate to cabinet.</p>
<p>The most obvious choice, on seniority and experience, would be the only National in the outer ministry: Small Business Minister Michael McCormack. But McCormack is from New South Wales. The Nationals would be desperate to keep up their representation from Queensland, a vital state for them, and the Coalition generally, at the election.</p>
<p>Queenslander Keith Pitt is an assistant minister, but his critics say he’s been difficult rather than supportive in that role. Then you get to backbenchers such as senator Barry O'Sullivan, based in Toowoomba, and David Littleproud, from the regional seat of Maranoa.</p>
<p>Littleproud is spoken of as a man with a future, but is a newcomer. There are wildly opposite views on O'Sullivan, a one-time detective and later businessman, whose performances with Senate committee witnesses can resemble the tougher side of police interrogation. His critics think he should be bumped from the Senate ticket at the next opportunity; his admirers believe he could be cabinet material.</p>
<p>The High Court decision on Canavan will at least provide clarity on a more obscure aspect of the dual citizenship ban.</p>
<p>Inevitably, however, the slew of actual or potential victims of Section 44 has led to calls for constitutional change.</p>
<p>There are arguments for and against the dual citizenship prohibition but convenience should not be included. Notwithstanding the peculiar Canavan situation, surely aspiring politicians should be able to ascertain if they have a foreign citizenship.</p>
<p>On the question of substance, some argue that in a multicultural community there should not be a requirement to relinquish citizenship of another country. There is the counter argument – which I think is more compelling – that the single allegiance is a reasonable condition to impose on those responsible for making national decisions.</p>
<p>Dual citizenship could throw up perceived conflicts of interest – for example, for trade or foreign ministers.</p>
<p>Two other parts of the wide-ranging Section 44 claiming victims this year relate to having a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in an agreement with the Commonwealth, designed to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, and being “under sentence, or subject to be sentenced” for an offence carrying a year or more imprisonment.</p>
<p>The eligibility of a House of Representatives Nationals MP, David Gillespie, an assistant minister, is being challenged in the High Court by Labor on the ground of having an indirect pecuniary interest, because of a post office located within a shopping centre owned by a company in which he is a shareholder.</p>
<p>In 1977 Malcolm Fraser won a change to Section 15 of the Constitution to ensure a casual Senate vacancy is filled by a member of the same party. This followed shenanigans by a couple of conservative state governments in filling vacancies in the Whitlam government’s time.</p>
<p>That change was simple and demonstrably the right thing to do. In contrast, an attempt to alter the dual citizenship ban – and indeed any other qualification rule in Section 44 – would be more contested. That, and today’s generally negative electoral mood, would likely doom any referendum.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/axx2w-6d8662?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81710/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Even if Matt Canavan survives, his immediate absence from cabinet is a blow to Barnaby Joyce.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/783652017-05-25T12:41:32Z2017-05-25T12:41:32ZGrattan on Friday: Pauline Hanson’s strategist James Ashby can be a risky guy to have around<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170965/original/file-20170525-23232-1eg6g1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The AFP is evaluating a recording in which Pauline Hanson's adviser James Ashby suggests a a scam on taxpayers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2015 journalist Margo Kingston asked Pauline Hanson why she had James Ashby – someone with a chequered political history – working for her.</p>
<p>Kingston was the author of a 1999 book about Hanson and had also closely followed the story of Ashby, a key player in the sordid political downfall of Peter Slipper, the Liberal defector who became Julia Gillard’s Speaker.</p>
<p>“I don’t want to hear anything against him,” Hanson said very defensively of the man who has now become her trusted confidant in a close and powerful partnership.</p>
<p>But this week things turned sour for Ashby – and thus for Hanson – when he was caught, via a leaked recording, suggesting a scam on taxpayers. He proposed One Nation make money out of the Queensland election by presenting inflated receipts to the authorities. The idea wasn’t taken up, but this was a serious “please explain” moment for Ashby and his leader.</p>
<p>In a double blow to the party a staffer of Malcolm Roberts, its second Queensland senator, on Wednesday was arrested on multiple assault charges going back years. But it’s the Ashby affair – now being considered by the Australian Federal Police after a referral by Labor – that has the big potential implications.</p>
<p>Mostly, political staffers are known only to those within the beltway. Occasionally, however, they become public figures in their own right, because of their influence with their boss – Peta Credlin’s role with Tony Abbott obviously springs to mind.</p>
<p>In her first political iteration, Hanson’s right-hand man David Oldfield was mired in controversy. This time it’s Ashby. He calls a lot of the shots in the party, and has generated resentment at the grassroots level. He is the gatekeeper to her office. One observer of the party’s Senate operation says: “Pauline is the boss, but James keeps things moving on.”</p>
<p>In the current Senate, two parties based on high-profile “names” – Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) – are in pivotal positions on legislation when it is opposed by Labor and the Greens. Both parties are populist, though the NXT is centrist while One Nation is on the right, and promotes anti-Muslim sentiment.</p>
<p>So far they have operated very differently. Xenophon is the ultimate horse-trader, exacting concessions of all sorts in return for support. The government often finds itself with little choice but to say yes to demands that in other circumstances it would not countenance.</p>
<p>One Nation for the most part doesn’t have a “trading” approach and frequently tells the government early on its attitude to a particular piece of legislation. Fortunately for the Coalition it is more often than not one of support. It’s not surprising the government prefers dealing with One Nation than the NXT.</p>
<p>But it’s another matter out in the electorate, where One Nation presents a threat when voters are looking for opportunities to kick the major parties. With the Queensland election approaching, what’s happening to the One Nation vote is being keenly watched by Liberals and Nationals, and Labor too.</p>
<p>The Western Australian election was a setback for One Nation. It won three seats in the state’s upper house and its vote, looked at in the context of seats contested, was reasonable. But expectations had been raised too high, Hanson made gaffes, the campaign was shambolic, and she mismanaged her post-election narrative.</p>
<p>Given that Hanson’s base is Queensland, where populism is very strong in the regions, the state poll is regarded as a seminal test. It’s due early next year but is likely to be held before that. Depending to whom one speaks, that election could see the return of the Labor government or a change, with the One Nation winning no seats or several. At present One Nation has one seat, held by a defector from the Liberal National Party.</p>
<p>There is general agreement that One Nation won’t get a swag of seats, as happened in the 1998 Queensland election when it won 11, with nearly 23% of the vote.</p>
<p>A Galaxy Queensland poll in April had One Nation on 17%, down from 23% three months before. Other political players believe One Nation has come off the boil, but how it will trend from here remains to be seen. Nationally, it is on 9% in Newspoll.</p>
<p>Paul Williams, senior lecturer in politics at Griffith University, says there is no doubt One Nation’s support is dwindling but he still expects it will poll in double digits in the state election and predicts it will get two or three state seats, although it could be as few as one. </p>
<p>There could be another hung parliament, Williams says, and One Nation could share the balance of power. As Queensland’s is a unicameral parliament, there is no upper house for One Nation to have a shot at.</p>
<p>A significant difference between this Queensland election and 1998 is that there will be compulsory preferential voting, rather than optional preferential, which will make it harder for One Nation. </p>
<p>Federal Labor is pushing hard on Ashby. A prime motive is embarrassing the Coalition over preferences, ahead of the Queensland election, and the later federal one. The question of preferencing One Nation is always a delicate one for the conservatives. A preference deal with One Nation caused the WA Liberals more grief than gain.</p>
<p>The Queensland LNP has said it will decide its position on preferences closer to the election; it will take a pragmatic, seat-by-seat approach.</p>
<p>The horror stories related by disgruntled former One Nation members, including about candidates being bullied and forced to buy expensive campaign material, and the issues about Ashby’s behaviour are damaging for Hanson and her party. The depth of the Ashby problem will depend on what the AFP says.</p>
<p>The extent to which supporters will be alienated by the divisions and the talk of rorting is hard to judge. </p>
<p>On the one hand, they may be repelled by the revelations. </p>
<p>On the other hand, voters attracted to One Nation are often people simply wanting to hit out at the major parties, and so may take little notice of the scandals. They might just be listening to the woman who articulates their anger and grievances.</p>
<p>But if things go badly, Hanson could find herself asking the question that Kingston put to her.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/jj7pe-6b2773?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/jj7pe-6b2773?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78365/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Federal Labor is pushing hard on James Ashby. A prime motive is embarrassing the Coalition over preferences, ahead of the Queensland election, and the later federal one.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/639442016-08-16T00:01:00Z2016-08-16T00:01:00ZCould Section 18C protect ‘angry white males’ like David Leyonhjelm?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134195/original/image-20160815-13033-1qmb1qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">While there are legitimate grounds for critique of Section 18C, David Leyonhjelm’s 'test' case is not the ideal candidate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016-opinion/freespeech-fundamentalists-break-free-of-good-conscience-20160808-gqnhnw.html">highly critical opinion piece</a> published on August 8, Fairfax Media journalist Mark Kenny declared that Senator David Leyonhjelm and Senator-elect Malcolm Roberts were speaking with “angry-white-male certitude” and were “rank apologists for the resentment industry promoted by angry-white-male shock-jocks” during their recent appearance on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2016/s4514490.htm">ABC’s Insiders</a>.</p>
<p>Kenny’s comments were directed in particular at Leyonhjelm’s support for the removal of the words “offend” and “insult” from <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C</a> of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/index.html#s18c">Racial Discrimination Act</a>, and Leyonhjelm’s argument that “offence is always taken, not given” and “if you want to take offence, that’s your choice”. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C</a> makes it unlawful to do an act that is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people, because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.</p>
<p>In response to Kenny’s piece, Leyonhjelm has lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. He alleges the use of the term “angry white male” is a breach of 18C. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm believes this case will prove his point that 18C places an undue burden on free speech. He also relies on the assumption that a “white person” being able to rely on racial protection would be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/15/david-leyonhjelm-racial-discrimination-complaint-angry-white-male-fairfax-18c">viewed as absurd</a>.</p>
<p>But if Leyonhjelm’s aim is to highlight absurdity, his plan may backfire. His complaint could instead showcase the difficulty in launching a successful action under 18C, and undermine an argument in support of its repeal – that it <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/charlie-hebdo-v-18c-no-contest/news-story/ccf2a26b84386ce41ce5c32706e2ab89&memtype=anonymous">doesn’t apply to the benefit of all people equally</a>. </p>
<h2>What makes Leyonhjelm’s complaint important?</h2>
<p>Leyonhjelm’s complaint requires two preconditions: that “white” is a racial group and that, as a class of persons, “white” is capable of protection under the act. </p>
<p>There is no limitation, express or implied, that Section 18C applies only to minorities. That members of non-minority racial groups tend not to rely on its protections is perhaps indicative of their privilege and capacity to respond to racial prejudice through more effective means. </p>
<p>Whether “white” is a race is an interesting point. In Australia, “white” is often used interchangeably with terms like Caucasian, Anglo-Celtic and Anglo-Australian – generally as a marker of ancestry, rather than racial identity. </p>
<p>This is arguably an inherent weakness in Australia’s public racial discourse, although Australia is hardly <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cannot-teach-race-without-addressing-what-it-means-to-be-white-43827">alone in this respect</a>. But, if we are to classify minority groups on race, it stands to reason the majority group must also be a “race” for the purpose of 18C.</p>
<p>This complaint has been reported as the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/senator-urges-axing-of-discrimination-acts-insult-and-offend/news-story/7e865d0783673e29b2dffac9345ff4f5">“first … of its kind”</a>. While it does appear to be the first based on the term “angry white male”, it is not the first involving terms capable of being applied to a “white” person. The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HREOCA/1997/23.html">first case</a> under 18C involved consideration of the use of the terms “Poms” and “Pommies”. </p>
<h2>Case law and Section 18C</h2>
<p>While there are legitimate grounds for critique of Section 18C, Leyonhjelm’s case is not the ideal candidate.</p>
<p>The perceived issue with 18C is that the level of harm required to enliven its protection lacks a defined scope, particularly through use of the term “offend”. This has instead been left to the Human Rights Commission and the courts to interpret.</p>
<p>It is plausible, however unlikely, that the application of 18C could be broadened unacceptably in the future, particularly if the ordinary meaning of “offend” is applied. As it stands, however, for the purpose of 18C “offend” does not carry its ordinary meaning. There is a large volume of cases to evidence that fact. </p>
<p>“Offend” has necessarily been interpreted within the context of racial hatred and <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2001/1007.html">must involve conduct</a> having a: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… profound and serious effect, not likened to mere slights.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>An objective test is applied based on community standards and the perceptions of the relevant class of victim. A person <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2000/1615.html">cannot simply claim</a> they were offended. The mere feeling of offence, although considered, is not enough. </p>
<p>To adopt Leyonhjelm’s terminology, while a person might “choose” to be offended, they cannot “choose” to successfully avail themselves of 18C.</p>
<h2>Applying Section 18C to Leyonhjelm’s case</h2>
<p>If written in a “malicious manner”, or to cultivate “hatred or antipathy” beyond a “mere slight”, the words “angry white male” could conceivably fall within the ambit of Section 18C.</p>
<p>The issue here is two-fold. Does the article contain evidence of any such maliciousness or cultivation of hatred? And could the use of “angry white male” in that context cause a “profound and serious effect” on persons who identify as white males?</p>
<p>It is difficult to see how the use of “angry white male” in Kenny’s article could be construed as anything other than a “mere slight”. Arguably, it appears to be used as shorthand to mean a person in a position of privilege who believes that attempts to redress the real effects of racial prejudice are inequitable, promote victimisation and are a form of special treatment. </p>
<p>Importantly, it is not the term itself that is assessed, but the context in which it is used. In the case of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2000/1615.html">Hagan</a>, the use of the term “nigger” in the name of a grandstand was deemed not to contravene 18C, since no reasonable member of the local Aboriginal community would have found this particular use offensive.</p>
<p>However, if it could be argued that Kenny’s use of “angry white male” does reach the necessary threshold, there is no clear reason why a complaint should not be lodged. </p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>If the complaint is accepted, the Human Rights Commission will move to facilitate a conciliation session between Leyonhjelm and Kenny.</p>
<p>If the issue is not resolved, then Leyonhjelm could seek further court action. But whether Kenny could rely on a defence under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html">Section 18D</a> – fair comment made reasonably and in good faith – remains an open and valid question.</p>
<p>Leyonhjelm’s intent is to highlight the issue of using “offend” in Section 18C, but his case will likely not help his argument, despite it being entirely applicable. It will certainly be one to watch, just not for the reasons he hopes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63944/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristopher Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>David Leyonhjelm’s complaint over being called an ‘angry white male’ could showcase the difficulty in launching a successful action under Section 18C and undermine an argument in support of repeal.Kristopher Wilson, DPhil. Candidate in Cybersecurity/Law, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/637192016-08-10T20:05:10Z2016-08-10T20:05:10ZThe Galileo gambit and other stories: the three main tactics of climate denial<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133635/original/image-20160810-11853-deh1ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Galileo was right, but that doesn't mean his fans are.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Justus Sustermans/Wikimedia Commons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recently elected One Nation senator from Queensland, Malcolm Roberts, fervently rejects the established scientific fact that human greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, invoking a <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-nation-climate-denial-and-those-jewish-bankers-62176">fairly familiar trope of paranoid theories</a> to propound this belief. </p>
<p>Roberts <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk">variously claims</a> that the United Nations is trying to impose world government on us through climate policy, and that CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are corrupt institutions that, one presumes, have fabricated the <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-climate-2015-global-warming-and-el-nino-sent-records-tumbling-63511">climate extremes</a> that we increasingly observe all over the world.</p>
<p>In the world of Malcolm Roberts, these agencies are marionettes of a “cabal” of “the major banking families in the world”. Given the parallels with <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Jewish_conspiracy">certain strands of anti-Jewish sentiment</a>, it’s perhaps an unfortunate coincidence that Roberts has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/one-nation-senatorelect-malcolm-roberts-wrote-bizarre-sovereign-citizen-letter-to-julia-gillard-20160804-gqlesa.html">reportedly relied on a notorious Holocaust denier</a> to support this theory.</p>
<p>It might be tempting to dismiss his utterances as conspiratorial ramblings. But they can teach us a great deal about the psychology of science denial. They also provide us with a broad spectrum of diagnostics to spot pseudoscience posing as science.</p>
<h2>The necessity of conspiracism</h2>
<p>First, the appeal to a conspiracy among scientists, bankers and governments is never just a slip of the tongue but a pervasive and necessary ingredient of the denial of well-established science. The tobacco industry <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=pyfy0144">referred to medical research on lung cancer</a> as being conducted by an “oligopolistic cartel” that “manufactures alleged evidence”. Some people accuse the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of <a href="http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1861031,00.html">creating and spreading AIDS</a>, and much anti-vaccination content on the web is suffused with <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/048605_vaccine_hysteria_totalitarian_nightmare_medical_fascism.html">conspiratorial allegations</a> of totalitarianism.</p>
<p>This conspiratorial mumbo jumbo inevitably arises when people deny facts that are supported by an overwhelming body of evidence and are no longer the subject of genuine debate in the scientific community, having already been tested thoroughly. As evidence mounts, there comes a point at which inconvenient scientific findings can only be explained away by recourse to huge, nebulous and nefarious agendas such as the World Government or Stalinism.</p>
<p>If you are addicted to nicotine but terrified of the effort required to give up smoking, it might be comforting instead to accuse medical researchers of being oligopolists (whatever that means). </p>
<p>Likewise, if you are a former coal miner, <a href="http://www.onenation.com.au/team/malcolmroberts">like Malcolm Roberts</a>, it is perhaps easier to accuse climate scientists of colluding to create a world government (whatever that is) than to accept the need to take coal out of our economy.</p>
<p>There is now <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.443">ample research</a> showing the link between science denial and conspiracism. This link is supported by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01801.x">independent studies</a> from around the world.</p>
<p>Indeed, the link is so established that conspiracist language is one of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-nations-malcolm-roberts-is-in-denial-about-the-facts-of-climate-change-63581">best diagnostic tools</a> you can use to spot pseudoscience and science denial.</p>
<h2>The Galileo gambit</h2>
<p>How else can science dissenters attempt to justify their contrarian position? Another tactic is to appeal to heroic historical dissenters, the usual hero of choice being <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei">Galileo Galilei</a>, who overturned the orthodoxy that everything revolves around the Earth. </p>
<p>This appeal is so common in pseudoscientific quackery that it is known as the <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit">Galileo gambit</a>. The essence of this argument is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They laughed at Galileo, and he was right.</p>
<p>They laugh at me, therefore I am right.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A primary logical difficulty with this argument is that plenty of people are laughed at <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/rumpology.html">because their positions are absurd</a>. Being dismissed by scientists doesn’t automatically entitle you to a Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>Another logical difficulty with this argument is that it implies that no scientific opinion can ever be valid unless it is rejected by the vast majority of scientists. Earth must be flat because no scientist other than a Googling Galileo in Gnowangerup says so. Tobacco must be good for you because only tobacco-industry operatives believe it. And climate change must be a hoax because only the heroic Malcolm Roberts and his <a href="http://www.galileomovement.com.au/galileo_movement.php">Galileo Movement</a> have seen through the conspiracy.</p>
<p>Yes, Senator-elect Roberts is the project leader of the Galileo Movement, which denies the scientific consensus on climate change, favouring instead the opinions of <a href="http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php">a pair of retired engineers and the radio personality Alan Jones</a>.</p>
<p>Any invocation of Galileo’s name in the context of purported scientific dissent is a red flag that you’re being fed pseudoscience and denial.</p>
<h2>The sounds of science</h2>
<p>The rejection of well-established science is often couched in sciency-sounding terms. The word “evidence” has assumed a particular prominence in pseudoscientific circles, perhaps because it sounds respectable and evokes images of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot">Hercule Poirot</a> tenaciously investigating dastardly deeds.</p>
<p>Since being elected, Roberts has again aired his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk">claim</a> that there is “no empirical evidence” for climate change. </p>
<p>But “show us the evidence” has become the war cry of all forms of science denial, from <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b&q=%22show+us+the+evidence%22+vaccinations&oq=%22show+us+the+evidence%22+vaccinations&gs_l=serp.3...143936.145654.0.146005.12.5.0.0.0.0.441.441.4-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..11.0.0.S-Nkz3umzM4">anti-vaccination activists</a> to <a href="http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1080905/pg1">creationists</a>, despite the existence of abundant evidence already.</p>
<p>This co-opting of the language of science is a useful rhetorical device. Appealing to evidence (or a lack thereof) seems reasonable enough at first glance. Who wouldn’t want evidence, after all? </p>
<p>It is only once you know the genuine state of the science that such appeals are revealed to be specious. <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-nations-malcolm-roberts-is-in-denial-about-the-facts-of-climate-change-63581">Literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles and the national scientific academies of 80 countries</a> support the pervasive scientific consensus on climate change. Or, as the environmental writer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists">George Monbiot has put it</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Accordingly, <a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyGEC16.html">my colleagues and I recently showed that in a blind test</a> – the gold standard of experimental research – contrarian talking points about climate indicators were uniformly judged to be misleading and fraudulent by expert statisticians and data analysts.</p>
<p>Conspiracism, the Galileo gambit and the use of sciency-sounding language to mislead are the three principal characteristics of science denial. Whenever one or more of them is present, you can be confident you’re listening to a debate about politics or ideology, not science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63719/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Royal Society, and the Psychonomic Society.</span></em></p>One Nation Senator-elect Malcolm Roberts lauds Galileo as a hero who turned scientific consensus on its head. But the ‘Galileo gambit’ is just one weapon in the climate conspiracists’ arsenal.Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/636122016-08-08T04:11:15Z2016-08-08T04:11:15ZFree speech: would removing Section 18C really give us the right to be bigots?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133299/original/image-20160808-484-2qlwm8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government claims changes to Section 18C are no longer on its agenda.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/george-brandis-people-have-the-right-to-be-bigots">previously saying</a> we all have the right to be bigots, Attorney-General George Brandis <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-04/final-senate-make-up-confirmed-with-11-crossbenchers/7689788">now says</a> reform of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C</a> of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/index.html#s18c">Racial Discrimination Act</a> is no longer on the government’s agenda. </p>
<p>However, there are several senators – some new, some returning – who beg to differ. David Leyonhjelm, Bob Day, Derryn Hinch and One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-07/leyonhjelm-roberts-tell-insiders-18c-racial-discrimination-act/7698252">all say</a> they will push for changes to Section 18C.</p>
<h2>What’s all the fuss about?</h2>
<p>So, what does Section 18C say? </p>
<p>The first thing to note is that it refers to a public (not private) act, including speech “that is likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people” and “the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin” of the person or persons.</p>
<p>Therefore, it prohibits some speech, made in public, based on certain features of a person’s identity.</p>
<p>Section 18C is limited in scope, and it would thus be wrong to claim that free speech <em>carte blanche</em> is under threat. It is, after all, a section of the Racial Discrimination Act, not “The Stop Anyone Being Offensive To Others Act”.</p>
<h2>Offensive speech is alive and well in Australia</h2>
<p>Roberts should be well aware of Section 18C’s limits because he has been free to make a number of deeply offensive remarks recently. <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36972449">He suggested</a> climate change is a conspiracy among global bankers, who also manipulate the United Nations in an attempt to create a socialist world order. </p>
<p>Let’s leave aside the implausible suggestion that bankers are in fact the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. Also ignore the <a href="https://theconversation.com/please-dont-explain-hanson-2-0-and-the-war-on-experts-62106">suspicious similarity</a> that such talk has to long-standing pernicious ideas about a Jewish banking conspiracy to dominate the world. </p>
<p>Instead, let’s focus on the suggestion that global warming is a huge conspiracy. Tied up in this claim is the proposition that most scientists working in this area are deeply dishonest. Roberts is claiming they will fudge the data, deceive their employers and lie to the government and the general population – all presumably to further their own interests. </p>
<p>People accused of such activities will rightly be offended, but they will get no help from Section 18C because Roberts’ statements are about the scientists’ moral character rather than their race or colour. Libel laws are more of a threat to Roberts in this instance than Section 18C.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rm479gJGcYc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Roberts on climate science.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another example of free expression that <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-05/bill-leak-defends-controversial-cartoon/7693244">offended many people</a> was Bill Leak’s cartoon in The Australian last week. The cartoon differs from Roberts’ comments because it has very explicit racial content.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"761006684626038784"}"></div></p>
<p>Even in this instance, however, the freedom to offend is secure. <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html">Section 18D</a> of the act says “Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith” or that is “held for any academic, artistic or scientific purpose, or any other genuine purpose in the public interest” or made in “a fair and accurate report” or “is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment”.</p>
<p>So, there are a great many exemptions to Section 18C that allow comments that might offend, insult, humiliate and even intimidate a person on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin. And we therefore don’t need to change it in order to be bigots.</p>
<h2>The Leyonhjelm/Roberts alternative</h2>
<p>Both Leyonhjelm and Roberts have offered alternative approaches to speech regulation. </p>
<p>Leyonhjelm <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-07/leyonhjelm-roberts-tell-insiders-18c-racial-discrimination-act/7698252">says</a> he intends to introduce a bill to remove Section 18C and other relevant sections of the act. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Free speech is free speech, there is no qualification to it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Roberts concurred, and rather convolutedly said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Free speech is free speech; anything less than that is not free speech. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>He also claimed Section 18C was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All done, as far as I understand it, to nobble Andrew Bolt, and Julia Gillard did that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a very bizarre claim, given the act has been around since 1975.</p>
<p>Both senators are very clear that free speech means unfettered speech. This is important. It suggests not only are they opposed to Section 18C, including the part that prevents intimidating a person because of the colour of her skin, but that all limits on speech have to go. Child porn? Go ahead. Revealing state secrets? Reveal away. Blackmail? Go for your life. I could go on, but you get the drift. </p>
<p>The vision offered by Leyonhjelm and Roberts is dangerous, misguided and extreme. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-racism-make-us-sick-63641">Does racism make us sick?</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David van Mill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Section 18C is limited in scope, and it would thus be wrong to claim that free speech carte blanche is under threat.David van Mill, Associate Professor in Political Science and International Relations, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/635812016-08-05T07:18:59Z2016-08-05T07:18:59ZOne Nation’s Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change<p>The notion that climate science denial is no longer a part of Australian politics was swept away yesterday by One Nation Senator-Elect Malcolm Roberts.</p>
<p>In his inaugural press conference, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhy58cCtdqg&feature=youtu.be&t=39">Roberts claimed</a> that “[t]here’s not one piece of empirical evidence anywhere, anywhere, showing that humans cause, through CO₂ production, climate change”. </p>
<p>He also <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXFflkCZzyA&feature=youtu.be&t=46">promoted conspiracy theories</a> that the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology are corrupt accomplices in climate conspiracy driven by the United Nations.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nhy58cCtdqg?wmode=transparent&start=39" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>His claims conflict with <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm">many independent lines of evidence</a> for human-caused global warming. Coincidentally, the University of Queensland is releasing a <a href="https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-1">free online course</a> this month examining the psychology and techniques of climate science denial. The very first video lecture addresses Roberts’ central claim, summarising the empirical evidence that humans are causing climate change. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5LvaGAEwxYs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Consensus of Evidence (from Denial101x course)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Scientists have observed <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm">various human fingerprints</a> in recent climate change, documented in many peer-reviewed scientific papers. </p>
<p>Satellites measure <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html">less heat escaping to space</a> at the exact wavelengths at which CO₂ absorbs energy. The <a href="http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/topics/global_change_science.pdf">upper atmosphere is cooling</a> at the same time that the lower atmosphere is warming – a distinct pattern unique to greenhouse warming. Human activity is also changing the <a href="http://www.math.nyu.edu/%7Egerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf">very structure of the atmosphere</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133198/original/image-20160805-466-17c12en.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133198/original/image-20160805-466-17c12en.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133198/original/image-20160805-466-17c12en.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133198/original/image-20160805-466-17c12en.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133198/original/image-20160805-466-17c12en.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133198/original/image-20160805-466-17c12en.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133198/original/image-20160805-466-17c12en.jpg?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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Human fingerprints in climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Not only do these unique fingerprints confirm humanity’s role in recent climate change, they also rule out other potential natural contributors. If the Sun caused global warming, we would expect to see days warming faster than nights, and summers warming faster than winters.</p>
<p>Instead we observe the opposite: nights are warming faster than days, and winters are warming faster than summers, which is a greenhouse pattern <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.386/pdf">predicted by John Tyndall</a> as long ago as 1859.</p>
<p>Similarly, if global warming were caused by internal variability, we would expect to see heat shuffling around the climate system with no net build-up. Instead, scientists observe our climate system accumulating heat at a rate of more than <a href="https://4hiroshimas.com">four atomic bombs per second</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133199/original/image-20160805-466-xp0gtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133199/original/image-20160805-466-xp0gtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133199/original/image-20160805-466-xp0gtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133199/original/image-20160805-466-xp0gtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133199/original/image-20160805-466-xp0gtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133199/original/image-20160805-466-xp0gtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133199/original/image-20160805-466-xp0gtl.jpg?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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate patterns confirm human causation and rule out natural causes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our scientific understanding grows stronger when many independent lines of evidence all point to a single, consistent conclusion. In the case of climate change, the “consensus of evidence” has led <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051">97% of climate scientists to agree that humans are causing global warming</a>.</p>
<p>The scientific consensus on climate change has also been endorsed by many scientific organisations all over the world, including the <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/11/4/048002/media/erl048002_suppdata.pdf">national science academies of 80 countries</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133200/original/image-20160805-484-dvmhf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133200/original/image-20160805-484-dvmhf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133200/original/image-20160805-484-dvmhf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133200/original/image-20160805-484-dvmhf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133200/original/image-20160805-484-dvmhf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133200/original/image-20160805-484-dvmhf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133200/original/image-20160805-484-dvmhf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">National Academies of Science endorsing human-caused global warming.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Is it a conspiracy?</h2>
<p>How does one dismiss a global scientific consensus built on a robust body of empirical evidence? </p>
<p>There are <a href="http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2">five characteristics of science denial</a>. These common traits are seen when people reject climate science, the benefits of vaccination, or the research linking smoking to cancer. </p>
<p>The techniques of denial are: fake experts; logical fallacies; impossible expectations; cherrypicking; and conspiracy theories. This is summarised in the acronym FLICC.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wXA777yUndQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The five characteristics of science denial (from Denial101x course)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Climate science denial and conspiratorial thinking are often found together. A well-known example is that of Donald Trump, who has dismissed climate change by <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en">blaming it on a Chinese conspiracy</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133201/original/image-20160805-501-1jod184.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133201/original/image-20160805-501-1jod184.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133201/original/image-20160805-501-1jod184.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133201/original/image-20160805-501-1jod184.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133201/original/image-20160805-501-1jod184.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133201/original/image-20160805-501-1jod184.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133201/original/image-20160805-501-1jod184.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tweet by Donald J. Trump.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">@realDonaldTrump</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Several <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2016.1156106">studies</a> have linked <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01801.x/abstract">climate science denial</a> and <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637">conspiratorial thinking</a>. If a person disagrees with a global scientific consensus, they’ll typically believe that the scientists are all engaging in a conspiracy to deceive them.</p>
<p>Malcolm Roberts’ conspiracy theories have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-nation-climate-denial-and-those-jewish-bankers-62176">well documented</a> and were <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXFflkCZzyA&feature=youtu.be">once again on offer in yesterday’s speech</a>. He espouses a conspiracy that encompasses the CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, international banking families, the United Nations and Al Gore.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that the evidence for human-caused global warming will persuade Malcolm Roberts. The scientific evidence from psychology tells us that scientific evidence is largely ineffective on those who dismiss climate science with conspiracy theories. </p>
<p>My <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-for-climate-change-only-feeds-the-denial-how-do-you-beat-that-52813">own research</a> found that communicating the science of climate change to those who exhibit conspiratorial thinking can even be counterproductive, activating their distrust of scientists and strengthening their denial of the evidence.</p>
<p>Furthermore, conspiratorial thinking is <a href="http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443">self-sealing</a>. When conspiracy theorists are presented evidence that there is no conspiracy, they often respond by broadening the conspiracy to include that evidence. In other words, they interpret evidence <em>against</em> a conspiracy as evidence <em>for</em> the conspiracy. </p>
<p>Our course on <a href="https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-1">climate science denial</a> will be much more useful to those who are open to scientific evidence and curious about the research into the causes and impacts of climate change and the psychology of climate science denial.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63581/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook 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>Contrary to the claims of One Nation Senator-elect Malcolm Roberts’ that climate change is not happening, there is abundant evidence it is, but it might not be enough to persuade him.John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.