tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/factcheck-qanda-6550/articlesFactCheck Q&A – The Conversation2018-11-12T19:01:57Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1042262018-11-12T19:01:57Z2018-11-12T19:01:57ZFactCheck Q&A: have 90% of Labor MPs worked in trade unions?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238855/original/file-20181002-98899-19s5qgp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C613%2C344&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trade Minister Simon Birmingham has said Labor MPs disproportionately come from unions.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IxC5EWFw9ck?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, October 2, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s nice for Amanda to say you need to reflect society, but you can’t reflect society if 90% of your members of parliament were chosen from trade unions and worked in trade unions and that’s the background they bring to the table. </p>
<p><strong>– Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment Simon Birmingham, <a href="https://twitter.com/QandA/status/1046735270358409228">speaking on Q&A</a>, October 2, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>On an episode of Q&A, panellists discussed the extent to which the composition of the Australian parliament reflects the demographic make up of society. </p>
<p>Labor MP Amanda Rishworth said in addition to having women account for 50% of parliamentarians, there needed to be more diversity of skills and experience. </p>
<p>“So we need to move further than just looking at men and women. We need people from a whole range of backgrounds,” Rishworth said. </p>
<p>Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment Simon Birmingham later suggested to Rishworth that “you can’t reflect society if 90% of your members of parliament were chosen from trade unions and worked in trade unions, and that’s the background they bring to the table”.</p>
<p>Let’s check the records. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046735550370041856"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046740117514153984"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046734887699415040"}"></div></p>
<h2>Response from a spokesperson for Simon Birmingham</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Simon Birmingham provided a 2015-16 <a href="https://sa.alp.org.au/files/Membership_2015-16_FINAL.pdf">membership application form</a> for the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party and said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Based on this application, and the disclaimer that a person applying for membership must be a member of a union, it would seem the Minister may have underestimated the percentage. </p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>On Q&A, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment Simon Birmingham said “90% of [Labor’s] members of parliament were chosen from trade unions and worked in trade unions”. In terms of federal parliamentarians, this is a gross exaggeration.</p>
<p>According to parliamentary members’ biographies, taken from the 45th Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2017, about one third (33.7%) of Labor’s currently serving federal MPs have worked in trade unions, or 32 of Labor’s 95 members of federal parliament (the total comprising 69 members of the House of Representatives and 26 Senators).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Regarding the source provided by the Minister’s office</h2>
<p>The source provided by Minister Birmingham’s office doesn’t support the statement; it refers to a discounted fee offered for South Australian Labor party membership if the applicant is also a union member. Having been a member of a union isn’t the same as having worked for one, and being a union member isn’t a requirement of becoming a member of the Labor party. </p>
<h2>How many Labor MPs have worked in trade unions?</h2>
<p>A trade union is a member-based organisation that represents the interests of workers in particular industries, or groups of industries, to employers. The Australian Labor Party <a href="https://getparliament.peo.gov.au/parliament-at-work-representation-and-forming-government/history-of-political-parties-in-australia">grew out of the union movement in the 1890s</a>. Affiliated unions play a <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/media/1277/alp_national_constitution.pdf">significant role</a> in the Labor party today; in its internal structures and forums, and influence in <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-influence-of-trade-unions-on-the-labor-party-is-overestimated-57476">choice of parliamentary candidates</a>. </p>
<p>The proportion of former union officials entering parliament as Labor members peaked in 1901, at <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/labors-conflict/2F3D3F1670FBDC6059EF69A8038085F1">79%</a> of Labor representatives. The proportion has been declining steadily since then.</p>
<p>Minister Birmingham referred to members of parliament (MPs) who had been “chosen from” and “worked in trade unions” and who bring that background to the table. In this FactCheck, we’ll look at members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate who have worked in trade unions.</p>
<p>To see how things stand today, we can look to the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/parliamentary_handbook">Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia 2017</a>, which includes the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/handbook/newhandbook/2017-06-21/toc_pdf_repeat/Part%202%20-%20The%20Forty-fifth%20Parliament.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">biographies</a> of the 76 Senators and 150 members of the House of Representatives in the current (45th) federal parliament. (Four of the Labor MPs listed in the handbook, which was published in July 2017, are no longer in parliament: Sam Dastyari, David Feeney, Katy Gallagher and Tim Hammond.) </p>
<p>Included in these biographies are MPs’ qualifications and occupations before entering federal Parliament.</p>
<p>According to those biographies, the proportion of Labor MPs who have worked in trade unions is about a third (33.7%). That’s 32 of Labor’s 95 members of parliament (the total comprising 69 members of the House of Representatives and 26 Senators).</p>
<p>The proportion has declined since the previous parliament, elected in 2013. In that, the 44th parliament, the proportion of Labor representatives with a union background was <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fnewhandbook%2F2014-10-31%2F0000%22">45%</a>. </p>
<p>The <em>number</em> of Labor MPs and Senators with a union background dropped slightly between the 44th and 45th parliaments, from 36 to 32, but the <em>total number</em> of Labor representatives also increased substantially, from 80 to 95.</p>
<p>In terms of how these figures compare to union representation in the broader community: around <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/6333.0Main%20Features5August%202016?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6333.0&issue=August%202016&num=&view=">15%</a> of the Australian workforce are union members.</p>
<p>Total union membership is now around <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/6333.0Main%20Features5August%202016?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6333.0&issue=August%202016&num=&view=">1.5 million</a>, however, unions collectively represent <a href="http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/ABS+Chief+Economist+-+Full+Paper+of+Wage-setting+methods+and+wage+growth+in+Australia">59.5%</a> of the workforce in bargaining for conditions through enterprise agreements or awards. </p>
<h2>From which unions have the MPs come?</h2>
<p>The three unions with the largest contingents of employees-turned-MPs are the <a href="https://www.sda.org.au/">Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Union</a>, with six former employees now MPs, the <a href="http://www.twu.com.au/">Transport Workers’ Union</a> with three (this was originally four after the 2016 election, but reduced when David Feeney resigned from the seat of Batman and was replaced by Ged Kearney in the March 2018 by-election), and <a href="https://www.unitedvoice.org.au/">United Voice</a>. </p>
<p>Other unions with two former employees each are the <a href="https://www.amwu.org.au/">Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union</a>, the <a href="https://www.awu.net.au/">Australian Workers’ Union</a>, and the <a href="https://www.cpsu.org.au/">Community and Public Sector Union</a>. </p>
<p>Another 11 unions each have one representative, and a couple of MPs did not specify their union background.</p>
<p>Many of those with a union background were university graduates appointed to union positions as political operatives before or after becoming a political staffer. Few came up through the ranks of a union, as their predecessors more commonly did. </p>
<h2>What other types of backgrounds do Labor MPs have?</h2>
<p>More than half (51.6%) of Labor MPs in the current government were party officials, or staffers for Labor Ministers or back-benchers before being elected.</p>
<p>Some have experience as public servants (18%), lawyers (16%), employees of non-governmental organisations (12%), and small business owners (8%). </p>
<p>Small numbers have a background in business, consultancy, journalism, the military and State legislatures. Many have moved between a number of these categories during their careers.</p>
<h2>What about the Liberal Party?</h2>
<p>The Liberal Party also has a high proportion of MPs who were political staffers or party officials before entering parliament, at 45%. Of those 38 representatives, 14 appear to have entered the Commonwealth parliament directly from political staffer positions, and a further three from State legislatures.</p>
<p>The main difference between the Liberal and Labor parties is that whereas Labor has former union employees, the Liberal Party has many parliamentary members with a background in business (36 MPs), especially in banking and finance (7 MPs), and large consulting firms (6 MPs).</p>
<p>Some Liberal Party MPs have backgrounds in employers’ associations (9 MPs) and think tanks (6 MPs). <strong>– Raymond Markey</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the conclusion that about one-third of Labor MPs in the current federal parliament have worked in trade unions. I counted 30 Labor MPs with union backgrounds. The extra two the lead author found could be because a wider definition of union official was used. <strong>– Adrian Beaumont</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104226/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ray Markey is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said “you can’t reflect society if 90% of your members of parliament were chosen from trade unions and worked in trade unions”. Let’s take a look at the numbers.Ray Markey, Emeritus Professor, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1008192018-08-06T10:16:47Z2018-08-06T10:16:47ZFactCheck: has Australia’s net debt doubled under the current government?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230336/original/file-20180802-136673-pi3c0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1280%2C718&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CU6P1qgdY1w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, July 30, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>…we don’t hear enough about the fact under the current government we have had net debt double.</p>
<p><strong>– Shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4858439.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, July 30 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As the government and opposition seek to establish their economic credentials in the lead-up to the next federal election, we can expect to hear plenty about the relative performances of the Coalition and Labor Party with regard to government deficits and debt.</p>
<p>On ABC Television’s Q&A, shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers claimed that “under the current government, we have had net debt double”. </p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request, a spokesperson for Chalmers provided the following sources:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to the government’s Monthly Financial Statements, in September 2013 (the month of the 2013 federal election), net debt was <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2013-09/">under A$175 billion</a> (A$174,577m).</p>
<p>Net debt reached <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2017/mfs-december/">more than A$350 billion</a> in December 2017 (A$350,245m), and was <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2018/mfs-january/">above A$350 billion</a> in January 2018 (A$353,359m) and March 2018 (<a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2018/mfs-march/">A$350,717m</a>).</p>
<p>Also, on the government’s own budget numbers, net debt for this financial year is A$349.9 billion (<a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">2018-19 Budget, BP1 3-16, Table 3</a>).</p>
<p>So whether you look at the government’s Monthly Financial Statements or its budget, we’ve had net debt double under this government.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Chalmers told The Conversation: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Liberals used to bang on about a so-called “budget emergency” and a “debt and deficit disaster”, but you don’t hear a peep from them anymore.</p>
<p>Not only has net debt doubled on the Liberals’ watch, but gross debt has crashed through half-a-trillion dollars for the first time ever, and their own budget papers expect it to remain well above half-a-trillion dollars every year for the next decade.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers quoted his numbers (broadly) correctly when he said that “under the current government we have had net debt double”.</p>
<p>As at July 1 2018, the budget estimate of net debt in Australia was about A$341.0 billion, up from A$174.5 billion in September 2013, when the Coalition took office. That’s an increase of A$166.5 billion, or roughly 95%, over almost five years. </p>
<p>To put that in context, in Labor’s last term (2007-13, a nearly six-year period that included the Global Financial Crisis), net debt rose by about A$197 billion – around A$30 billion more than has been the case under the current Coalition government.</p>
<p>It’s worth remembering that over time, a government’s debt position will reflect deficits (or surpluses) of past governments.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is ‘net debt’?</h2>
<p><em><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/AustGovDebt">Gross debt</a></em> is the total amount of money a government owes to other parties. <em><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/AustGovDebt">Net debt</a></em> is gross debt, adjusted for some of the assets a government owns and earns interest on.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs7.pdf">Not all government assets</a> are included in the calculation of net debt. For example, the equity holdings of Australia’s sovereign wealth fund – the <a href="https://www.futurefund.gov.au/">Future Fund</a> – are excluded. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that net debt doesn’t give the full picture of a government’s balance sheet. </p>
<p>If the government borrows A$1 (by <a href="https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/investments-paying-interest/bonds/australian-government-bonds">issuing bonds</a>) to buy A$1 worth of equity (investment in another asset), net debt will rise. That’s because bond issuance (debt) will rise by A$1, without an accompanying increase in investments that pay interest.</p>
<p>In Australia’s case, this distinction is relevant, because the government currently has about A$50 billion of investments in shares (which aren’t considered interest-bearing for accounting purposes) and around <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">A$50 billion</a> in equity in <a href="https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/departments-and-agencies/list-of-departments-and-agencies">public sector entities</a> (like schools, hospitals and infrastructure).</p>
<p>Over time, a government’s debt position will reflect deficits of past governments, with budget deficits increasing the total debt, and surpluses reducing it.</p>
<h2>Has net debt doubled under the current government?</h2>
<p>The chart below shows net debt for Australia from 2001-02 to 2018-19. The 2017-18 and 2018-19 numbers are estimates, but all earlier numbers are actual net debt numbers. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Q5ZgN/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>As you can see from the chart, net debt has risen under both Coalition and Labor governments since 2008.</p>
<p>The Department of Finance publishes <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/">Australian Government Monthly Financial Statements</a>, which can be used to get a picture of net debt levels during election months.</p>
<p>On July 1 2007, in the final year of the Howard Coalition government, net debt was <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">minus A$24.2 billion</a>. The government’s financial assets, such as those held in the Future Fund, were greater than government bonds on issuance, putting the government in a net asset (positive) position. </p>
<p>At the time of the election of the Labor government in November 2007, Australia’s net debt position was still negative (<a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/mfs_nov-dec2007.pdf">at minus A$22.1 billion</a>) – meaning the government held A$22.1 billion more than it owed. By July 1 2013, in the final months of the last Labor government, net debt had risen to <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">A$159.6 billion</a>.</p>
<p>The Liberal-National Coalition won the federal election on September 7 2013. At September 30, net debt was <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/mfs-september-2013.pdf">A$174.5 billion</a> (meaning that net debt rose by about A$5 billion per month in the three months before the 2013 election). </p>
<p>As at July 1 2018, the budget estimate of net debt in Australia was about <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">A$341.0 billion</a>. That’s roughly a 95% rise since the Coalition took office in 2013, making Chalmers’ statement about net debt having doubled under the current government broadly correct.</p>
<h2>What can we take from this?</h2>
<p>In terms of economic management, not a great deal.</p>
<p>Rather than being concerned about the level of debt, most economists would be concerned about the level of debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP), or the size of the population. On these measures, the rises in net debt under the current government have been less significant. </p>
<p>Let’s take the net-debt-to-GDP ratio.</p>
<p>It rose from about 11.3% in September 2013 (when the Coalition was elected) to 18.3% in July 2016, at which point the ratio roughly stabilised. The net debt to GDP ratio now stands at <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf">18.6%</a> and is predicted to fall in the next few years.</p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that during Labor’s most recent period of government, net debt rose by around A$197 billion – about A$30 billion more than has been the case under the current Coalition government.</p>
<p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8454.1997.tb00819.x">My research</a> on the effects of political parties in Australia on the economy found that, historically, economic growth and other important economic outcomes have had little to do with which party is in power. <strong>– Mark Crosby</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The author has a done a very competent job in analysing Jim Chalmers’ statement regarding net debt under the current government. </p>
<p>What the analysis shows is how complex the issue is, and that the argument over which major party is the better economic manager cannot be encapsulated simply by one number.</p>
<p>The net debt figures can be interpreted in a number of different ways, pointing to different assessments of a particular government’s economic management.</p>
<p>As the author notes, the net debt position depends not just on the current government’s actions, but also on the legacy inherited from previous governments. That’s because debt is used to finance borrowings, which are largely the result of previous governments’ fiscal policies. </p>
<p>An assessment of a government’s macro-economic management depends on analysis of several different factors, of which debt is only one. <strong>– Phil Lewis</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100819/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phil Lewis does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. He also has no relevant affiliations. During his career he has received funding from many private and public sector organisations including most recently the ARC, NCVER, DEEWR, the AFPC, ABLA and CPA Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Crosby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Was shadow minister for finance Jim Chalmers correct when he said that under the current Coalition government, net debt had doubled? We asked the experts.Mark Crosby, Professor, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/993782018-07-09T10:25:42Z2018-07-09T10:25:42ZFactCheck Q&A: did the Coalition ‘deliver more than a million jobs in the last year’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226441/original/file-20180706-122262-1fgac66.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1007%2C566&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Liberal MP Sarah Henderson, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6ebn0JSN9cw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, July 2, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>We’ve delivered more than a million jobs in the last year.</p>
<p>And 65,000 or so new businesses have started up.</p>
<p>Now, in Labor’s last year, 61,000 businesses closed.</p>
<p><strong>– Liberal MP Sarah Henderson, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ebn0JSN9cw&feature=youtu.be">speaking on Q&A</a>, July 2, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>On Q&A, Liberal MP Sarah Henderson made the case for company tax cuts, saying the Coalition government’s “focus on backing business” was paying dividends. </p>
<p>“We are seeing a renewed sense of confidence because of our focus on backing business – small, medium and large – giving them the incentive to grow, to invest and to employ more people.”</p>
<p>Henderson said the Coalition had “delivered more than a million jobs in the last year, and 65,000 or so new businesses have started up”.</p>
<p>The member for Corangamite added that “in Labor’s last year, 61,000 businesses closed”. </p>
<p>Are those numbers correct?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources, Henderson pointed to Australian Bureau of Statistics <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8165.0">Counts of Australian Businesses data</a> that show:</p>
<ul>
<li>an increase of 66,755 businesses in the 2016-17 financial year, and</li>
<li>a decrease of 61,614 businesses in the 2012-13 financial year (the last financial year of the Labor government).</li>
</ul>
<p>Regarding the employment figures, Henderson told The Conversation she had made an error, and had meant to say that more than one million jobs had been created over nearly five years. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Liberal MP Sarah Henderson’s statement that the Coalition government “delivered more than a million jobs in the last year” was incorrect.</p>
<p>As Henderson noted in her response to The Conversation, growth in employment of “more than a million jobs” took place over more than four years.</p>
<p>Depending on which interpretation of “last year” we use – whether financial, calendar or year-to-date – the growth in the number of people employed was between 251,500 and 383,000.</p>
<p>In terms of whether the Coalition “delivered” these jobs, it’s important to remember that government policy is only one of many factors that determine employment dynamics. Changes in employment levels are never solely due to the efforts of any one government.</p>
<p>Regarding the numbers of businesses opening and closing, Henderson was correct.</p>
<p>In 2016-17 (the last financial year for which data are available), the total number of businesses in Australia increased by 66,755. </p>
<p>In the last financial year of the Labor government (2012-13), the total number of businesses decreased by 61,614.</p>
<p>It appears that the annual balance between business entrants and exits is correlated with the economic cycle.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Did the Coalition deliver ‘more than a million jobs in the last year’?</h2>
<p>No. </p>
<p>As Henderson noted in her response to The Conversation, this statement was incorrect. </p>
<p>The growth in the number of people employed in “the last year” was between 251,500 and 383,000, depending on which interpretation of “last year” we use – whether financial year, calendar year or year-to-date. </p>
<p>The latest available employment data are the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0May%202018?OpenDocument">Australian Bureau of Statistics Labour Force figures</a> ending in May 2018.</p>
<p>The labour force survey includes three different series of employment data: original, trend, and seasonally adjusted. </p>
<p>The “original” series simply counts how many people are employed at any given time. </p>
<p>The “seasonally adjusted” series adjusts the original series to account for regular fluctuations in employment due to the calendar or seasonal pattern of certain economic activities – for example, tourism.</p>
<p>The “trend” component tells the story of the underlying, longer-term dynamics of employment by smoothing out the peaks and troughs due to short-term fluctuations in economic activity.</p>
<p>Any of the three measures can be used, but trend or seasonally adjusted employment are typically more relevant when it comes to economic policy-making. So in this FactCheck, I’ll look at the trend data.</p>
<p>These show that for the 12 months from June 2017 to the end of May 2018, the number of people employed in Australia increased by 277,300. </p>
<p>If we look at the last financial year for which we have complete data, ending June 2017, trend employment increased by 251,500 people.</p>
<p>And if we look at the last completed calendar year – 2017 – then the increase in employment amounts to 383,000. </p>
<p>To count “more than a million jobs”, we need to look back around four or five years.</p>
<p>Trend employment data show an increase of one million people employed between June 2014 and May 2018, and looking a little further back, between September 2011 and June 2017.</p>
<p>In terms of whether the Coalition “delivered” these jobs, it’s important to remember that government policy is only one of many factors that determine employment dynamics in a given period of time. Changes in employment levels are never solely due to the efforts of any one government.</p>
<p>Other factors that influence employment levels include (and are certainly not limited to):</p>
<ul>
<li>federal policies</li>
<li>economic conditions in trading partner countries</li>
<li>changes in the international price of commodities, and</li>
<li>variations in the level of the interest rate and/or the exchange rate.</li>
</ul>
<p>It’s difficult to establish with certainty the relative contribution to employment growth of each of these factors.</p>
<h2>How many businesses started and closed?</h2>
<p>To test these claims, we can look to the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8165.0">Australian Bureau of Statistics Business Register</a>. The register provides a count of actively trading Australian businesses, excluding those with turnover below $75,000 that have not registered for GST. </p>
<p>In the 2016-17 financial year – the last full year of data under this Coalition government – 328,205 new business were registered and 261,450 existing businesses were closed.</p>
<p>This leaves us with a net increase of 66,755 businesses – in line with the “65,000 or so” quoted by Henderson.</p>
<p>Labor’s last term in government ended in September 2013. In the 2012-13 financial year, 239,229 new businesses were registered and 300,843 existing businesses were closed.</p>
<p>The net balance was a loss of 61,614 businesses. Again, this figure is in line with Henderson’s statement. </p>
<p>The annual turnover rate (the sum of exits and entries in proportion to total business) between 2007 and 2017 was around 30%. </p>
<p>It appears that that the annual balance between business entrants and exits is correlated with the economic cycle. That is – the more severe economic contractions are associated with higher exits, and lower entries. <strong>– Fabrizio Carmignani</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The conclusions in this FactCheck are correct. </p>
<p>I would have used employment changes from the same month in the previous year.</p>
<p>The practice of politicians to claim that they have “delivered” the change in total employment over a period is erroneous.</p>
<p>Isolating the contribution of government policy to employment growth is a much more complex exercise. <strong>– Tim Robinson</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99378/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrizio Carmignani has received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the estimation of the piecewise continuous linear model and its macroeconomic applications.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>In addition to the jobs claim, Liberal MP Sarah Henderson said 65,000 new businesses had started in the last year, compared to the closure of 61,000 businesses in Labor’s last year. Is that right?Fabrizio Carmignani, Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/955142018-05-07T08:43:15Z2018-05-07T08:43:15ZFactCheck Q&A: do ‘about 30% of homeless people have a job’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216079/original/file-20180424-94132-176hhaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1278%2C718&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social researcher and author Rebecca Huntley, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/69G2bzYhsw8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, April 23, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>What’s incredible when you look at those numbers is about 30% - it’s hard to tell often - about 30% of those homeless people have a job.</p>
<p><strong>– Rebecca Huntley, social researcher and author, speaking on Q&A, April 23, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Inequality, class and social mobility in Australia were key issues discussed on a recent episode of Q&A.</p>
<p>Social researcher and author Rebecca Huntley noted an uptick in the idea of “the undeserving poor” in Australia – particularly where homeless people are concerned.</p>
<p>Huntley noted the perception held by some that homeless Australians are simply “not working hard enough”.</p>
<p>Challenging that narrative, Huntley said “about 30% of those homeless people have a job”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources, Huntley provided data from the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2049.0">Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2016</a> report, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in March 2018.</p>
<p>Huntley also pointed to the article: “<a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2018/04/21/the-rise-homelessness-and-hunger/15242328006116">The rise of homelessness and hunger</a>”, written by Mike Seccombe and published in The Saturday Paper, and the website of “<a href="http://www.nhc.edu.au/sessions/everybodys-home-a-national-housing-campaign/">Everybody’s Home – A National Housing Campaign</a>”.</p>
<p>Huntley added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/2049.0?OpenDocument">definition of homelessness</a> in the Census is probably broader than community perceptions about homelessness – that is, that all homeless people are sleeping rough on the streets.</p>
<p>People who are couch surfing or living in their car or living in overcrowded accommodation may well fit into this definition. They may also be working in the gig economy or getting work here and there (the double whammy of insecure work and insecure housing is quite terrible).</p>
<p>What the Census 2016 data show is that there are people with post compulsory education, with various levels of work and hours worked across all categories of people living in insecure housing arrangements.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Based on the best available data, Rebecca Huntley’s statement that “about 30% of … homeless people have a job” is correct. </p>
<p>According to Census 2016 data, about 30% of people who were recorded as being homeless on Census night (using the Australian Bureau of Statistics definition of homeless) were also recorded as being in the work force.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What does it mean to be ‘homeless’?</h2>
<p>When we talk about “homelessness”, many of us would think about people “sleeping rough” on the street. This is arguably the most severe and literal form of homelessness. But the state of being homeless is more complex than that. </p>
<p>Under the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2049.0Appendix12016?opendocument&tabname=Notes&prodno=2049.0&issue=2016&num=&view=">definition</a>, a person can be considered homeless if their current living arrangement:</p>
<ul>
<li>is in a dwelling that is inadequate</li>
<li>has no tenure, or if their initial tenure is short and not extendable, or</li>
<li>does not allow them to have control of, and access to space for social relations.</li>
</ul>
<p>The ABS presents its estimates of homelessness using these groupings: </p>
<ul>
<li>People living in improvised dwellings, tents or sleeping out</li>
<li>People in supported accommodation for the homeless</li>
<li>People staying temporarily with other households</li>
<li>People living in boarding houses</li>
<li>People in other temporary lodgings, and</li>
<li>People living in “severely” crowded dwellings.</li>
</ul>
<p>On the night of the 2016 Census, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2049.0Explanatory%20Notes12016?OpenDocument">more than 116,000 people</a> were counted as being homeless. This includes both children and adults. The estimates of the employment rate include only those age 15 and over.</p>
<p>This may be a conservative count, because some groups of people may be underenumerated (under counted) in the Census. </p>
<p>For example, the ABS <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2049.0Explanatory%20Notes12016?OpenDocument">notes</a> that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ are “more likely to be both underenumerated and over represented in the homeless population”, and that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>So called rough sleepers and people staying in supported accommodation for the homeless are also at risk of being underenumerated in the Census.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What constitutes ‘a job’?</h2>
<p>In the Census data, people are counted as being employed if they are of working age (age 15 and over) and:</p>
<ul>
<li>employed and working full-time</li>
<li>employed and working part-time, and/or</li>
<li>employed but away from work.</li>
</ul>
<p>However, not all people age 15 and over who were experiencing homelessness were counted in the Census labour force statistics. For some people, no information was recorded.</p>
<h2>Known employment rates for homeless people</h2>
<p>If we calculate the <em>known</em> employment rate for homeless people (using the ABS definition of homelessness outlined above), we find that around 30% are employed, as Rebecca Huntley said on Q&A.</p>
<p>But the employment rate among homeless people could be higher. </p>
<p>That’s because we don’t have employment information for <em>all</em> homeless people. In the Census statistics, there are large numbers of people for whom information on employment status is missing, or not stated. </p>
<p>Overall, we don’t have records of the employment status of about 18% of the total homeless population.</p>
<p>Also, many people experiencing homelessness could be in situations where they wouldn’t be expected to work. For example, full-time students or the elderly. </p>
<p>This makes 30% likely to be the lower bound.</p>
<p>If we assume that the employment rate of those with missing information is the same as those with recorded information, the employment rate would increase to 36%. If we also excluded full-time students and the elderly from these statistics, the rate would be even higher.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/papGo/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>Employment rate for people ‘sleeping rough’</h2>
<p>“Sleeping rough”, or sleeping on the street, is arguably the most severe form of homelessness. </p>
<p>People sleeping rough are the group with the highest proportion of missing information on labour force status. The <em>known</em> employment rate for people sleeping rough is 10%.</p>
<p>If about half of the people with missing information were employed, the rate would go up to 30%. My assumption for this group is that most of those people with missing information are not employed.</p>
<p>So for those sleeping rough, the employment rate is probably closer to 10-15%. </p>
<p>The employment rate for people in supported accommodation is also likely to be around 10-15%. These two groups are those usually considered when a more literal definition of homelessness is used.</p>
<p>But as outlined in this FactCheck, the state of being “homeless” is more complex and wide ranging than that. </p>
<h2>‘Journeys Home’ survey</h2>
<p>Another useful data set on homelessness and employment is the Melbourne Institute’s <a href="http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2202838/Scutella_et_al_Journeys_Home_Research_Report_W1.pdf">Journeys Home</a> survey, of which I was the Deputy Director. </p>
<p>This longitudinal survey, which began in 2011 and concluded in 2014, included 1,682 people in Australia flagged by Centrelink as either “homeless” or “at-risk of homelessness”. </p>
<p>The survey also included a group of income support recipients who were not flagged as homeless, but who had characteristics similar to those who had been homeless. </p>
<p>The overall rate of employment among all respondents was 27%. Of those who were homeless, 19% were employed. </p>
<p>In our study, however, we did not include those in overcrowded accommodation as being homeless. (These people are identified as being homeless in the Census).</p>
<p>This highlights the importance of the definition of “homelessness” used when considering the characteristics of the homeless population.</p>
<p>It’s also important to remember that just because someone isn’t employed doesn’t mean they don’t <em>want</em> to be employed, or aren’t seeking employment. Being homeless is a significant barrier to gaining – and retaining – a job. <strong>– Rosanna Scutella</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the verdict of this FactCheck that the overall rate of employment among people experiencing or being at-risk of homelessness is in the vicinity of 30%.</p>
<p>I would add that findings from <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-grim-cycle-of-homelessness-and-unemployment">my research</a> using the Journeys Home data reveal that homelessness is more strongly associated with difficulty in <em>retaining</em> employment than with finding employment. <strong>– Neha Swami</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosanna Scutella was Deputy Director of the Journeys Home study, which was funded by the Commonwealth Department of Social Security.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neha Swami does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On Q&A, social researcher and author Rebecca Huntley said “about 30%” of homeless people have a job. Is that right?Rosanna Scutella, Senior Research Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/935942018-03-26T03:40:36Z2018-03-26T03:40:36ZFactCheck Q&A: are South Australia’s high electricity prices ‘the consequence’ of renewable energy policy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211112/original/file-20180320-31602-918p7m.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9JRkHDUAAH0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, March 19, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Now, the consequence of [Jay Weatherill’s] policies was that South Australians faced the highest electricity charges, the highest retail electricity charges, in the country.</p>
<p><strong>– Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher, <a href="https://youtu.be/9JRkHDUAAH0">speaking on Q&A</a>, March 19, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>During an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4805964.htm">episode of Q&A</a>, Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher said that South Australia has the “highest retail electricity charges in the country”. That statement in itself <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928">is correct</a>.</p>
<p>But Fletcher went on to say that the high prices were “the consequence” of former SA Premier Jay Weatherill’s renewable energy policies, which included the introduction of a 50% renewable energy target, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/south-australia-renewable-energy-target-reached-early/8429722">met in 2017</a>.</p>
<p>Was Fletcher right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to a request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for Fletcher pointed The Conversation to the Australian Energy Market Commission’s 2017 Residential Electricity Price Trends <a href="https://www.aemc.gov.au/markets-reviews-advice/2017-residential-electricity-price-trends">report</a>, wholesale electricity price data from the Australian Energy Market Operator, and a 2017 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20report%20-%2013%20November%202017.pdf">report</a>, which stated that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the combination of significant network investment over the past decade, recent increases to gas prices, more concentrated wholesale markets, and the transition from large scale synchronous generation to variable and intermittent renewable energy resources has had a more pronounced effect on retail prices and number of offers in South Australia than any other state in the National Electricity Market.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the full response from Fletcher’s office <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokesperson-for-paul-fletcher-for-a-factcheck-on-electricity-prices-and-renewable-energy-93662">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Paul Fletcher was correct to say that South Australia has the highest retail electricity prices in Australia.</p>
<p>Current prices for the typical South Australian customer are 37.79 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh). The Australian Capital Territory has the lowest retail electricity prices in Australia, at around 23.68 c/kWh.</p>
<p>But there are many factors that affect retail electricity prices. Increasing levels of renewable energy generation is just one.</p>
<p>Other factors include network costs, gas prices, changes in supply and demand dynamics and market competition issues.</p>
<p>Therefore, Fletcher’s assertion that South Australia’s high retail electricity prices are “the consequence” of former Premier Jay Weatherill’s renewable energy policies is incorrect.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928">FactCheck: does South Australia have the 'highest energy prices' in the nation and 'the least reliable grid'?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Does South Australia have the highest retail electricity prices in the nation?</h2>
<p>First, a quick terminology reminder. “Energy” is a broad term that includes sources such as petrol, diesel, gas and renewables, among other things. “Electricity” is a specific form of energy that can be produced from many different sources.</p>
<p>The “retail electricity price” is what you’ll typically see in your home electricity bill, and is usually expressed in cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh). </p>
<p>According the Australian Energy Market <a href="https://www.aemc.gov.au/markets-reviews-advice/2017-residential-electricity-price-trends">2017 Residential Electricity Price Trends</a> report, South Australia does indeed have the highest retail prices in the nation. Current prices for the typical South Australian customer are 37.79c/kWh.</p>
<p>The lowest retail electricity prices in the country are in the Australian Capital Territory, where the typical customer pays around 23.68c/kWh. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="1BYc9" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1BYc9/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The retail electricity price includes the wholesale price of the electricity, the network costs (or the “poles and wires” that bring the electricity to your home), retailing costs, and levies related to “green schemes” (such as the renewable energy target or solar feed-in tariffs). </p>
<p>The chart below shows how the different components contributed the electricity price increase in South Australia between 2007-08 and 2015-16.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/NujQW/6/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="450"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>For many years the drivers for retail prices have been network costs – which have very little to do with renewables.</p>
<p>But over the past 18 months, there has also been a increase in <em>wholesale</em> electricity prices across the entire National Electricity Market – the interconnected power system that covers Queensland, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.</p>
<p>A range of factors have contributed to this.</p>
<p>These include the increase in gas prices, and the tightening of the supply-demand balance.</p>
<p>The closures of South Australia’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Power_Station_(South_Australia)">Northern Power Station</a> in 2016 and Victoria’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station">Hazelwood Power Station</a> have contributed to a reduction in electricity supply (capacity).</p>
<p>The ACCC is also <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20report%20-%2013%20November%202017.pdf">investigating</a> “transfer pricing” – which is when a business that’s an energy generator as well as a retailer shifts costs from one part of its business to another. </p>
<h2>Are the prices ‘the consequence’ of Weatherill’s renewable energy policy?</h2>
<p>No. Even if wholesale prices become the main driver of retail prices, it’s not accurate to place the blame squarely on renewables. </p>
<p>Increased renewable energy generation may have contributed to decisions for some power plants to close. But so would other factors – such the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-01/worksafe-notices-detail-extent-of-repairs-needed-at-hazelwood/8082318">A$400 million safety upgrade</a> required for the Hazelwood power plant to have stayed open.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, other factors such as gas prices and competition issues have also contributed to increases in wholesale electricity prices. And as shown below, these are not confined to South Australia.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210029/original/file-20180313-30979-jg4ezc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Electricity futures prices for 2017–18.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ACCC 2017, Retail Electricity Pricing
Inquiry, Preliminary report (page 56)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Gas prices are particularly important in the South Australian context, which is the most gas-dependent region in the National Electricity Market. </p>
<p>In addition, the South Australian market is the <a href="https://www.aer.gov.au/publications/state-of-the-energy-market-reports/state-of-the-energy-market-may-2017">most concentrated in terms of competition</a>.</p>
<p>So, Fletcher was not correct to say that South Australia’s high electricity prices are “the consequence” of Weatherill’s renewable energy policies. </p>
<p>Indeed, a large proportion of the existing renewable investment in South Australia has been financed as a result of the federal Renewable Energy Target, introduced by the Howard government, rather than state policy. <strong>– Dylan McConnell</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>I agree with the verdict.</p>
<p>The price question is not contentious. South Australia has the highest retail electricity prices in Australia.</p>
<p>But no single factor or decision is responsible for the electricity prices we endure today.</p>
<p>The prices are the result of <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-high-price-for-policy-failure-the-ten-year-story-of-spiralling-electricity-bills-89450">many different policies and pressures</a> at every step of the electricity supply chain. <strong>– David Blowers</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93594/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dylan McConnell has received funding from the AEMC's Consumer Advocacy Panel and Energy Consumers Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Blowers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On Q&A, Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Paul Fletcher said South Australia’s high electricity prices were “the consequence” of Jay Weatherill’s renewable energy policies. Is that right?Dylan McConnell, Researcher at the Australian German Climate and Energy College, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/913282018-02-14T00:43:23Z2018-02-14T00:43:23ZFactCheck Q&A: are ‘almost 60%’ of small business owners paid ‘$50,000 or less’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205202/original/file-20180207-58152-ekn5aa.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C1%2C1003%2C562&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ok3uy-QL0z4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, February 5, 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Almost 60% of small business owners in this country are paid $50,000 or less.</p>
<p><strong>– Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok3uy-QL0z4&feature=youtu.be">speaking on Q&A</a>, February 5, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Turnbull government is seeking parliamentary support to cut the company tax rate to 25% over the coming decade, arguing that cutting the rate will <a href="https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/keynote-address-toowoomba-queensland-thursday-1-february-2018">increase business investment, drive jobs growth</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-commits-to-keeping-company-tax-cuts-in-the-budget-until-next-election-20180209-p4yzto.html">lift wages</a> in Australia.</p>
<p>During an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4758627.htm">episode of Q&A</a>, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson said small business owners would benefit from a company tax cut in Australia. He said it would “help them be profitable”, allowing them to grow their businesses, employ more people and pay those workers more. </p>
<p>Pearson said “almost 60% of small business owners in this country are paid $50,000 or less”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206319/original/file-20180214-174966-11w98qe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206319/original/file-20180214-174966-11w98qe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206319/original/file-20180214-174966-11w98qe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206319/original/file-20180214-174966-11w98qe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206319/original/file-20180214-174966-11w98qe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206319/original/file-20180214-174966-11w98qe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206319/original/file-20180214-174966-11w98qe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources and comment to support James Pearson’s statement, a spokesperson for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry provided The Conversation with the following graph.</p>
<p>It draws on unpublished Australian Taxation Office data and relates to the 2014-15 income year:</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205637/original/file-20180209-180826-ikf8da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205637/original/file-20180209-180826-ikf8da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205637/original/file-20180209-180826-ikf8da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205637/original/file-20180209-180826-ikf8da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205637/original/file-20180209-180826-ikf8da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205637/original/file-20180209-180826-ikf8da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205637/original/file-20180209-180826-ikf8da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chart from the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman using unpublished Australia Taxation Office data for the 2014-15 financial year. The data relate to individuals with a non-zero amount at any of the following labels on their 2014-15 tax return: distribution from a partnership or trusts (primary production or non-primary production) and/or net income or loss from business (primary production or non-primary production). The figures were produced to approximate the distribution of small business owners.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The spokesperson said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We combined the data for those earning less than $25,000 and those earning $25,000 to $50,000, to come up with the under $50,000 assessment of 58.1% earning less than $50,000.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The spokesperson added “we understand the percentages we raised publicly are percentages of all business owners” – as opposed to small business owners. However: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We don’t think it makes much of a difference. The overwhelming majority of Australian businesses are clearly small and medium-sized enterprises, and the majority of business owners are small business owners.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>James Pearson’s statement that “almost 60% of small business owners in this country are paid $50,000 or less” is in the ballpark. </p>
<p>Based on Australia Taxation Office data from the 2014-15 financial year and Census 2016 data, it’s reasonable to say that between 50% to 60% of small business owners or managers earned less than $50,000 in those years.</p>
<p>However, Pearson used this information in the context of company tax rate cuts, arguing that small business owners “want a tax cut that will help them be profitable”.</p>
<p>In reality, due to the way Australia’s tax system works, it’s the small business owner’s <em>personal</em> income tax rate that is more relevant for the profitability of their business.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Calculating small business owner salaries</h2>
<p>There’s <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/business/small-business-entity-concessions/eligibility/">more</a> <a href="http://asic.gov.au/for-business/your-business/small-business/small-business-overview/small-business-what-is-small-business/">than</a> <a href="https://www.fwc.gov.au/termination-of-employment/unfair-dismissal">one</a> definition for ‘small business’ in Australia, and there’s no perfect data set against which to test Pearson’s statement.</p>
<p>But we can assess the Australian Taxation Office data Pearson’s office provided, and we can also look at Census 2016 data. </p>
<p>Pearson’s spokesperson provided The Conversation with a graph based on unpublished Australian Taxation Office data for the 2014-15 financial year. The Conversation verified the information in the graph with the Australian Taxation Office.</p>
<p>The graph shows that in 2014-15, 58.1% of the business owners listed earned less than $50,000. But the data aren’t specific to small business owners, and don’t include taxable income people received through companies – only through partnerships, trusts or as sole traders.</p>
<p>A spokesperson for the Australian Taxation Office told The Conversation the “figures were produced to approximate the distribution of small business owners”.</p>
<p>Now let’s look at <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/2016">Census 2016 data</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://asic.gov.au/for-business/your-business/small-business/small-business-overview/small-business-what-is-small-business/">According to</a> the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, “many regulators have informally adopted the definition of ‘small business’ used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics” – which is a business that employs <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1321.0">fewer than 20 people</a>.</p>
<p>If we look at Census 2016 data using that measure, then we see that 50% of small business owners were paid less than $1,000 per week in 2016 – or $52,000 per year or less.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206316/original/file-20180214-174986-ig8bux.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206316/original/file-20180214-174986-ig8bux.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206316/original/file-20180214-174986-ig8bux.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206316/original/file-20180214-174986-ig8bux.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206316/original/file-20180214-174986-ig8bux.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206316/original/file-20180214-174986-ig8bux.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206316/original/file-20180214-174986-ig8bux.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206316/original/file-20180214-174986-ig8bux.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Putting Pearson’s statement in context</h2>
<p>In making his statement, Pearson described the financial struggles facing some small business owners. Pearson said these people “want a tax cut, they want a tax cut that will help them be profitable”. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>They’ll employ more people, they’ll offer longer hours, more people will have jobs, more people will be paid more. That’s how it works.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Pearson added that when small business owners “see more productivity in their workforce, they can take the risk and grow their business”. </p>
<p>But the reality is, when an Australian resident is trying to decide whether to invest in their small business, it’s their personal income tax rate, not the company tax rate, that really matters. </p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Because company tax paid by Australian businesses on income earned in Australia acts as a ‘pre-payment’ of personal income tax when that income is distributed to shareholders in the company (or the owners of the company) via <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/frankeddividend.asp">franked dividend payments</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://data.gov.au/dataset/taxation-statistics-2014-15/resource/b51ea9cc-4eac-4b25-b45a-175d7797c9d5">Australian Taxation Office</a> statistics show that in the 2014-15 financial year, more than 95% of dividends paid to Australian households were franked.</p>
<p>The fact that Australian business owners can claim back any tax paid by their businesses when they lodge their <em>personal</em> tax returns makes their personal income tax rate the more relevant concern to the potential profitability of their business.</p>
<p>In addition, Pearson argued that company tax cuts would lead to higher wages, a statement supported by the <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/analysis-of-the-long-term-effects-of-a-company-tax-cut/">Australian Treasury</a>. The Treasury modelling shows that the wage hike would be the result of greater foreign investment in Australia, leaving the owners of small businesses needing to pay higher wages to attract or retain workers.</p>
<p>Small business owners who receive their income via franked dividends won’t receive any tax relief to cover this expense. So it’s possible that cuts to the company tax rate could hinder small businesses, rather than benefit them. <strong>– Janine Dixon and Jason Nassios</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>This verdict finds a reasonable level of support from the available data.</p>
<p><a href="http://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:28654">Research</a> from the University of Western Sydney <a href="https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/story_archive/2014/australias_business_owners_income-poor_but_asset-rich">published in 2014</a>, based on <a href="http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda">HILDA</a> data and Australian Bureau of Statistics data, found that business owner <em>households</em> (as opposed to individuals) reported an average weekly income of $1,975 in 2010. That’s around $103,000 per household.</p>
<p>If there were two adults per household, this would equate to $51,500 per person.</p>
<p>Also, because the ‘average’ is skewed upwards by high income earners, 50% of earners would earn less than the average, which lends further support to Pearson’s statement.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=Small_Business_Owner_%2F_Operator/Hourly_Rate">Information published</a> by an American company called PayScale suggests the average salary for a small business owner/operator in Australia is around $67,000 per year, and the median salary is $62,000. </p>
<p>If true, this would not be consistent with the claim that almost 60% of small business owners earn less than $50,000 per year. However, this information is based on a survey with a relatively small sample size. This source is a private sector consulting firm, and no other detail on their data source is provided. <strong>– Ross Guest</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91328/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ross Guest has received funding from the ARC in the past. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Janine Dixon and Jason Nassios 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>On Q&A, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson said almost 60% of small business owners in Australia are paid $50,000 or less. Is that right?Janine Dixon, Economist at Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria UniversityJason Nassios, Research Fellow, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/895402017-12-22T11:42:53Z2017-12-22T11:42:53ZCan you tell fact from fiction? Take The Conversation 2017 FactCheck quiz to find out<p>Climate change and energy policy, same-sex marriage, tax cuts and welfare payments: these were just a few of the subjects of heated debate in Australia in 2017. And the debates weren’t always based on the facts.</p>
<p>So, who got it right and who got it wrong in 2017? </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-157" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/157/db30deaaf10982af2997824e9f47c261f26cec12/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The Conversation would like to thank each of the academic FactCheck authors who gave so generously of their time and expertise to delve into the evidence for and against these and <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/factcheck-6544">many more contentious claims</a> in 2017 to bring you information you can trust. </p>
<p>And we’d like to thank you, our readers, for taking the time to read and share quality information, and for helping hold Australia’s leaders to account.</p>
<p>Read the full FactCheck quiz articles here:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Is Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australia-below-the-international-average-when-it-comes-to-school-funding-72189">below the international average</a> when it comes to school funding?</p></li>
<li><p>Are bulk-billing rates <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-bulk-billing-rates-falling-or-at-record-levels-72278">falling, or at record levels</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is Australia on track to have the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australia-on-track-to-have-the-oldest-pension-age-in-the-developed-world-72567">oldest pension age in the developed world</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Was it <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-it-four-degrees-hotter-110-000-years-ago-73045">four degrees hotter</a> 110,000 years ago?</p></li>
<li><p>Do 679 of Australia’s biggest corporations pay ‘<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-679-of-australias-biggest-corporations-pay-not-one-cent-of-tax-75455">not one cent</a>’ of tax?</p></li>
<li><p>Do Australian banks have <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-australian-banks-have-double-the-return-on-equity-of-banks-in-other-developed-economies-77784">double the return on equity</a> of banks in other developed economies?</p></li>
<li><p>Does Australia have <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-does-australia-have-one-of-the-highest-progressive-tax-rates-in-the-developed-world-77785">one of the highest progressive tax rates</a> in the developed world?</p></li>
<li><p>Will <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-700-000-workers-be-ripped-off-by-penalty-rate-cuts-as-bill-shorten-said-75048">700,000 workers</a> be ‘ripped off’ by penalty rate cuts, as Bill Shorten said?</p></li>
<li><p>Are Indigenous Australians the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528">most incarcerated people on Earth</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Are rates of drug use <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-rates-of-drug-use-2-5-times-higher-among-unemployed-people-than-employed-people-78993">2.5 times higher</a> among unemployed people than employed people?</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-the-facts-on-birth-rates-for-muslim-couples-and-non-muslim-couples-in-australia-81183">The facts on birth rates</a> for Muslim couples and non-Muslim couples in Australia</p></li>
<li><p>Are children ‘<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313">better off</a>’ with a mother and father than with same-sex parents?</p></li>
<li><p>Will <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-safe-schools-be-mandatory-if-same-sex-marriage-is-legalised-84437">Safe Schools be ‘mandatory’</a> if same-sex marriage is legalised?</p></li>
<li><p>Does the Safe Schools program contain ‘<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-the-safe-schools-program-contain-highly-explicit-material-87437">highly explicit material</a>’?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>For our full FactCheck coverage, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">click here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89540/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Australian leaders make claims, we ask the experts to test them. Can you tell fact from fiction? What’s spot-on and what’s spin?Lucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/893032017-12-18T08:28:36Z2017-12-18T08:28:36ZTo our FactCheck Q&A readers: thank you for sharing the facts in 2017<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199674/original/file-20171218-27568-q4ljdb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C0%2C1004%2C561&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Conversation's FactCheck team has collaborated with Q&A since 2015. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/coming_up.htm">final episode of Q&A for 2017</a> goes to air, The Conversation team would like to thank all the Q&A viewers and Conversation readers who requested fact-checks in response to claims made by politicians and prominent Australians during the show’s <a href="https://twitter.com/QandA/status/940166772619206656">live broadcasts</a>. </p>
<p>We salute your commitment to seeking out and sharing in-depth, high quality information, and to improving public debate in Australia. </p>
<p>We’d also like to thank the many Conversation academic FactCheck authors who gave so generously of their time and expertise to bring you the facts.</p>
<p>The Conversation has <a href="https://twitter.com/QandA/status/940181879159959552">collaborated</a> with Q&A <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversation-to-fact-check-panellists-on-qanda-45714">since 2015</a>. We respond to FactCheck requests from Q&A viewers, and <a href="https://twitter.com/ConversationEDU">live-tweet</a> during each week’s broadcast – sharing <a href="https://twitter.com/ConversationEDU/status/927496885039800320">fact-checks</a> that are <a href="https://twitter.com/ConversationEDU/status/917349826559229953">relevant</a> to the <a href="https://twitter.com/ConversationEDU/status/937646224714248193">discussions</a> as they unfold.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"924962319284580353"}"></div></p>
<p>Here are some of your 2017 FactCheck Q&A requests, and the answers from the academic experts: </p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"831092728540733442"}"></div></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-it-four-degrees-hotter-110-000-years-ago-73045">FactCheck Q&A: was it four degrees hotter 110,000 years ago?</a></strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851406250231218176"}"></div></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-80-of-australians-and-up-to-70-of-catholics-and-anglicans-support-euthanasia-laws-76079">FactCheck Q&A: do 80% of Australians and up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws?</a></strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"864088666997612544"}"></div></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-does-australia-have-one-of-the-highest-progressive-tax-rates-in-the-developed-world-77785">FactCheck Q&A: does Australia have one of the highest progressive tax rates in the developed world?</a></strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"871707254692732928"}"></div></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-rates-of-drug-use-2-5-times-higher-among-unemployed-people-than-employed-people-78993">FactCheck Q&A: are rates of drug use 2.5 times higher among unemployed people than employed people?</a></strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886934833259200516"}"></div></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-the-facts-on-birth-rates-for-muslim-couples-and-non-muslim-couples-in-australia-81183">FactCheck Q&A: the facts on birth rates for Muslim couples and non-Muslim couples in Australia</a></strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886931860382666752"}"></div></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-coal-still-cheaper-than-renewables-as-an-energy-source-81263">FactCheck Q&A: is coal still cheaper than renewables as an energy source?</a></strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"919879019557875713"}"></div></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-did-government-gun-buybacks-reduce-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836">FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?</a></strong></p>
<hr>
<p>You can learn more about The Conversation’s unique FactCheck process in this <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-we-do-factchecks-at-the-conversation-73134">72-second animation</a>. We hope you’ll share it with others who care about reliable information.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYLdaZWt9H8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And you can read more Conversation FactChecks <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">here</a>. </p>
<p>We’ll look forward to receiving more of your #FactCheck #QandA requests when the show <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/">returns in 2018</a>. In the meantime, remember you can send us fact-check requests on any topic by emailing <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>.</p>
<p>Thank you, again, for your commitment to seeking out high quality information, and for sharing the facts. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media service. If you value this FactCheck service, please consider making a <a href="https://donate.theconversation.com/au?utm_source=theconversation.com&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=topbar">tax-deductible donation</a>.</strong> </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89303/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
To all the Q&A viewers and Conversation readers who requested or shared a FactCheck Q&A in 2017: thank you. Here are a selection of your requests, and the responses from our expert FactCheck authors.Lucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/858362017-10-30T05:05:39Z2017-10-30T05:05:39ZFactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?<p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xmyrdhcBIbQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, October 16, 2017.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Q&A AUDIENCE MEMBER: The government-funded buybacks in 1996 and 2003 cost $700 million. However, research shows these have had no effect in reducing the number of firearm deaths. </p>
<p>TIM FISCHER: Look, the statistics can be looked at as lies, damned lies and statistics, but a fair take on those stats, I think, would lead the average Australian to believe, correctly, there has been a reduction in gun deaths in this country since John Howard spearheaded the firearm agreement between the federal government and the state governments since the legislation passed, since the buyback took place.</p>
<p><strong>– Excerpts from a conversation between Q&A audience member Diana Melham and former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, <a href="https://youtu.be/xmyrdhcBIbQ">on Q&A</a>, October 19, 2017</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer responds to an audience member on Q&A.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting-live-updates.html">mass shooting in Las Vegas</a> earlier this month once <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/las-vegas-shooting-australia-gun-laws-control-stephen-paddock-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html">again</a> turned <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback">international</a> <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/las-vegas-gun-violence-and-the-failing-american-state">attention</a> to Australia’s strict gun laws.</p>
<p>Just days after the shooting, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Australians had handed in <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australian-illegal-guns-amnesty-51000-weapons-firearms-malcolm-turnbull-las-vegas-stephen-paddock-a7986136.html">51,000 illegal firearms</a> during a three-month <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F5339243%22">national firearms amnesty</a>.</p>
<p>On an episode of Q&A, audience member Diana Melham, who is executive director of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia NSW branch, challenged former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer on the effectiveness of the gun buybacks he helped usher in as part of the Howard government’s sweeping gun reforms following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. </p>
<p>Melham said “research shows” the government-funded gun buybacks in 1996 and 2003 have had “no effect in reducing the number of firearms deaths”. Fischer responded that a “fair take” on the statistics would show there has been a reduction in gun deaths since the reforms were introduced and the buybacks took place.</p>
<p>So, what does the research show? </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"919879019557875713"}"></div></p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his response, Tim Fischer referred The Conversation to research published by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/2008/22.html">2008</a> and <a href="http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/gunbuyback_panel.pdf">2010</a>. Fischer also pointed to <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/australia-tim-fischer-us-guns/418698/">an Atlantic article</a>, saying it affirmed his claim that “you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than Australia on a proven per capita basis”.</p>
<p>Diana Melham provided The Conversation with a response on behalf of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW), and quoted a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/abstract">study</a> by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, who concluded the National Firearms Agreement “did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates”.</p>
<p>Melham also referred to Australian Bureau of Statistics data and an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report. You can read her full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-qanda-audience-member-for-a-factcheck-on-gun-buybacks-and-gun-deaths-86052">here</a>. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Tim Fischer was correct when he said there has been “a reduction in gun deaths in this country” since the Howard government introduced stricter gun laws in 1996, and since the 1996 and 2003 gun buybacks took place.</p>
<p>In the two decades following the reforms, the annual rate of gun deaths fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016. </p>
<p>Does research show that the 1996 and 2003 gun buybacks had “no effect” on that reduction in firearm deaths, as Diana Melham said? First of all, it’s not possible to disentangle any effect of the gun buybacks from the rest of the gun reforms introduced at the same time. </p>
<p>Some researchers have concluded the reforms as a whole had little effect on reducing the number of gun deaths in Australia. But other researchers have concluded the reforms did have an effect. </p>
<p>What we can say with certainty is that in the 15 years prior to the first gun buyback in 1996, there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia. In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect, there has not been a single mass shooting in the country.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What prompted the 1996 and 2003 gun buyback schemes?</h2>
<p>Between 1981 and 1996, there were <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362">13 mass shooting</a> incidents in Australia in which a total of 104 people were killed and 52 injured. This culminated in the <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/04/27/port-arthur-interactive-events-day-and-their-lasting-impact-australian-society">1996 massacre</a> in Port Arthur, Tasmania, where 35 people were killed.</p>
<p>Twelve days after the Port Arthur massacre, then prime minister John Howard enacted sweeping gun control measures. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2796929-1996-National-Firearms-Agreement.html">1996 National Firearms Agreement</a> covered a <a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php">raft of measures</a>, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic rifles and pump action rifles and shotguns</li>
<li>stricter requirements for the registration of all firearms, and </li>
<li>stricter requirements for the storage of all firearms.</li>
</ul>
<p>The agreement also included a national gun buyback scheme, which saw the surrender of <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php#f22">more than 640,000</a> firearms, mainly rifles and shotguns.</p>
<p>In 2002, more national reforms were introduced, this time focused on <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp116/06_reforms.html">controlling illegal trade</a> in firearms and restricting the use of handguns. In 2003, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01144">another national handgun buyback scheme</a> was instituted.</p>
<p>According to this <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0708/FirearmsAustralia">parliamentary source</a>, the 1996 and 2003 gun buyback schemes cost taxpayers just under $628 million, somewhat less than the $700 million Melham quoted.</p>
<p>So, what does research show about the effectiveness of the reforms?</p>
<h2>Has the number of gun deaths reduced?</h2>
<p>First of all, let’s look at Australian Bureau of Statistics data on changes in annual firearm death rates, both before and after the 1996 reforms were introduced. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/JrLwL/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>In the two decades following the gun reforms, there was a reduction in the annual rate of gun deaths – from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016. </p>
<p>So it’s true that gun deaths reduced following the 1996 and 2003 firearm reforms and gun buybacks, as Fischer said. </p>
<p>But we can also see that firearm death rates began falling before the reforms and buybacks took place, as Melham said. Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that the annual rate of gun deaths fell from 5 per 100,000 in 1980 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 1995.</p>
<p>So it’s hard to tell from these data alone what effect the gun buyback schemes and tighter restrictions on firearms had on this decline.</p>
<h2>Did the reduction in gun related deaths accelerate after 1996?</h2>
<p>A number of academic papers have asked whether the rates of firearm related deaths decreased more rapidly after Port Arthur than they were decreasing beforehand.</p>
<p>The authors of this <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/full">study published in 2010</a> used “<a href="https://www.stata.com/features/overview/structural-breaks/">structural break tests</a>” to examine whether there were points in time where the downward trends in firearm related death rates suddenly accelerated. They concluded that there was “little evidence to suggest that [the National Firearms Agreement] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides”.</p>
<p>However, other studies using different statistical approaches have reached somewhat different conclusions. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/47/3/455/566026">2006 paper</a> found that firearm related suicide rates from 1997 to 2004 were lower than predicted by the trends in previous years. This would suggest that the firearm legislation and buybacks <em>may</em> have reduced firearm <em>suicide</em> rates. Firearm related <em>homicides</em> remained in line with the trends from before the 1996 reforms.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362">2016 analysis</a> found that rates of firearm related homicides and suicides “declined more rapidly” between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997. But there was also a decline in <em>nonfirearm</em> suicide and homicide deaths during that time of a greater magnitude. Because of this, the authors said it wasn’t possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths could be attributed to the gun law reforms. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3vgXH/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/68Im0/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<h2>The case of Victoria</h2>
<p>In Victoria, firearm reforms were introduced in 1988, eight years earlier than the rest of the country, following <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia">two mass shootings</a> in the state. The reforms <a href="https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/8938/1/Over-our-dead-bodies_Chapman.pdf">tightened restrictions</a> on semiautomatic longarms, but did not include a gun buyback. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.short">2004 study</a> found “a significant downward trend” in firearm related deaths between 1988 and 1995 in Victoria compared with the rest of Australia. Following the National Firearms Agreement in 1996, “similar strong declines occurred in the rest of Australia”. </p>
<p>The authors concluded that “dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform”.</p>
<p>The chart below shows the drop in firearm related deaths in Victoria following the 1998 gun reforms in that state – a drop greater than that seen across the rest of Australia. Following the 1996 national reforms, the death rate for the rest of Australia dropped to a level comparable to Victoria. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-VhISn" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VhISn/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400" width="100%"></iframe>
<h2>Comparing reductions in gun deaths across states</h2>
<p>There were also differences between states in the number of guns handed in during the 1996 buyback. Tasmanian residents handed back guns at <a href="http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf">the highest rate</a>.</p>
<p>In his response, Fischer referred to a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/12/2/509/99272">2010 study</a>, which compared firearm deaths before (1990-1995) and after (1998-2003) the National Firearms Agreement.</p>
<p>The study found a “statistically significant decline in firearm deaths in states with higher firearm buyback rates”. There was a similar effect for firearm homicide rates, though this was less robust due to the small number of firearm homicide deaths to begin with.</p>
<p>The authors said the paper “provides evidence that reduced access to firearms lowers firearm death rates”.</p>
<p>However, the authors acknowledged it was hard to work out <em>which</em> aspect of the National Firearms Agreement was most effective, and that the results should be interpreted as a reflection of the <em>combination</em> of the gun buybacks and stricter regulations, not one or the other. </p>
<h2>Conclusions</h2>
<p>Overall, it’s clear that the gun buybacks in 1996 and 2003 and related firearm restrictions were followed by decreases in overall gun deaths, including firearm related homicides and suicides.</p>
<p>What’s less clear is the <em>cause</em> of these decreases.</p>
<p>The difficulty is that there’s no alternative universe in which the buyback and restrictions <em>didn’t</em> take place. So it’s impossible to rule out the possibility that reductions in gun deaths were caused by factors unrelated to the buyback schemes and more restrictive firearm policies. </p>
<p>Some peer reviewed studies have found that the gun buybacks and stricter regulations led to a decline in the number of gun related deaths – and suicides in particular. Some studies found the National Firearms Agreement overall had modest effects, while other studies were inconclusive.</p>
<p>What is not in dispute is that in the 15 years prior to 1996, there had been <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362">13 mass shootings</a> in Australia, in which a total of 104 people were killed and 52 were injured.</p>
<p>In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect in Australia, there <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia">has not been</a> a single mass shooting in the country. <strong>– David Bright</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review #1</h2>
<p>I agree with the verdict of this FactCheck. </p>
<p>This analysis is thorough and relies on a variety of sources to evidence the conclusions drawn. The author rightly points out that there is no one cause that can be attributed to the decline in gun related deaths in Australia.</p>
<p>The author has correctly highlighted that since the introduction of tough gun laws and firearm buybacks in Australia, we have not suffered a mass shooting of the likes of Port Arthur. This is in contrast to the US, where <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-things-to-know-about-mass-shootings-in-america-48934">mass shootings have been increasing over time</a>. <strong>– Terry Goldsworthy</strong> </p>
<h2>Blind review #2</h2>
<p>I agree with the FactCheck verdict and I think this is a fair and balanced review. <strong>– Don Weatherburn</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85836/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bright receives funding from Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Weatherburn and Terry Goldsworthy 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>Did the government-funded gun buybacks introduced after the Port Arthur massacre have “no effect” in reducing gun deaths in Australia, as an audience member claimed on Q&A? Let’s look at the evidence.David Bright, Associate Professor in Criminology, Centre for Crime Policy and Research, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/812632017-08-14T04:50:52Z2017-08-14T04:50:52ZFactCheck Q&A: is coal still cheaper than renewables as an energy source?<p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vfSXw4uCi2I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, July 17, 2017.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Q&A AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. Renewable energy is more carbon-efficient, and now cheaper, than coal and other fossil fuels …</p>
<p>MATT CANAVAN: Thanks, James. Look, I don’t accept that renewables are, at the moment, cheaper than coal.</p>
<p><strong>– Excerpt from a question posed by Q&A audience member James Newbold to the then resources minister, Senator Matt Canavan, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfSXw4uCi2I&feature=youtu.be">on Q&A</a>, July 17, 2017</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the biggest debates under way in Australia (and around the world) is about electricity and how it should be generated. One of the major pressure points is prices.</p>
<p>During <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfSXw4uCi2I&feature=youtu.be">an episode</a> of Q&A, audience member James Newbold said renewable energy is “now cheaper than coal and other fossil fuels”. Senator Matt Canavan (<a href="https://theconversation.com/nationals-matt-canavan-quits-as-resources-minister-in-latest-citizenship-blow-81570">then resources minister</a>) disagreed, saying: “I don’t accept that renewables are, at the moment, cheaper than coal.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886931860382666752"}"></div></p>
<p>Let’s look at the numbers. </p>
<h2>Checking the sources</h2>
<p>The Conversation contacted Matt Canavan’s spokesperson for sources to support his statement but did not hear back before deadline. Nonetheless, we can test his statement against publicly available data.</p>
<h2>What do the data show?</h2>
<p>Based on the electricity generated now by old coal-fired power stations with sunk costs (meaning money that has already been spent and cannot be recovered), Canavan was right to say: “I don’t accept that renewables are, at the moment, cheaper than coal.”</p>
<p>In 2017, the marginal cost of generating power from an existing coal station is <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/National-Transmission-Network-Development-Plan/NTNDP-database">less than $40/MWh</a>, while wind power is $60-70/MWh (explained below). So why do <a href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Renewable_Infrastructure_Investment_Handbook.pdf">people</a> <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/4127a8c364c1f9fa8ab096b04cd93f78.pdf">say</a> renewables are now cheaper than coal?</p>
<p>Well, they’re often talking about what would be the cheaper option if old coal-fired power stations were replaced today – in other words, the <em>new-build</em> price.</p>
<p>Making the distinction between the cost of <em>existing</em> energy generation and the cost of <em>new-build</em> energy generation in this debate is very important. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. </p>
<p>Current prices are based on existing installations, while <em>new-build</em> prices compare the costs of different technologies if their operating lives started today. This matters because Australia’s existing coal-fired power stations are ageing and will need to be replaced.</p>
<p>Comparing new-build prices is more complicated than comparing current costs, as I’ll discuss later in this FactCheck.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/renewables-will-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-the-future-here-are-the-numbers-84433">Renewables will be cheaper than coal in the future. Here are the numbers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How do we measure the cost of electrical power?</h2>
<p>Let’s cover the basic terminology first. </p>
<p>Electrical energy is measured in <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/kilowatt">kilowatt</a>-hours (kWh) – the units generally used for metering and charging residential electricity use. One kilowatt-hour represents the amount of energy a device that draws one kilowatt of power (like a household heater, for example) would use in one hour. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/megawatt-hour">megawatt-hour</a> (MWh) is 1,000 times larger, and it’s what we typically use to measure large electricity loads or generators. So when we’re comparing the cost of electrical energy generated by different sources, we’ll be talking about Australian dollars per megawatt-hour ($/MWh).</p>
<h2>Comparing prices for different sources of electricity</h2>
<p>We need to take a few things into account when calculating the cost of electricity created by different technologies.</p>
<p>First, we need to factor in how much it costs to establish the source in the first place – whether that’s a coal-fired power station, a wind farm or a hydro-power plant. Then we need to factor in how much it costs to operate, fuel and maintain that facility over its lifetime. </p>
<p>These factors and the cost of capital (like the interest rate) are commonly combined into a metric called the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source">levelised cost of electricity</a>” (or the LCOE). This provides a measure of the total cost in current dollars per unit of electrical energy generated ($/MWh) over the lifetime of the facility.</p>
<p>We also need to know the time frame in question. A coal-fired power station that’s nearing the end of its operating life may have recovered its original capital investment. So the marginal cost of coal-fired electricity may be low, compared to the levelised cost of a new wind farm that’s yet to recoup its initial capital cost.</p>
<p>Using the levelised costs of electricity created by different technologies does not always provide a perfect comparison. Comparing such different technologies will never be comparing apples with apples. But it’s the best measure we’ve got for a simple “plug and play” replacement of a single generating source. </p>
<h2>Current prices for coal-fired and wind power</h2>
<p>Today, most of Australia’s electricity is <a href="http://www.aemc.gov.au/Australias-Energy-Market/Electricity/Generation">sourced from coal-fired power stations</a>. In their discussion on Q&A, Newbold and Canavan referred broadly to “renewables”. Currently, wind power is <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1d6b0464-6162-4223-ac08-3395a6b1c7fa/files/electricity-market-review-final-report.pdf">the cheapest form of renewable energy</a>. So we’ll use that as the basis for comparison with coal-fired energy. </p>
<p>In 2017, the marginal cost of generating power from an existing black coal-fired station is <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/National-Transmission-Network-Development-Plan/NTNDP-database">less than $40/MWh</a>. Brown coal-fired power is even cheaper.</p>
<p>To establish the current price of wind power, we can look at the announcement by <a href="https://www.originenergy.com.au/about.html">Origin Energy</a> in May 2017. The company agreed to buy all the power to be generated by the <a href="http://www.stockyardhillwindfarm.com.au/">Stockyard Hill Wind Farm</a> in Victoria between 2019 and 2030 for <a href="https://www.originenergy.com.au/about/investors-media/media-centre/origin-adds-530mw-of-renewable-energy-to-its-portfolio.html">less than $60/MWh</a>. </p>
<p>A similar price was struck in March 2016 when the Australian Capital Territory government conducted its second “wind auction”. The government uses wind auctions to buy contracts for future energy supplies. The lowest price in the 2016 auction yielded around $60/MWh in current prices. This figure is based on a flat rate of <a href="http://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/828225/Renewables-and-Wind-Auction-Factsheet-ACCESS.pdf">$77/MWh</a> for 20 years and assumes around 3% inflation, which is the upper end of Australia’s <a href="http://www.rba.gov.au/inflation/inflation-target.html">inflation rate target</a> of 2-3%.</p>
<p>Combining the total price range for that auction with this inflation range gives around $60-$70/MWh in current prices, with wind farms currently operating in that adjusted range.</p>
<p>So, based on the marginal cost of energy generated by existing coal-fired power stations with sunk costs, Canavan is correct in saying that renewables are not “at the moment, cheaper than coal”. </p>
<p>However, the story is different if we are talking about <em>new-build</em> electricity prices. And this is often where conversations and debates become confused.</p>
<h2>Why new-build electricity prices matter</h2>
<p>Coal-fired power stations in Australia have operating lives of around 50 years. As can be seen from the table below, nine of Australia’s 12 biggest operating coal-fired power stations are <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Coal_fired_power_stations/Final_Report">more than 30 years old</a>. </p>
<p>In preparation for the retirement of those older coal-fired stations, policymakers, energy companies and other investors are debating whether to replace them with new coal-fired power stations, or other types of energy generation. This is where the comparison of <em>new-build</em> costs comes into play. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ayv8w/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="593"></iframe>
<h2>New-build prices for coal-fired and wind power</h2>
<p>FactChecks rely on data from events that have already occurred. So we can’t say with factual certainty whether or not renewables would be cheaper than coal as a new-build energy source, because no coal-fired power stations have been built recently. </p>
<p>But we do have recent prices for the cheapest form of <em>new-build</em> renewable energy, which is newly installed wind power.</p>
<p>And we do have recent levelised price <em>projections</em> for the cheapest <em>new-build</em> fossil fuel energy, which is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_steam_generator">supercritical</a> coal power.</p>
<p>The <em>projected</em> price for new <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_steam_generator">supercritical</a> coal power comes in at around $75/MWh from the recent <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1d6b0464-6162-4223-ac08-3395a6b1c7fa/files/electricity-market-review-final-report.pdf">Finkel review of the National Electricity Market</a>, based on data produced by <a href="http://www.jacobsconsultancy.com/">Jacobs Consultancy</a>. That is consistent with the price of $80/MWh from the 2016 report by the <a href="http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_Report_final_web.pdf">CO2 Cooperative Research Centre</a>, and less than the $84-94/MWh from the 2012/3 <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Pages/Australian-energy-technology-assessments.aspx">Australian Energy Technology Assessment</a> .</p>
<p>These projections for new supercritical coal power are higher than the recent prices for newly installed wind power (outlined earlier in the FactCheck) at <a href="http://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/796599/ACT-Wind-Auction-II-Review-Summary-report-v4.pdf">around $60-70/MWh</a> in current prices over the 20-year contract period (which is similar to a levelised cost).</p>
<p>So, if we look at recent wind power prices and recent price <em>projections</em> for new supercritical coal power, it’s reasonable to say that – <em>as things stand today</em> – wind power would be the cheaper <em>new-build</em> source of electricity.</p>
<h2>Future prices</h2>
<p>There are important additional factors that need to be taken into account when considering the costs of new-build coal-fired electricity and new-build renewable electricity as we look further into the future. Three of the main considerations are:</p>
<ul>
<li>upgrades to the energy grid (including energy storage) to <a href="https://theconversation.com/relying-on-renewables-need-not-mean-dealing-with-blackouts-28635">balance</a> the use of intermittent renewables, especially once renewable energy exceeds around 50% of all energy supply (this would <a href="http://energy.anu.edu.au/files/renewable%20electricity%20in%20Australia.pdf">increase</a> the price of renewables) </li>
<li>the introduction of a <a href="http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/effective-carbon-prices-9789264196964-en.htm">price on carbon emissions</a> (this would <a href="http://carbonpricemodelling.treasury.gov.au/content/report/04overview.asp">increase</a> the price of coal)</li>
<li>improvements in technology (this is expected to <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/energy/publications/electricity-market-final-report">reduce</a> the price of renewables more so than coal).<br></li>
</ul>
<p>It is possible to make educated assumptions about how these factors would affect prices in the future. But I won’t include those projections in this FactCheck, for two reasons: </p>
<ul>
<li>firstly, we are yet to see the outcomes</li>
<li>secondly, the Q&A audience member and Canavan were discussing prices as they are “now” and “at the moment”.</li>
</ul>
<p>So that’s what I’ve addressed in this FactCheck.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Based on the electricity generated now by old coal-fired power stations with sunk costs, Matt Canavan was right to say: “I don’t accept that renewables are, at the moment, cheaper than coal.” In 2017, the marginal cost of generating power from an existing coal station is less than $40/MWh, while wind power is $60-70/MWh.</p>
<p>The Q&A audience member may have been talking about <em>new-build</em> prices.</p>
<p>Based on recent prices for newly installed wind power of around $60-70/MWh, and recent price <em>projections</em> for new supercritical coal power at around $75/MWh, it is reasonable to say that – <em>as things stand today</em> – wind power would be cheaper than coal as a <em>new-build</em> source of electricity. <strong>– Ken Baldwin</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The author has provided a sound FactCheck that covers a lot of the complexities of a challenging issue. I would add one remark, which doesn’t detract from the author’s verdict.</p>
<p>The cost of new-build coal is likely to be higher than reported in the FactCheck. </p>
<p>The author was correct to point out that the introduction of a price on carbon emissions would <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-coal-plants-wouldnt-be-clean-and-would-cost-billions-in-taxpayer-subsidies-72362">increase</a> the cost of new-build coal-fired electricity.</p>
<p>The mere <em>possibility</em> of the introduction of a price on carbon or carbon regulation in the future actually affects the costs of new-build coal-fired electricity today. The risk of increased costs or regulation for emission-intensive generators manifests itself as a higher “risk premium” applied to current financing costs. The overall effect is a higher weighted average cost of capital (basically, a higher average interest rate) for emission-intensive generation.</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1d6b0464-6162-4223-ac08-3395a6b1c7fa/files/electricity-market-review-final-report.pdf">Finkel review</a>, the weighted average cost of capital for coal is projected to be 14.9%, compared to 7.1% for renewables. Risk-adjusted financing costs would result in the levelised cost of new coal being higher than the figures presented in the FactCheck. <strong>– Dylan McConnell</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The cost of electricity produced from a new wind farm is competitive with the best estimates for the cost of electricity produced from a new coal station, and cheaper than the cost of new coal quoted in very reputable analyses (<a href="http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_Report_final_web.pdf">CO2CRC 2015</a> and <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/Do-business/Futures/Reports/Low-Emissions-Technology-Roadmap">CSIRO 2017</a>).</p>
<p>As noted by the author, the comparison in this FactCheck does not include the cost of intermittency for renewables. Recognising that no technology runs 100% of the time, there is a backup cost to be added to wind to make it as firm (or stable) as a fuel-based plant. Available costs for such backup, such as large-scale battery or pumped storage, are based on estimates and are the subject of much current study.</p>
<p>New wind with backup could very well be very competitive with new coal, particularly if the cost of emissions is recognised. However, at present, the contention either way is unproven. <strong>– Tony Wood</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81263/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ken Baldwin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dylan McConnell has received funding from the AEMC's Consumer Advocacy Panel and Energy Consumers Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Through his superannuation fund, Tony Wood owns shares in a number of energy and resources companies.</span></em></p>On Q&A, an audience member said renewable energy is ‘now cheaper than coal’. Senator Matt Canavan disagreed, saying renewables are not ‘at the moment, cheaper than coal’. Let’s look at the numbers.Ken Baldwin, Director, Energy Change Institute, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/811832017-07-24T05:57:39Z2017-07-24T05:57:39ZFactCheck Q&A: the facts on birth rates for Muslim couples and non-Muslim couples in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178787/original/file-20170719-13554-jbuh98.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Journalist Mehdi Hasan responds to a question from a Q&A audience member. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RFzCCxQLvZs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, June 17, 2017.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>In view of the fact that in Australia Muslim couples have on average 4.5 children per couple, whereas the rest of us have 1.5 children per couple on average, is it not possible that in a couple of generations Australia could have a Muslim majority who vote in Sharia law? <strong>– Question submitted to Q&A by an audience member, posted on the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/videos/10154515052566831/">Q&A Facebook page</a>, July 17, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Central to the success of the current affairs television show Q&A are the questions submitted by audience members and viewers to be answered by the panellists of the week.</p>
<p>During last week’s live show, audience member Roger French said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… in view of the fact that, in Australia, Muslim couples have a much higher birth rate than the rest of us, is it not possible that, in a couple of generations, Australia could have a Muslim majority who vote in Sharia law?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The original question French submitted to Q&A said Muslim couples in Australia have “on average 4.5 children per couple, whereas the rest of us have 1.5 children per couple on average”. Q&A’s producers did their own fact-checking on this question. </p>
<p>Q&A Executive Producer Peter McEvoy told The Conversation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We want people to ask questions that reflect their own opinions and concerns but sometimes we go back to the questioners to ask them to shorten or simplify their question, or to check a factual assertion.</p>
<p>When the producers spoke to the audience member shortly before the program, he wasn’t able to provide a source for the statistics and so agreed to drop them. When he asked the question live Mr French didn’t include the statistics but maintained the general assertion about birth rates among Muslim couples and other couples in Australia.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Q&A social media team wasn’t alerted to that late change, so the wording Mr French submitted in his original questions was used initially in Q&A’s Facebook post.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is understandable in the making of a fast-paced live TV show, and the Q&A Facebook post <a href="https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/videos/10154515052566831/">was corrected</a>. But the original post had been <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/887111590436196353">shared on social media</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886934833259200516"}"></div></p>
<p>Let’s look at what the data show about birth rates for Muslim couples and other couples in Australia. </p>
<h2>Do Muslim couples in Australia have an average of 4.5 children per couple?</h2>
<p>There is no evidence to support the claim that Muslim couples in Australia have an average of 4.5 children per couple, or that non-Muslim couples in Australia have an average of 1.5 children per couple.</p>
<p>Census 2016 data show that women of Islamic faith in Australia have an average of 3.03 births per woman, while the average for all women in Australia is 2.02 births per woman.</p>
<p>It is correct to say that Muslim women in Australia currently have a higher birth rate than other women in Australia. It’s not reasonable to say, based on current figures, that Muslims in Australia will outnumber non-Muslims in “a couple”, or even many more, generations. </p>
<h2>Calculating birth rates for couples in Australia</h2>
<p>When we’re talking about how many children a couple have “on average”, we’re talking about <a href="http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson-Plans/Glossary.aspx">birth rates</a>. Birth rates are calculated by looking at how many children are born, and how many women there are, in a particular population. Birth rates in Australia relate to women, not couples.</p>
<p>The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes a number of births indicators, but these data are not reported by religion. Australian Census data give us an opportunity to examine birth rates by religion, with the caveat that reporting your religious affiliation in the Census is optional. In 2016, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/Independent+Assurance+Panel/$File/CIAP+Report+on+the+quality+of+2016+Census+data.pdf">96% of people provided a response</a> to the question about religion.</p>
<p>We can estimate birth rates from Census data using information about the number of <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2008.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7ENumber%20of%20children%20ever%20born%7E116">children ever born</a>, which is asked of women aged 15 and over. By looking specifically at the number of children women have given birth to by the age of 45-49, we can see what is called the ‘<a href="http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WFD2012/Metadata/Metadata_CEB.html">completed fertility</a>’ rate. <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3301.02015?OpenDocument">Relatively few</a> births in Australia occur to women 45 years or over.</p>
<p>Prior to the 2016 Census, information collected about the number of children a woman had given birth to did not include stillborn babies; only live births. In Census 2016, the instruction to include live births only <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2900.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7ETISP%20Number%20of%20Children%20Ever%20Born%7E10085">was removed</a>. Despite this change, the data appear to follow a <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/Independent+Assurance+Panel/$File/CIAP+Report+on+the+quality+of+2016+Census+data.pdf">similar trend</a> as previous data.</p>
<p>Let’s look at what the data show about the number of children born to women who were aged 45-49 at the time of the 2016 Census. </p>
<p>Analysis of “children ever born” information shows an average of 2.02 births for all women aged 45-49 in Australia. Women in Australia of Islamic faith aged 45-49 had, on average, 3.03 births per woman. Women of Jewish faith of the same age had on average 2.17 births per woman, while women of any Christian faith of the same age had on average 2.11 births per woman.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/wtXOg/6/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="355"></iframe>
<p>Internationally and in Australia, a commonly used measure for birth rates is the <a href="http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/demographics/total_fertility_rate.pdf">total fertility rate</a>. Total fertility rates are calculated using information about the number of births registered by women of different age groups in a particular period (for example, in 2015). Birth registrations are used to estimate the number of children a woman would have on average over her lifetime if those age-specific trends persisted.</p>
<p>Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that the total fertility rate for Australia in 2015 was <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3301.0Main%20Features42015?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3301.0&issue=2015&num=&view=">1.81 babies per woman</a>. That’s below the population replacement level, which requires around 2.1 babies per woman to replace herself and her partner. </p>
<p>Women in Australia who were 45-49 years old at the time of the Census and of Islamic, Christian and Jewish faiths are among the only groups examined which have at or above replacement level birth rates.</p>
<p>The difference between the Census figure (2.02 births per woman) and the ABS figure (1.81 births per woman) is that the Census figure relates to 'completed fertility’ of women now aged 45-49, while the ABS figures look at fertility rates based on current trends.</p>
<h2>Possible growth of the Australian Muslim population</h2>
<p>Is it possible that, due to relatively higher birth rates, “in a couple of generations Australia could have a Muslim majority”? We can address this question by looking at the proportion of the Australian population reporting Islamic faith.</p>
<p>In Census 2016, fewer than 3% of all Australians reported being of Islamic faith. By comparison, more than 50% of Australians reported being one form of Christian faith. 30% of Australians said they had no religion.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VgbIE/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="320"></iframe>
<p>Based on current birth rates (3.03 children per woman) and the size of the Muslim population (604,200 people, or 2.6% of total population) people of Islamic faith in Australia will not outnumber those of non-Islamic faith in “a couple of generations” – or even many more generations.</p>
<p>It’s also important to remember that children will not necessarily take on the religious beliefs of their parents, particularly in the long term.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EJIy4/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<h2>Other studies</h2>
<p>In April 2017 the Pew Research Center <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316861337_The_Changing_Global_Religious_Landscape">published a study</a> on global religious affiliation trends that received <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/muslim-christian-babies-pew-report.html">international</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/muslim-population-overtake-christian-birthrate-20-years">media</a> <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/april/pew-muslim-christian-birth-rates-2035-2060-demographics.html">coverage</a>. The report’s authors projected that, worldwide, “the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians” by the year 2035.</p>
<p>The Pew Research Center data are based on assumptions about future demographic trends, and how many people will switch religions in the future. The report suggests that between 2015 and 2020, around 8.2 million people will leave Christian churches, while 420,000 people will join the Islamic faith. </p>
<p>The report does not include country level information, but it does estimate that by 2060, the percentage of Muslims living in the Asia-Pacific region (which includes Australia) is expected to decline from 61% to 50%. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>There is no evidence to support the claim that Muslim couples in Australia have on average 4.5 births per couple, or that non-Muslim couples in Australia have on average 1.5 births per couple.</p>
<p>Based on Census 2016 data, Australian women of Islamic faith have, on average, 3.03 births per woman, while the average for all women in Australia is 2.02 births per woman.</p>
<p>There is also no evidence to suggest that the number of people in Australia of Islamic faith will outnumber those of non-Islamic faith in “a couple”, or even many more, generations. People in Australia reporting Islamic religious affiliation are a minority, despite relatively higher birth rates. <strong>– Liz Allen</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck. The average numbers of children ever born for women aged 45-49 for the various categories of religion presented by the author are correct.</p>
<p>In view of the lack of published data on the fertility of religious groups based on birth registrations, the Census is the appropriate data source to use.</p>
<p>I agree with the author’s conclusion (and Q&A panellist Mehdi Hasan’s point) that, while the available evidence shows that, in Australia, Muslim women have a higher birth rate than non-Muslim women, it is extremely unlikely that Muslims will outnumber non-Muslims in Australia in one or two generations’ time. </p>
<p>I would further add that people of Islamic faith represent small minorities of the most recent inclusions in Australia’s population, both by birth and migration. </p>
<p>In the 2016 Census, 4.32% of children aged 0-4 years who had been born in Australia were recorded as being of Islamic faith. This figure reflects recent birth patterns and the identification of young children’s religion by parents.</p>
<p>The Census data also show that women of Islamic faith who were born in Australia have on average smaller numbers of children (2.67 per woman) than first generation migrant women aged 45-49 of Islamic faith.</p>
<p>In terms of migration, Census data show 10.53% of people who arrived in Australia between 2012 and the 2016 Census date were of Islamic faith.</p>
<p>The Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project projects that Muslims will form <a href="http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/countries/australia#/?affiliations_religion_id=0&affiliations_year=2050&region_name=All%20Countries&restrictions_year=2014">4.9%</a> of Australia’s population in 2050. <strong>– Nick Parr</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81183/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Parr has received funding from Catholic Education Commission NSW </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liz Allen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Do Muslim couples in Australia have ‘on average 4.5 children’ while other couples have ‘1.5 children’? Could Australia have a ‘Muslim majority’ in ‘a couple’ of generations? Let’s check the evidence.Liz Allen, Demographer, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/789932017-06-11T20:31:12Z2017-06-11T20:31:12ZFactCheck Q&A: are rates of drug use 2.5 times higher among unemployed people than employed people?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172661/original/file-20170607-5704-1s46ltx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social Services Minister Christian Porter, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4TQKKVIq7HM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, June 5, 2017. Quote begins at 4:04.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>… We absolutely know that rates of drug use amongst unemployed are 2.5 times higher than amongst employed people. <strong>– Social Services Minister Christian Porter, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4659222.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, June 5, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The 2017-18 federal budget introduced a <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2017/budget_2017_-_welfare_reform_-_fact_sheet_for_web_0.pdf">random drug testing trial</a> for recipients of the Newstart Allowance for job-seekers and Youth Allowance in three locations. During a discussion of the measure on Q&A, Social Services Minister Christian Porter said “rates of drug use amongst unemployed are 2.5 times higher than amongst employed people”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"871707254692732928"}"></div></p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>Asked for sources to support his statement, a spokesperson for Christian Porter confirmed the minister was referring to illicit drugs, and directed The Conversation to page 84 of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129549848">2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey</a>.</p>
<p>The relevant finding reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Use of illicit drugs in the past 12 months was more prevalent among the unemployed, with people who were unemployed being 1.6 times more likely to use cannabis, 2.4 times more likely to use meth/amphetamine and 1.8 times more likely to use ecstasy than employed people.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Collecting data on employment status and drug use</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/2016-national-drug-strategy-household-survey/">National Drug Strategy Household Survey</a> quoted by the minister’s spokesperson is a reliable and comprehensive dataset. </p>
<p>The federal government has conducted the survey every three years since 1998. It is currently conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, a federal government agency. The survey collects data on drug use and drug-related issues in the Australian population.</p>
<p>The first findings of the <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/ndshs-2016/key-findings/">2016 survey</a> were <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-changing-drug-and-alcohol-habits-78597">released on June 1</a> this year, but those results didn’t include detailed employment data. The latest employment-level data <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129549642">is from 2013</a>, when the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare collected information from almost 24,000 people across Australia.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129549848">2013 survey</a> asked questions about people’s use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.</p>
<p>The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare defines “illicit drugs” as “illegal drugs, drugs and volatile substances used illicitly, and pharmaceuticals used for non-medical purposes”. So that’s the definition used in this FactCheck. You can read the full list of drugs included <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/ndshs-2013/glossary/">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Recent drug use among employed and unemployed people</h2>
<p>The data below is based on the number of employed and unemployed people aged 14 and over who said they had used the drugs listed at least once in the 12 months prior to the 2013 survey.</p>
<p>Compared to employed people, unemployed people were 1.5 times more likely to have used an illicit drug. They were:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>1.4 times more likely to have used cocaine;</p></li>
<li><p>1.6 times more likely to have used pharmaceuticals for non-medical purposes;</p></li>
<li><p>1.6 times more likely to have used cannabis;</p></li>
<li><p>1.8 times more likely to have used ecstasy; and</p></li>
<li><p>2.4 times more likely to have used methamphetamine (for example, ice and speed).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>So, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data, Porter’s statement that drug use among unemployed people is 2.5 times higher than among employed people is a selective use of the data. It’s true for methamphetamine use, but not for other types of drugs, or illicit use of drugs overall.</p>
<p>The most commonly used illicit drug among unemployed people was cannabis, which had been used by 18.5% of that population in the previous 12 months. Methamphetamine had been used by 5.6% of the unemployed population in that period.</p>
<p>In the 12 months prior to the 2013 survey, 24.5% of unemployed people had used illicit drugs, compared to 16.8% of employed people. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LOcXg/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="480"></iframe>
<h2>Other trends in illicit drug use</h2>
<p>According to the data, a larger proportion of unemployed people had <em>never</em> used illicit drugs (55.5%) compared to employed people (48.8%).</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/G0cDg/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="480"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/D20CL/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="480"></iframe>
<p>While people who were unemployed were less likely to have ever used illicit drugs, those who did were 1.4 to 2.4 times more likely to have used them in the previous 12 months.</p>
<p>Overall, unemployed people were 1.5 times more likely than employed people to have taken an illicit drug in the the previous 12 months.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Christian Porter’s statement that “rates of drug use amongst unemployed are 2.5 times higher than amongst employed people” was incorrect. </p>
<p>Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data showed unemployed people were 1.5 times more likely than employed people to have used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months.</p>
<p>The figure Porter quoted relates to methamphetamine, which unemployed people were 2.4 times more likely than employed people to have used in the past 12 months. <strong>– Nicole Lee</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>I agree with this FactCheck. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has the most appropriate and up-to-date statistics on drug use by Australians with the most recent data on this particular issue being for 2013.</p>
<p>I have checked the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data. The data show the unemployed had been recent drug users at a higher rate than employed people in the year leading up to the 2013 survey. But overall this was at a rate a bit less than 1.5 times that of the employed, not 2.5 times as Christian Porter said on Q&A. <strong>– Peter Whiteford</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Lee works as a paid consultant in the public, private and not for profit health sector to support treatment and policy implementation. She has previously been awarded grants by the state and federal government, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Social Services. He is affiliated with the Centre for Policy Development. </span></em></p>Social Services Minister Christian Porter told Q&A that ‘rates of drug use amongst unemployed are 2.5 times higher than amongst employed people’. Is that correct?Nicole Lee, Professor at the National Drug Research Institute, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/785282017-06-06T04:27:31Z2017-06-06T04:27:31ZFactCheck: are first Australians the most imprisoned people on Earth?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171568/original/file-20170531-25689-1gdbddm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cape York Partnership founder Noel Pearson, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2-9VqFpyz4M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, May 29, 2017. Quote begins at 1:49.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>We’ve made progress in the last 50 years but some of the profound indicators of our problems – children alienated from parents, the most incarcerated people on the planet Earth, and youths in great numbers in detention – obviously speak to a structural problem. <strong>– Cape York Partnership founder Noel Pearson, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4655309.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, May 29 2017</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>During a Q&A episode marking the <a href="https://theconversation.com/right-wrongs-write-yes-what-was-the-1967-referendum-all-about-76512">50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum</a>, Cape York Partnership founder Noel Pearson outlined some of the problems Indigenous Australians continue to face, including high incarceration rates. Pearson said Indigenous Australians are “the most incarcerated people on the planet Earth”. </p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his statement, a spokesperson for Pearson referred The Conversation to data from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The US has the <a href="http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx">highest rate of imprisonment</a> (in number and by percentage of population).</p>
<p>In the US, the African-American people <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html">are the most incarcerated</a> by percentage of their population (2,207 per 100,000).</p>
<p>Indigenous Australians <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4517.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7EAboriginal%20and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20prisoner%20characteristics%7E5">are the most incarcerated</a> by percentage of their population (2,346 per 100,000).</p>
<p>Therefore, the statement that Indigenous Australians are the most incarcerated people in the world is true.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What do the data say?</h2>
<p>It depends a bit on what you mean by “people”, which is a tricky term to define and will mean different things to different audiences. </p>
<p>For the purposes of this FactCheck, I have confined myself to checking Pearson’s statement on Indigenous Australian incarceration rates with the best available data on national incarceration rates in other countries. </p>
<p>I have also checked Indigenous Australian incarceration rates against the rate at which Indigenous populations are imprisoned in other countries, as well as the rate for African-Americans.</p>
<p>Let’s look at the facts.</p>
<h2>Which country has the world’s highest adult imprisonment rate?</h2>
<p>We can compare rates of incarceration in countries around the world using the <a href="http://www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief-data">World Prison Brief</a>, an international database hosted by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at Birbeck, University of London. It reports the number of adults incarcerated per 100,000 of the total population in 223 jurisdictions.</p>
<p>Pearson’s spokesperson was accurate to say the US had the highest overall rate of imprisonment in 2010, but things have changed since then.</p>
<p>The World Prison Brief now <a href="http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/seychelles">names Seychelles</a> as the country with the <a href="http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_population_rate?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All">highest adult imprisonment rate</a>. That’s based on data from 2014, which showed Seychelles had an imprisonment rate of 799 adults per 100,000 people.</p>
<p>The US is currently in second place, having reported <a href="http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/united-states-america">666 adult prisoners per 100,000 people</a> in 2015.</p>
<p>As a total population – including both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians – Australia currently ranks 93rd on the World Prison Brief list, with an imprisonment rate of 162 adults per 100,000 of the total population in 2016.</p>
<p>But, as Pearson highlighted on Q&A, we get a very different result when we look at the incarceration rate for Indigenous Australians.</p>
<h2>Comparing Indigenous Australia’s imprisonment rate to the World Prison Brief rankings</h2>
<p>The World Prison Brief <em>doesn’t</em> report the adult imprisonment rate for Indigenous Australians as a subset of the Australian population. But it is possible to calculate an estimate to compare to the international figures, using ABS data and population estimates. </p>
<p>In 2015, the Indigenous population in Australia was <a href="http://stat.data.abs.gov.au/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ABORIGINAL_POP_PROJ">approximately 729,000 people</a>. In that year, there were <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4517.0%7E2015%7EMain%20Features%7EAboriginal%20and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20prisoner%20characteristics%7E7">9,885 Indigenous adult prisoners</a>. That’s an imprisonment rate of roughly 1,356 adults per 100,000 of the total Indigenous Australian population.</p>
<p>So, Pearson’s statement that Indigenous Australians are “the most incarcerated people on the planet Earth” is correct if considering Indigenous Australian incarceration rates alongside incarceration rates in countries listed by the World Prison Brief.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/feru1/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>Indigenous and marginalised groups’ incarceration rates in Canada, NZ and the US</h2>
<p>But how does Australia’s Indigenous imprisonment rate compare with those of other Indigenous and marginalised communities around the world?</p>
<p>Data on Indigenous imprisonment rates are not consistently measured or reported in many countries. So it’s difficult to gauge how Australia’s Indigenous imprisonment rate compares with Indigenous people or marginalised groups internationally.</p>
<p>But credible data are available for a number of groups in several countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US.</p>
<p>(Note: the following figures are reported per 100,000 of the <em>adult</em> population, not the <em>total</em> population as used by the World Prison Brief.)</p>
<p>Starting with the US, Pearson’s spokesperson accurately quoted US Bureau of Justice Statistics that showed African-Americans were the most imprisoned racial group in the US in 2010, with an adult imprisonment rate of <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html">2,207 per 100,000 African-American adults</a>. In the same year, Indigenous Australians were imprisoned at a higher rate – <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/12CF5E952D0E70C6CA2577F3000F0AEC?opendocument">2,303 per 100,000 Indigenous adults</a>.</p>
<p>In 2015, the adult imprisonment rate of Indigenous Australians was still higher than that of African-Americans. In that year, <a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf">1,745 per 100,000 African-American adults</a> were incarcerated, compared to <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4517.0%7E2015%7EMain%20Features%7EImprisonment%20rates%7E14">2,253 per 100,000 Indigenous Australian adults</a>.</p>
<p>(By 2016, the Indigenous Australian incarceration rate had risen another 4%, to <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4517.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7EAboriginal%20and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20prisoner%20characteristics%7E5">2,346 adult prisoners per 100,000 adults</a>.)</p>
<p>The imprisonment rate for Indigenous Americans in the US in 2010 was <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/2010rates/US.html">895 per 100,000 Indigenous American adults</a>. The imprisonment rate for Canada’s Aboriginal people in 2010-11 was estimated to be <a href="http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/oth-aut/oth-aut20121022info-eng.aspx">1,400 per 100,000 Aboriginal Canadian adults</a>. </p>
<p>We can calculate the imprisonment rate for New Zealand’s Māori using statistics from the <a href="http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research_and_statistics/quarterly_prison_statistics/December_2015.html">Department of Corrections</a> and <a href="http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/MaoriPopulationEstimates_HOTPMYeDec15.aspx">Stats NZ</a>. In 2015, the Māori adult imprisonment rate was approximately 1,063 per 100,000 Māori adults.</p>
<p>So, Indigenous Australians were imprisoned at higher rates than Indigenous people in the US in 2010, in Canada in 2010-11 and in New Zealand in 2015, and than African-Americans in 2015. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/bJtOb/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="250"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Nv1LM/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="200"></iframe>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Noel Pearson’s statement that Indigenous Australians are “the most incarcerated people on the planet Earth” is correct, based on the best available international data. <strong>– Thalia Anthony</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck.</p>
<p>We do not have data for imprisonment rates of Indigenous, minority or marginalised groups in every country on Earth, so we cannot categorically state Indigenous Australians are the most incarcerated on the planet.</p>
<p>But for countries for which we do have data, this is an accurate statement. <strong>– Eileen Baldry</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thalia Anthony receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eileen Baldry receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Cape York Partnership founder Noel Pearson told Q&A that Indigenous Australians were ‘the most incarcerated people on the planet Earth’. Is that right?Thalia Anthony, Professor of Law, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/777852017-05-19T00:24:21Z2017-05-19T00:24:21ZFactCheck Q&A: does Australia have one of the highest progressive tax rates in the developed world?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169707/original/file-20170517-24341-1851nin.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The AiGroup's Innes Willox, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XOINdHbYbH4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, May 15, 2017. Quote begins at 0.50.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Look, we just need to keep in mind that we have one of the highest progressive tax rates in the developed world at the moment. <strong>– Innes Willox, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4647567.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, May 15, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>When Q&A host Tony Jones <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4647567.htm">asked</a> if wealthy people should pay more tax, the AiGroup’s Innes Willox said that Australia already has one of the highest progressive tax rates in the developed world.</p>
<p>Is that true?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"864088666997612544"}"></div></p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support Innes Willox’s statement, a spokesman for the AiGroup clarified that Willox was referring to top marginal tax rates.</p>
<p>The spokesman referred The Conversation to <a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/data/oecd-tax-statistics_tax-data-en">OECD tax statistics</a>, and two charts built using that data, saying that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This shows that Australia has a relatively high top marginal tax rate (49%) but not the highest among OECD countries (Sweden is top, at 60%). The rub is that our top marginal rate cuts in at a relatively lower level of income than most other OECD countries (2.2 times our average wage).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read his full response and see those charts <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-the-aigroup-for-a-factcheck-on-how-australias-top-tax-rates-compare-internationally-77798">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Is it true? Not exactly</h2>
<p>Looking at <a href="http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I7">OECD data</a>, Australia’s highest marginal tax rate is higher than the OECD median. Out of the 34 OECD member countries in this data set, Australia ranks 13th for the top marginal rate of tax, meaning 12 countries have a higher top marginal rate, and 21 countries have a lower top marginal rate.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Wbqcx/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>However, a straight comparison like this can be misleading. More than half (19) of the OECD countries impose “social security contributions”. The <a href="http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-19963726.htm">OECD defines</a> social security contributions as “compulsory payments that confer an entitlement to receive a (contingent) future social benefit”. It notes that they “clearly resemble taxes” and “better comparability between countries is obtained by treating social security contributions as taxes”. </p>
<p>When social security contributions are taken into account, Australia’s “ranking” in terms of top marginal rate of tax drops to 16 out of the 34 OECD member countries – making it still higher than the OECD median top marginal rate, but not by much. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/sXsW3/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>The other point noted by the AiGroup spokesman was that Australia’s top marginal tax rate applies at a relatively low level of income compared to most other OECD countries. </p>
<p>Australia’s highest marginal tax rate applies to taxable income above A$180,000, approximately 2.2 times Australia’s average wage. The AiGroup spokesman was right to say this is relatively low, with the majority of OECD countries (20 out of 34) applying their highest marginal tax rate at income levels higher than Australia (that is, at income levels higher than 2.2 times the average wage). </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/45Et0/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>However, it is worth noting that based on the latest <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Taxation-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2014-15/?anchor=Individuals#Figure9">Australian Taxation Office statistics</a>, for the 2014-15 tax year, only 3% of individual taxpayers fell into the highest tax bracket. </p>
<p>Where Australia <em>does</em> rank amongst the highest in the OECD is the percentage of total tax revenue that is derived from individual income taxation. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/te6MN/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>In 2014, 41% of Australia’s taxation revenue came from income taxation on individuals. This is the <a href="http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I1">second highest in the OECD</a> (the highest being Denmark at 54%) and significantly higher than the OECD average of 24%. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The statement made by Innes Willox that “Australia has one of the highest progressive tax rates in the developed world at the moment” is an exaggeration. </p>
<p>Australia ranks 13th in the OECD for the top marginal rate of tax, and 16th if social security contributions are taken into account. </p>
<p>However, Australia does rely more heavily on personal income tax (when compared to other taxes) than all but one other OECD country. <strong>– Kathrin Bain</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>I agree that the statement is an exaggeration. 13th out of 34 is higher than the median, but it would be equally true to say that more than one-third of the OECD countries have a higher personal marginal tax rate than Australia.</p>
<p>It is always problematic to try to compare tax data across different countries. Although the OECD does try to make the data comparable the differences between tax and welfare systems can lead to misleading comparisons. </p>
<p>It is generally well known that certain Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, have a very high marginal tax rate. However those countries also tend to have a different approach to social and welfare spending. Australia does not have a dedicated social security tax: pensions and income support are paid from general revenue. This structural difference in the tax-transfer systems does limit the comparison. </p>
<p>Australia does have a high reliance on personal income tax, and the top marginal rate is higher than the median OECD level. Although the top marginal rate is relatively low at 2.2 times the median wage, the fact that only 3% of the population are in the top bracket says that we, in fact, have a relatively flat tax structure, with most taxpayers in lower tax brackets. <strong>– Helen Hodgson</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77785/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Hodgson receives funding from AHURI and the ARC. Helen is a member of the Social Policy Committee and a Director of the National Foundation for Australian Women, and is on the Tax and Superannuation Advisory Panel of ACOSS. Helen was a Member of the WA Legislative Council in WA from 1997 to 2001, elected as an Australian Democrat. She is not a current member of any political party. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathrin Bain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The AiGroup’s Innes Willox told Q&A that Australia has one of the highest progressive tax rates in the developed world. Is that true?Kathrin Bain, Lecturer, School of Taxation & Business Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/760792017-05-01T07:46:26Z2017-05-01T07:46:26ZFactCheck Q&A: do 80% of Australians and up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164777/original/image-20170411-31879-xfdeki.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Author Nikki Gemmell speaking on Q&A. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8nQZ7fYo8U8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, April 10, 2017. Quote begins at 5.30.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>I’m speaking for 80% of the Australian population here who support the euthanasia laws and in terms of Catholics and Anglicans, I’m speaking for up to 70% of them as well. <strong>– Author Nikki Gemmell, speaking on Q&A, April 10, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Victorian government is expected to introduce a bill in the second half of this year to legalise euthanasia. If passed, the laws would be the first in Australia to legalise assisted dying since the Northern Territory’s euthanasia laws were overturned in 1997. </p>
<p>During a discussion on Q&A, author Nikki Gemmell – who has been arguing to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/by-her-own-hand/news-story/d8f599d6056b795c7756c41721fa9420?nk=5ccf14ef1fcd83b6bfe4a2862a38a2fe-1493271471">legalise euthanasia</a> since sharing the story of her mother’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-20/nikki-gemmell-explores-euthanasia-debate-after-mothers-death/8347548">“horrifically lonely”</a> death – said 80% of Australians and up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851406250231218176"}"></div></p>
<p><em>(Thanks to all the Q&A viewers who requested this FactCheck: see more viewer tweets at the end of this article.)</em></p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support her statement about Australians’ support for euthanasia laws, Gemmell supplied The Conversation with a table listing 10 polls conducted in Australia on the topic of euthanasia between 2007 and 2016. </p>
<p>The table shows support for euthanasia ranging between 66% and 85% over the years from 2007-16. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166224/original/file-20170421-12658-1twswrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166224/original/file-20170421-12658-1twswrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166224/original/file-20170421-12658-1twswrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166224/original/file-20170421-12658-1twswrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166224/original/file-20170421-12658-1twswrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166224/original/file-20170421-12658-1twswrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166224/original/file-20170421-12658-1twswrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166224/original/file-20170421-12658-1twswrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Opinion poll results, Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Table provided by Nikki Gemmell.</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Conversation has independently verified each of these polls.</p>
<p>As for her statement that up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws, Gemmell pointed The Conversation to a <a href="http://christiansforve.org.au/public-opinion/">website</a> run by Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia.</p>
<p>The website refers to a <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/4/76079-2017-04-24-polling-Dying_With_Dignity_Summary_Report_V2.pdf?1518043685">2007 Newspoll survey</a> of more than 2,400 people commissioned by <a href="https://www.dwdv.org.au/">Dying with Dignity Victoria</a>, which found 74% of Catholic/Roman Catholic respondents and 81% of Anglican/Church of England respondents surveyed thought doctors should be allowed to provide “a lethal dose to a patient experiencing unrelievable suffering and with no hope of recovery”.</p>
<p>Gemmell also provided a link to <a href="http://www.dwdnsw.org.au/documents/2013/POLL%20WHITE%20PAPER%202012.pdf">a document</a> published by <a href="http://www.yourlastright.com/">YourLastRight.com</a>, a group of seven not-for-profit pro-euthanasia societies across Australia.</p>
<p>The document refers to a <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/6/76079-2017-04-24-polling-121104_Dying_with_Dignity_Report_Revised.pdf?1518043821">2012 Newspoll survey</a> of more than 2,500 people, commissioned by YourLastRight.com. That poll asked the question:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Thinking now about voluntary euthanasia. If a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing unrelievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose, or not? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In that poll, 77% of Catholic/Roman Catholic and 88% of Anglican/Church of England respondents said yes. </p>
<h2>A critical look at the polls</h2>
<p>The first thing to remember is that not all polls are created equal. Random sample, population-based studies, conducted in a way that maximises the opportunity to participate (such as postal surveys), with well-designed questionnaires, non-leading questions and rigorous data analysis are the “gold standard” for surveys of public opinions and beliefs. </p>
<p>A closer examination of the polls is warranted – so let’s look in more detail at the some of the key surveys Gemmell cites, including from The Australia Institute, ABC Vote Compass, Newspoll and others.</p>
<h2>Surveys that ask about people with “unrelievable suffering”</h2>
<p>First, let’s look at the Australia Institute and Newspoll results. These surveys asked whether respondents supported voluntary euthanasia for people experiencing “unrelievable suffering”, often in the context of a terminal illness. But it’s important to note that “unrelievable suffering” is only <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265314/">one of the reasons</a> people request assistance to die.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/node/1914">2012 the Australia Institute</a> commissioned a survey (1,422 respondents) and reported that 71% supported:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia for people experiencing unrelievable and incurable physical and/or mental suffering.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/MR%20Survey%20results%20attitudes%20to%20voluntary%20euthanasia_8.pdf">2010 survey</a> (1,294 respondents), the Australia Institute asked: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This question is about voluntary euthanasia. If someone with a terminal illness who is experiencing unrelievable suffering asks to die, should a doctor be allowed to assist them to die?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>75% of respondents said “yes, voluntary euthanasia should be legal”. Of the respondents who identified as Christians, 65% said voluntary euthanasia should be legal.</p>
<p>The quality of the Australia Institute research was generally acceptable. To ensure that the survey was representative of the Australian population, sampling quotas were applied by age, gender and territory, and data were post-weighted based on the profile of the adult Australian population. </p>
<p>However, I note some limitations with the 2010 Australia Institute poll: </p>
<p>a) This was an online survey, which would have excluded many older people and potentially people from lower socio-economic backgrounds who may have had limited access to computers, as well as some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. </p>
<p>In a series of <a href="http://epubs.scu.edu.au/aslarc_pubs/17/">stratified, population-based postal surveys</a> my colleagues and I conducted in Queensland and <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:153431">the Northern Territory</a> between 1995 and 2002, participants were asked about their level of support for “terminally ill people who decide they no longer wish to live”. In those studies, 65%-75% of respondents said euthanasia should be legally available, but those aged 75 and over were the <em>least</em> likely to agree with this.</p>
<p>There was also <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/1996-99/euthanasia/report/report.pdf">concern</a> among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Northern Territory about the <a href="http://www.nt.gov.au/lant/parliamentary-business/committees/rotti/rotti95.pdf">introduction in 1995 of laws legalising euthanasia</a> (<a href="http://www.nt.gov.au/lant/parliamentary-business/committees/rotti/parldebate.shtml">overturned in 1997</a>). Had there been more participation among older people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australia Institute poll, the results may have shown less acceptance of voluntary euthanasia.</p>
<p>(b) The question itself was problematic. As mentioned earlier, “unrelievable suffering” is not the only reason people request assistance to die. The main reasons for requests for assistance to die include <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27380345">loss of control</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265314/">dignity and independence</a>; and having “had enough” or being “ready to go” – not just “unrelievable suffering”.</p>
<p>If someone is experiencing unrelievable suffering, there should be a thorough investigation of their pain and symptom management, and other causes of distress, with the option of terminal sedation for unmanageable suffering.</p>
<p>Then there are Newspoll’s findings from <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/4/76079-2017-04-24-polling-Dying_With_Dignity_Summary_Report_V2.pdf?1518043685">2007</a>, <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/5/76079-2017-04-24-polling-091005_Euthanasia_Study.pdf?1518043791">2009</a> and <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/6/76079-2017-04-24-polling-121104_Dying_with_Dignity_Report_Revised.pdf?1518043821">2012</a>, from surveys commissioned by Dying With Dignity Victoria, Dying with Dignity NSW and YourLastRight.com respectively. </p>
<p>In those surveys, 80-85% of respondents answered yes to the question:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Thinking now about voluntary euthanasia. If a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing unrelievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose, or not? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, that is very leading question, which limits its credibility.</p>
<h2>Surveys with less leading questions</h2>
<p>Since 2013, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has run national and statewide surveys using an online tool called <a href="https://votecompass.abc.net.au/">Vote Compass</a>, developed by <a href="http://voxpoplabs.com/">data scientists from Canada</a> in collaboration with political scientists from the <a href="http://electionwatch.unimelb.edu.au/australia-2016/articles/votecompass">University of Melbourne</a>. It allows voters to respond to political and social issues on an opt-in basis.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/vote-compass-euthanasia/7441176">2016 Vote Compass survey</a> (201,404 respondents) found 75% of respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the statement:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Terminally ill patients should be able to legally end their own lives with medical assistance.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166443/original/file-20170424-12650-de82yb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166443/original/file-20170424-12650-de82yb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166443/original/file-20170424-12650-de82yb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166443/original/file-20170424-12650-de82yb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166443/original/file-20170424-12650-de82yb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166443/original/file-20170424-12650-de82yb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=179&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166443/original/file-20170424-12650-de82yb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=179&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166443/original/file-20170424-12650-de82yb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=179&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/vote-compass-euthanasia/7441176">ABC Vote Compass 2016</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same result – 75% agreement – was reported when the question was asked in the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/vote-compass-gay-marriage-euthanasia-abortion/4918494">2013 Vote Compass survey</a> (effective sample size of 422,403).</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/vote-compass-gay-marriage-euthanasia-abortion/4918494">2013</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/euthanasia-debate:-abcs-vote-compass-reveals-how/7446590">2016</a> Vote Compass polls, 70%/71% of Catholics and 66%/68% of Protestants, respectively, strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement, as well as 77% from the Uniting Church in 2013. </p>
<p>As ABC Vote Compass itself <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/vote-compass-data-reporting-faq/7409492">readily acknowledges</a>, Vote Compass is not a random sample, and it is not a poll. The sample is self-selected, although results are weighted to be representative of the Australian population.</p>
<p>The statement ABC Vote Compass asked people to respond to on this issue – “terminally ill people should be able to end their lives with medical assistance” – was much better than the one asked by the Australia Institute. It’s a less leading question, and doesn’t depend on unrelievable suffering.</p>
<h2>Support falls if euthanasia is not being requested for terminal illness</h2>
<p>It’s also worth noting that some polls, such as the <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/economist-assisted-dying-topline-jun-2015.pdf">2015 Ipsos Mori/Economist</a> poll Gemmell cited, show support for voluntary euthanasia drops to as low as 36% if the patient’s condition is not terminal and the patient is “mentally or emotionally suffering”, rather than “physically suffering”.</p>
<p>More than 2,000 adults surveyed in Australia in 2015 were asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Do you think it should be legal or not for a doctor to assist a patient aged 18 or over in ending their life, if that is the patient’s wish, provided that the patient is terminally ill (where it is believed that they have 6 months or less to live) of sound mind, and expresses a clear desire to end their life?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>73% of respondents said yes, it should be legal. They were also asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Do you think it should be legal or not for a doctor to assist a patient aged 18 or over in ending their life, by the doctor administering life-ending medication?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The “yes” response dropped to 64% for this question (which didn’t specify the patient’s health status). Support dropped again when people were asked: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Do you think that it should be legal or not for a doctor to assist a patient in ending their life, if they are not terminally ill, but are physically suffering in a way that they find unbearable and which cannot be cured or improved with existing medical science? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In these circumstances, 58% said “yes, it should be legal”. When the words “physically suffering” were swapped with “mentally or emotionally suffering”, support dropped to 36%. </p>
<h2>Some polls show Catholics and Christians are against euthanasia</h2>
<p>Not all polls or surveys on this issue are represented in the table that Gemmell provided. One example is the <a href="http://www.2016ncls.org.au/about/announcing-2016-ncls">National Church Life Survey</a>, conducted every five years for 25 years, which surveys churchgoers and local church leaders from more than 20 Christian denominations. It is run by <a href="http://www.ncls.org.au/">NCLS Research</a>, and is supported by the <a href="http://ume.nswact.uca.org.au/">Uniting Mission and Education</a>, the <a href="https://www.anglicare.org.au/">Anglicare</a> Diocese of Sydney, the <a href="https://www.catholic.org.au/">Australian Catholic Bishops Conference</a> and the <a href="http://www.acu.edu.au/">Australian Catholic University</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/7/76079-2017-04-24-polling-NCLS_Fact_Sheet_14011_Attitudes_to_euthanasia.pdf?1518043858">In 2011</a> a sample of Catholic, Anglican and Protestant churchgoers were asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Do you agree or disagree: ‘People suffering from a terminal illness should be able to ask a doctor to end their life?’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Only 24% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed; 26% were neutral or unsure, and 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Results broken down by denomination are as follows:</p>
<p><em>Responses to the statement “the terminally ill should be able to ask a doctor to end their life”.</em> </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166447/original/file-20170424-24654-dvl85e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166447/original/file-20170424-24654-dvl85e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166447/original/file-20170424-24654-dvl85e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=238&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166447/original/file-20170424-24654-dvl85e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=238&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166447/original/file-20170424-24654-dvl85e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=238&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166447/original/file-20170424-24654-dvl85e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166447/original/file-20170424-24654-dvl85e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166447/original/file-20170424-24654-dvl85e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=7207">NCLS Research.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The question asked in this survey is a good one, and it isn’t leading. However, there is insufficient information in the report about how the data was collected to judge its validity. </p>
<p>For example, even if the results were supposed to be anonymous, information about respondents’ gender and age was collected. The surveys were collected and returned to NCLS Research by the individual churches, and church leaders were provided with the survey results relating to their parishioners. It’s possible respondents moderated their answers under those circumstances, which does cast doubt on the credibility of the survey. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, it’s reasonable to say that while higher percentages of people in the wider community who identify with specific religions express support for assisted dying, there appears to be much lower support among regular churchgoers.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Nikki Gemmell’s statement that 80% of Australians and up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws is backed up by a number of surveys – but not all. Public support can drop significantly depending on the questions asked, how the survey was conducted and who conducted it.</p>
<p>Support for voluntary euthanasia is generally higher when the question asks about patients with “unrelievable suffering” who have “absolutely no chance of recovering”. Support falls when patients do not have a terminal illness. </p>
<p>Academic research conducted between 1995 and 2002 found that a majority of Australians supported legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia. There has been surprisingly little academic research on this question since then. <strong>– Colleen Cartwright</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The article is balanced and generally presents an accurate summary of the spread of opinion on assisted death.</p>
<p>The author’s comments on leading questions and on questions that specify “unrelievable suffering” are well supported by the literature.</p>
<p>It’s worth adding that “assistance” might be thought by some respondents to include stopping treatment, something that is already legal. Five of the 10 surveys in the table Nikki Gemmell provided did not specify either “suicide” or a “lethal injection”. Of course, the other five surveys showed similarly high levels of support for assisted dying.</p>
<p>A related issue is that support might be lower if a model of assisted death is specified. The Ipsos study reported 73% approval for unspecified assistance, 64% support for a doctor “administering life-ending medication” and 55% support for a doctor “prescribing life-ending medication that the patient could take”. <strong>– Charles Douglas</strong></p>
<hr>
<p>Thank you to everyone who requested this FactCheck by tweeting with the hashtags #FactCheck #QandA. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851406302219599872"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851406062888509440"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851405837687848961"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851405901122555904"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851405816057839621"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851405804318015490"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"851405814728343552"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p><em>Update: This FactCheck was updated on May 9, 2017 to add more detail about how the National Church Life Survey was conducted.</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><em>If this article has raised issues for you or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76079/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colleen Cartwright previously received government funding for research through the University of Queensland and Southern Cross University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Douglas has received internal research funding from the University of Newcastle to conduct research into attitudes to assisted death.</span></em></p>During a discussion on Q&A, author Nikki Gemmell said 80% of Australians and up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws. Is that right?Colleen Cartwright, Emeritus professor, Southern Cross UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/749302017-03-23T02:25:11Z2017-03-23T02:25:11ZFactCheck Q&A: Has confidence in the media in Australia dropped lower than in the United States?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161919/original/image-20170322-5395-1rz8z1w.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs Zed Seselja discusses faith in media on Q&A with fellow panellist Claire Wardle from First Draft, which targets misinformation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cCwC1qRj638?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, March 20, 2017.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>I’ve seen various surveys right around the world showing that confidence in media has dropped in recent years. In fact, I saw a survey recently that showed actually in Australia it had dropped and it’s lower than in the United States. Obviously, there will be different indexes. <strong>– Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs, Zed Seselja, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4624231.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, March 20, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a wide-ranging Q&A discussion on misinformation, disinformation and trust in media, the assistant minister for social services and multicultural affairs, Zed Seselja, said that surveys showed confidence in media has fallen around the world. In Australia, he said, it has dropped lower than in the US.</p>
<p>Is he right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>The Conversation asked Seselja’s office for sources to support his statement but didn’t hear back before deadline. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, there is at least one recent source supporting his statement about “confidence” in the “media”. </p>
<h2>The 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer</h2>
<p>The 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer <a href="http://www.edelman.com/news/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-global-implosion/">report</a>, released by global public relations firm <a href="http://www.edelman.com/who-we-are/about-us/">Edelman</a> in January this year, concluded Australians are less trusting of the media than their US counterparts, when asked if they trusted the media to do the right thing.</p>
<p>The data in the report is drawn from more than 33,000 respondents to an online survey conducted in 28 countries in 2016. They looked at trust in various institutions among the “<a href="http://www.edelman.com/news/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-global-implosion/">informed public</a>” (defined as highly-paid, college-educated, people who read or watch the news and actively follow public policy) and also among the general population.</p>
<p>Respondents were asked to indicate how much they trust various institutions (including the media) to do what is right. The chart below, taken from the report, shows trust in media in Australia is indeed lower than in the US, as Seselja said. The figure for Australia is 32% among the general population, while for the US trust in media is at 47% among the general population.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161944/original/image-20170322-16490-c7civ3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161944/original/image-20170322-16490-c7civ3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161944/original/image-20170322-16490-c7civ3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161944/original/image-20170322-16490-c7civ3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161944/original/image-20170322-16490-c7civ3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161944/original/image-20170322-16490-c7civ3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161944/original/image-20170322-16490-c7civ3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161944/original/image-20170322-16490-c7civ3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-global-results-71035413?ref=http://www.edelman.com/global-results/">2017 Edelman Trust Barometer report</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Edelman Australia’s chief executive <a href="http://www.edelman.com/post/trust-free-falls-in-the-land-down-under/">Steven Spurr said</a> at the time:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A real standout this year was Australians’ loss of trust in media. Among informed publics (from a 54% trust level last year), media now sits at 40%, a whopping 14-point decline. Among the general population, trust in media at 32% is among the lowest levels globally, 11 points below the global average of 43% and a 10 point drop from 2016.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Edelman’s 2017 report recorded a drop in trust <a href="http://www.edelman.com/news/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-global-implosion/">globally</a> in government, business, media and non-government organisations between 2016 and 2017. The decline in trust had been accelerated by the state of the local media industry, the proliferation of fake news and growing trust in search engines over journalists, Spurr <a href="http://www.edelman.com/post/trust-free-falls-in-the-land-down-under/">said</a>.</p>
<h2>Other sources</h2>
<p>As Seselja also correctly pointed out, there are different indexes, and different ways of looking at confidence and trust in the media and journalism. </p>
<p>Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism publishes a <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/">Digital News Report</a> each year, which measures general trust in news media. Its most recent report was released in June 2016. </p>
<p>The research was <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2016/survey-methodology-2016/">conducted</a> using an online questionnaire of more than 50,000 people in 26 countries in January and February 2016. Around 2000 people were surveyed in each of the participating countries.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2016/australia-2016/">Australian results</a> were compiled by academics at the University of Canberra – and those tell a different story about “trust” and “journalism” to the Edelman survey.</p>
<p>In 2016, <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2016/australia-2016/">the Reuters report</a> found that general trust in news media had Australia was low compared to most OECD countries – but <em>above</em> the United States. </p>
<p>The US had general news trust at 33%, Australia at 43%, Ireland at 50%, UK at 50% and Canada at 55%, as this chart from the report shows:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161948/original/image-20170322-16514-65yp0v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161948/original/image-20170322-16514-65yp0v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161948/original/image-20170322-16514-65yp0v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161948/original/image-20170322-16514-65yp0v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161948/original/image-20170322-16514-65yp0v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161948/original/image-20170322-16514-65yp0v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161948/original/image-20170322-16514-65yp0v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161948/original/image-20170322-16514-65yp0v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital-News-Report-2016.pdf?utm_source=digitalnewsreport.org&utm_medium=referral">Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Digital News Report 2016</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same report found that Australians trusted news organisation more than individual journalists. A total of 39% trusted news organisations and 32% trusted journalists, as this chart from the report shows:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161945/original/image-20170322-16481-19jub58.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161945/original/image-20170322-16481-19jub58.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161945/original/image-20170322-16481-19jub58.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161945/original/image-20170322-16481-19jub58.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161945/original/image-20170322-16481-19jub58.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161945/original/image-20170322-16481-19jub58.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161945/original/image-20170322-16481-19jub58.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161945/original/image-20170322-16481-19jub58.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital-News-Report-2016.pdf?utm_source=digitalnewsreport.org&utm_medium=referral">Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Digital News Report 2016</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It will be interesting to see if the Reuters Institute’s 2017 results, which are due to be released in July, accord with the 2017 Edelman report’s findings. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Zed Seselja was right: “various surveys right around the world” have shown declining confidence in media in recent years, while at least one recent survey (the 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer report) shows that confidence in the media Australia has dropped and is lower than in the United States.</p>
<p>The minister also correctly noted there are different indexes of trust in the media and journalism, which have different methods (and reach different conclusions). For example, the <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2016/australia-2016/">2016 Digital News Report</a> found that general trust in news media had Australia was low compared to other OECD countries, but above the United States. <strong>– Alexandra Wake</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound analysis of the varying global indices that can get us closer to understanding different levels of confidence in the media in the US and Australia. At face value, Zed Seselja’s comments can be supported and the analysis above shows this. </p>
<p>The very recent work of University of Canberra scholar Caroline Fisher in her recent Communication, Research and Practice journal <a href="http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/items/b8c12a88-0668-4490-95ca-da5d906851c2/1/">article</a> gets to the heart of why the question of media trust is a tricky topic for several reasons. </p>
<p>First, there is no agreed definition on the measure of “trust” (or confidence) in the media. Different survey questions get different answers depending on how respondents think about “media”.</p>
<p>When some people think of media they might be referring to news media like ABC TV news, but for others, media could be the Herald Sun, or even for some, it might mean Facebook. </p>
<p>Another consideration is the inference about what low levels of public trust in the media <em>actually</em> means. It can’t necessarily be assumed to be a bad thing (although it could be). For example, empirical evidence outlined in Jan Müller’s <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2_JmjnB-AEAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=media+trust+and+authoritarian+regimes&ots=P2cYZNpXeb&sig=bXDpUPszEo1fbqSDFcbNRmSebbo#v=onepage&q=authortarian&f=false">book</a> on media trust shows that the highest levels of media trust are in authoritarian regimes, not democracies.</p>
<p>Finally, academic <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Z87HrlkBZiEC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=trust+in+media+journalism+studies&ots=7eaW5verBj&sig=jeIYRlQD827R_wRVdNg5vDmq4Ck#v=onepage&q=world%20values&f=false">Thomas Hanitzch</a>, who studies media trust, warns that levels of public confidence in the media have developed differently depending on contextual factors and thus comparing two countries can be quite misleading. <strong>– Andrea Carson</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74930/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>On Q&A, government minister Zed Seselja remarked that surveys showed confidence in media has fallen globally. In Australia, he said, it has dropped lower than in the US. Is he right?Alexandra Wake, Senior lecturer, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/743632017-03-12T00:45:02Z2017-03-12T00:45:02ZThe Conversation’s FactCheck granted accreditation by International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160273/original/image-20170310-3703-1wdwwlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook has said being a signatory to Poynter's code of principles is a condition for being accepted as a third-party fact-checker on its network.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/esthervargasc/10948923353/in/photolist-hFw6sz-q8jyMs-5fxik-4rWiK4-39u1L1-4USXkP-pUUqXC-ayMaDJ-pU8X3S-aqykCF-5fxmY-5fxej-5fxq2-MWNqV-4APB4-74Z3Sh-a6PfMX-VsA5F-bBsnwu-dHvtNv-beVk9v-2EsH-6oA9bR-nDEban-oZ5oJ4-4oRBYD-9p9EUk-SLJyBk-dHCMz1-gMKoH2-ntxC6e-oLYSA2-fKqEDR-qu62Qk-mZCEBP-6hdKsq-3K92tp-phyqDt-aMHaiH-oLHdEZ-fUMosn-oLXpj7-4znP1S-nU75Kf-bmpkZL-j7s6pF-ibooom-9qDWdY-gJhdXA-5oSLxP">Flickr/Esther Vargas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit has become the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of only two worldwide <a href="http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">accredited</a> by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. </p>
<p>The only other fact-checking team accredited under this process is the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/">Washington Post’s Fact Checker</a>.</p>
<p>The accreditation process is part of a broader effort by media outlets to restore reader trust in a world where anyone can claim the title FactCheck – whether or not they have approached the task in a fair, rigorous and impartial way.</p>
<p>Facebook has <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/facebook-has-a-plan-to-fight-fake-news-heres-where-we-come-in/442649/">said</a> being a signatory to a code of principles developed by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at Poynter is a condition for being accepted as a third-party fact-checker on the social network. Facebook is partnering with news organisations in an effort to weed out so-called “fake news”.</p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TVH6Xduaz8lYxvnRfMzi85PMTxCseNoUQ-gcdqIsnoI/edit?usp=sharing">The accreditation</a> means The Conversation’s unique approach to fact checking has been assessed by an external panel as compliant with the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">code of fact-checker’s principles,</a> which require non-partisanship, fairness, transparency of funding, sources and methods, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.</p>
<p>Accredited organisations can use the International Fact-Checking Network’s verification badge to demonstrate compliance with the principles.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The verification badge that may only be shown by fact-checking units that have passed the application and accreditation process managed by the International Fact-Checking Network at the Poynter Institute.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Acclaim on behalf of the IFCN</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In its application for verified status, The Conversation described its unique <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">methodology</a>, in which we ask academics with subject expertise to test claims by public figures against the evidence, and seek sources and comment from the person we are fact-checking. The draft is then blind reviewed by a second expert who doesn’t know the identity of the lead author. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYLdaZWt9H8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The external assessor <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-dqYAuRL4RxWWtJSHZpamdzTTU1TEM4UGFsd1NwN2Fwak00/view">described</a> the The Conversation as “a refreshing combination of journalistic writing with academic expertise” and praised the peer-review process, commenting: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This gives it an additional layer of protection in the realm of fact-checking and presenting non-partisan information on a variety of key subjects to a worldwide audience… The Conversation’s experts analyse the claims and then provide a “verdict” about whether the statement(s) was false, overstated or correct, noting the grey areas in how those facts may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented, which is an additional layer I found the public could find useful.</p>
<p>I have to say as a college professor (now) and journalist (then), this combination of fact-checking through an expert and peer-review is one of the more innovative models I have encountered or read about. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Conversation’s verified status is valid for one year, after which it will be reviewed. You can read more about the International Fact-Checking Network’s admissions process <a href="https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/facebook-launches-a-new-disputed-tag-to-combat-fak.html">here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Conversation’s FactCheck has become the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of only two worldwide accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network at the US-based Poynter Institute.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/741542017-03-08T00:04:43Z2017-03-08T00:04:43ZFactCheck Q&A: are there laws to protect against ‘revenge porn’ in Australia?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159707/original/image-20170307-20739-1888lgf.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Actor and presenter Faustina Agolley speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gXejApbmZM4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, March 6, 2017. Quote begins at 3:10.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>I thought there were laws to kind of protect [against] revenge porn? There aren’t? <strong>– Actor and presenter Faustina Agolley, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4618968.htm">speaking</a> on Q&A on March 6, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the lead-up to International Women’s Day, an all-female panel of guests on ABC TV’s Q&A program discussed issues ranging from sexual assault and domestic violence to “<a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/revenge-porn-10067">revenge porn</a>”, where a nude or explicit image is shared without consent. </p>
<p>Actor and presenter Faustina Agolley questioned what the law says on this issue, asking: “I thought there were laws to kind of protect [against] revenge porn? There aren’t?”</p>
<p>Let’s check the facts. </p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>The Conversation contacted Agolley seeking to clarify what she meant by her comment. She said by email:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>My question “I thought there were laws to kind of protect [against] revenge porn?” was to the audience and presenter Tony Jones. They replied “no” or shook their heads. That’s why I said, “There aren’t?” I was surprised as I thought there was. Coming from Victoria, I must have heard or read this somewhere before (perhaps from one of <a href="http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/by/Clementine-Ford">Clementine Ford’s</a> articles). And I didn’t realise this was specific to the state that I lived in. Therefore, when the audience seemed to debunk my hunch, I believed them.</p>
<p>I hope this helps further the discussion on this issue. As may you know, we’re only briefed on what some of the topics may be. Revenge porn was not one of them, so I couldn’t research in advance. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>As it turns out, Agolley was right to be unsure about what the law is on so-called “revenge porn” in Australia – because the answer to her question depends on where you live.</p>
<h2>Patchy state laws, and no specific national laws</h2>
<p>Revenge porn is a media-generated term referring to the distribution of nude, sexual or sexually explicit images without the depicted person’s consent, often via social media or mobile phone. </p>
<p>Yet the term itself is misleading. Not all perpetrators are motivated by “revenge”, and not all images can be described as “pornography”. The term might also be offensive to victims, as it minimises the harms they experience when an intimate image (photo or video) is created or shared without permission.</p>
<p>This is partly why academics and government agencies are increasingly using the term <a href="https://esafety.gov.au/esafety-information/esafety-issues/image-based-abuse">“image-based abuse”</a>.</p>
<p>There are specific laws in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/s41da.html">Victoria</a> and <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/soa1953189/s26c.html">South Australia</a> that criminalise the distribution of an intimate or “invasive” image without consent. In both Victoria and South Australia, it is also a criminal offence to threaten to distribute an intimate or invasive image. </p>
<p>But there are no specific federal laws making the non-consensual creation or distribution of a nude or sexual image a criminal offence. There are also gaps in other Australian state and territory laws where no specific criminal offences exist.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10439463.2016.1154964">our research with police and legal services</a>, some suggested that federal telecommunications laws such as “using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence” (<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/claoaoma22004729/sch1.html">Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code</a>) could be used to respond to image-based abuse. But unless it is clear that a perpetrator intended to cause those impacts to a victim by distributing an intimate image, some of our interviewees thought it was a legal grey area and that clearer laws were needed.</p>
<p>There have been <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-03/labor-mps-propose-private-members-bill-banning-revenge-porn/6747764">proposals to introduce new federal laws</a> to tackle image-based abuse. To date, the federal government has committed to introducing a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-23/revenge-porn-civil-penalties-could-serve-quicker-justice/8050054">civil penalties scheme</a>, which would assist victims in reporting image-based abuse and having the images removed. </p>
<p>Other states have also investigated whether new laws are needed. For example, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/11/revenge-porn-to-be-criminalised-in-western-australia-domestic-violence-law">Western Australia has proposed its own legal reform</a> to tackle image-based abuse by a partner or ex-partner in the context of family violence. The proposed law would allow restraining orders (also known as intervention or protection orders in some jurisdictions) to prevent a perpetrator from distributing or publishing intimate images of another person. A breach of the order would be a criminal offence, attracting up to two years in prison.</p>
<p>In short, there is currently a piecemeal approach to legal protections against image-based abuse (or “revenge pornography”) in Australia.</p>
<p>While criminal and civil laws exist in some states and territories that could be (and have been) used to provide victim redress, there is no national consistency.</p>
<p>In states or territories without specific legislation, many victims simply have no recourse to justice if existing laws do not apply and/or if the victim cannot afford to seek remedies through the civil law, which is often costly and out of the reach of ordinary Australians.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Faustina Agolley was right to be unsure on Q&A about what the law is on revenge porn in Australia – because it all depends on where you live. Specific laws against so-called “revenge porn” do exist in two states, Victoria and South Australia. But there is no specific criminal offence at the federal level or in other states and territories. <strong>– Anastasia Powell, Nicola Henry, Asher Flynn.</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The above analysis is sound. However, I would also add the following points:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The New South Wales attorney-general, Gabrielle Upton, announced in September last year that the state government will soon seek to criminalise “revenge porn” or “the distribution of intimate or sexually explicit images without consent”. They also proposed a new civil offence for serious invasions of privacy.</p></li>
<li><p>Other criminal laws such as “publishing an indecent article” have also been <a href="https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/54a636e73004de94513d973b">used to successfully prosecute</a> cases of “revenge porn”.</p></li>
<li><p>Civil doctrines such as breach of confidence and copyright can sometimes provide effective <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2015/15.html">outcomes</a>, such as injunctions prohibiting defendants from further publication and compensation.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I would agree that state laws provide patchy coverage for instances of
“revenge pornography”. There are no <em>specific</em> national laws but other laws have been used to successfully prosecute cases. I think national laws – such as Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code (using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence) that have been used to successfully prosecute <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/guilty-verdict-in-adfa-skype-sex-case-20130828-2sq7v.html">some</a> <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2013/122.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=deblaquiere">instances</a> of “revenge porn” are inadequate and in need of reform. <strong>– Jessica Lake.</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74154/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anastasia Powell receives funding from the ARC and the Criminology Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Asher Flynn receives funding from the ARC and the Criminology Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicola Henry receives funding from the ARC and the Criminology Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Lake does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On Q&A, panellist Faustina Agolley questioned whether there were laws protecting against revenge porn in Australia. As it turns out, it all depends on where you live.Anastasia Powell, Senior Research and ARC DECRA Fellow, Justice and Legal Studies, RMIT UniversityAsher Flynn, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Monash UniversityNicola Henry, Senior Lecturer in Legal Studies, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/730452017-02-20T04:14:50Z2017-02-20T04:14:50ZFactCheck Q&A: was it four degrees hotter 110,000 years ago?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157278/original/image-20170217-4271-6avur5.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Senator Jacqui Lambie, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VunHZ7cCCyw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>JACQUI LAMBIE: First of all, we’ve always had climate change – it’s been much, much hotter and much, much colder. Even 110,000 years ago, it was four degrees hotter. Charging our pensioners and our businesses and families more for power…</p>
<p>TONY JONES: There’ll be fact checkers on that one, Jacqui…– <strong>Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4612398.htm">speaking on Q&A</a> with host Tony Jones, February 13, 2017</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>With renewable energy, heatwaves and climate change back in the headlines, Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie told Q&A that it was four degrees hotter 110,000 years ago.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support her statement, a spokesman for Jacqui Lambie referred The Conversation to Al Gore’s book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/B000QEJ0WY">An Inconvenient Truth</a> and Tim Flannery’s book <a href="http://www.theweathermakers.org/">The Weather Makers</a>.</p>
<p>The spokesman confirmed that Lambie was referring to 4°C, not Fahrenheit, and added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… most people think that the average world temperature has been constant for millions of years. The Gore and Flannery books prove it hasn’t.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The detailed response from Lambie’s office, which is available <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokesperson-for-jacqui-lambie-for-a-factcheck-on-climate-change-73064">here</a>, included a chart from Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth, which Lambie’s office had annotated. That chart is based on <a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/6080">data</a> from <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/793">Antarctic ice cores</a>. A response that The Conversation sourced from Tim Flannery on Lambie’s representation of his work can also be found <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokesperson-for-jacqui-lambie-for-a-factcheck-on-climate-change-73064">here</a>. </p>
<p>Let’s check the scientific evidence.</p>
<h2>Warmer, compared to what?</h2>
<p>Most non-scientists probably think in terms of “warmer than today” or “cooler than today”.</p>
<p>However, much of the science on this compares past and projected temperatures to a <a href="https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/defining-pre-industrial/">pre-industrial baseline</a>, not to the temperature today in 2017. That’s because temperatures now are rising too rapidly to serve as a useful baseline. (Industrialisation began in the late 18th century, and the world has warmed by <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/">about 1°C since then</a>).</p>
<p>In this FactCheck, we will talk about both: comparing to pre-industrial levels and comparing to today.</p>
<h2>Was it ‘much, much hotter’ and ‘much, much colder’ in the past?</h2>
<p>Lambie was right to say that the Earth’s climate has always changed and that, at different times, Earth has been hotter and colder than today.</p>
<p>The past 650,000 years of Earth’s history (the interval shown in the annotated chart provided by Lambie’s office) was characterised by large climate swings as Earth moved naturally in and out of “ice ages” <a href="https://theconversation.com/ice-ages-have-been-linked-to-the-earths-wobbly-orbit-but-when-is-the-next-one-70069">triggered by changes in its orbit relative to the Sun</a>. </p>
<p>Initial cooling, brought on by slow changes to the shape of the Earth’s orbit and wobble of the Earth’s axis, was <a href="https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change">amplified by natural effects</a>, including the growing ice sheets and the drawing down of carbon dioxide into the deep oceans. Over tens of thousands of years these <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/05/climate-change-feedback-loops">amplifying feedbacks</a> caused Earth’s climate to descend into an ice age. </p>
<p>At the peak of the last ice age (around 20,000 years ago), Earth’s global average temperature is estimated by scientists to have been about <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19798.html">5-6°C cooler</a> than it was during the pre-industrial interval.</p>
<p>So, yes, it is fair to describe the ice ages as much, much colder than now. But were the warm periods of the last 650,000 years “much, much hotter”? </p>
<p>No. The warm climates of the so-called “interglacials” – meaning the period between ice ages – were similar to today. <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19798.html">A few of these periods</a> were a little bit hotter; some were a little bit cooler. </p>
<p>None had a <em>global</em> average temperature that was 4°C warmer than either today or pre-industrial times (we will return later to what the data say about <em>local</em> average temperatures).</p>
<h2>How warm was it 110,000 or so years ago?</h2>
<p>There was a warm interglacial period <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379114003382">around 130,000 to 115,000 years ago</a>, before the last ice age. </p>
<p>This last interglacial period <em>was</em> one of the warmest periods of the past 650,000 years. But it wasn’t 4°C hotter globally. </p>
<p>Extensive <a href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20130097">scientific evidence from across the globe</a> shows that the global average temperature during this interglacial period was <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19798.html">1-2°C warmer</a> than pre-industrial times (or about as warm as it was in 2016).</p>
<p>This evidence comes from <a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/what-are-proxy-data">natural climate archives</a>, including the tiny marine organisms that <a href="http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/big-ideas/ice-and-sediment-cores/">accumulate as sediment on the bottom of the oceans</a> and whose chemical makeup fluctuates with surface ocean temperatures, and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-ice-cores-24302">water molecules in ice cores</a> that reflect air temperatures over the polar regions.</p>
<p>The last time Earth’s average temperature was 4°C warmer than pre-industrial levels was around <a href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294">5-10 million years ago</a>. To put that in context, modern humans have existed for the last 200,000 years and civilised societies began to form only around 6,000 years ago.</p>
<h2>Global average temperatures versus local warming</h2>
<p>While the global average temperature during the last interglacial period was 1-2°C warmer than pre-industrial times, in some places like Antarctica and Greenland <em>local</em> warming resulted in temperatures as high as, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html">or even higher than</a>, 4°C warmer. These more extreme <em>local</em> temperature changes near the poles are referred to as
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/">polar amplification</a>.</p>
<p>Scientists have used ice-core data to calculate that during the last interglacial period Antarctica was around <a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/6080">3-5°C warmer</a> than it was during pre-industrial times. But <em>global</em> average temperatures were not 4°C warmer. </p>
<h2>Why does it matter?</h2>
<p>The fact that Earth has experienced natural climate changes in the past doesn’t downplay the significance of how humans are changing the climate now. </p>
<p>The vast amounts of coal, oil and gas burned since the Industrial Revolution in 1750 has caused the levels of <a href="https://www.co2.earth/">carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to rise</a> very significantly.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UatUDnFmNTY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide, by the Co-operative Institute for Research In Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Natural climate variations have continued to be a factor in Earth’s climate since the Industrial Revolution, but the rapid rise in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) has been the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WG1AR5_FAQbrochure_FINAL.pdf">dominant cause of climate warming during the industrial era</a>.</p>
<p>In 2016, the planet’s average surface temperature had risen to be about <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally">1.1°C warmer than in the late 19th century</a>, when instrumental records began. This places our climate today at a similar global average temperature to the last interglacial.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-187" class="tc-infographic" height="2000" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/187/6864d164de3795db8173059dc5a397f7e744e8fd/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>When global average temperatures were 1-2°C warmer than pre-industrial times between 115,000 and 130,000 years ago, this caused so much of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets to destabilise and melt that <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019">sea level rose by 6-9 metres</a>.</p>
<p>It takes time to melt an ice sheet. But in some parts of Antarctica, climate warming since the Industrial Revolution has <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-can-now-only-watch-as-west-antarcticas-ice-sheets-collapse-26957">already triggered unstoppable changes in the ice sheets</a> that will likely commit us to the higher end of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807">28-98cm range of sea-level rise</a> predicted for the end of this century by the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157267/original/image-20170217-4280-742ine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157267/original/image-20170217-4280-742ine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157267/original/image-20170217-4280-742ine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157267/original/image-20170217-4280-742ine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157267/original/image-20170217-4280-742ine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157267/original/image-20170217-4280-742ine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157267/original/image-20170217-4280-742ine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157267/original/image-20170217-4280-742ine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Peak global mean temperature, atmospheric CO2, maximum global mean sea level (GMSL), and source(s) of meltwater. Light blue shading indicates uncertainty of GMSL maximum. Red pie charts over Greenland and Antarctica denote fraction (not location) of ice retreat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019">Dutton et al. Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods, Science.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Senator Jacqui Lambie’s description of past climate change on Q&A was not entirely correct. </p>
<p>She was right to say that Earth’s climate has always changed. It always will - driven by a wide range of natural causes, and now dominated by the growing influence of human activities such as burning fossil fuels. And at different times it has been hotter and colder than today.</p>
<p>But was it 4°C hotter 110,000 years ago, as Lambie said? No, not globally. </p>
<p>The Antarctic was about 4°C hotter during last interglacial period (around 130,000-115,000 years ago) than it was in pre-industrial times – but the <em>global</em> average temperature then was closer to 1-2°C warmer than pre-industrial times. </p>
<p>Our climate today is at a similar global average temperature to the last interglacial period about 130,000-115,000 years ago. <strong>– Nerilie Abram</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck. It is presented in a clear and accessible manner. In drawing its conclusions it cites a range of peer-reviewed scientific literature in our top journals. It highlights the key distinction between local and global temperature, and our understanding of polar amplification. </p>
<p>I would only add that the rate of warming over the last century is very unusual in the context of glacial and interglacial cycles. When the earth has moved out of ice ages in recent millennia it has taken, <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php">on average, 1,000 years</a> to warm the planet by 1°C. The earth’s temperature in recent decades has risen at around <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php">1°C per 100 years</a>, or <a href="http://theconversation.com/meet-el-ninos-cranky-uncle-that-could-send-global-warming-into-hyperdrive-72360">faster</a>. So the recent <em>rate</em> of warming is very unusual in this context. NASA makes this point <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php">here</a>. </p>
<p>The climate science community is very well aware of the record of past changes in the Earth’s climate. Indeed, these changes are part of the evidence for why we expect the rapid accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity to produce large changes to the climate. <strong>– Ben Henley</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73045/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nerilie Abram receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Henley receives funding from an ARC Linkage Project and is an associate investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.</span></em></p>During a Q&A discussion about climate change, Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie said it was four degrees hotter 110,000 years ago. Is that right?Nerilie Abram, ARC Future Fellow, Research School of Earth Sciences; Chief Investigator for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/730642017-02-20T04:08:34Z2017-02-20T04:08:34ZResponse from a spokesman for Jacqui Lambie for a FactCheck on climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157268/original/image-20170217-4276-1adrsak.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For this <a href="http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-it-four-degrees-hotter-110-000-years-ago-73045">FactCheck</a>, The Conversation asked Senator Jacqui Lambie for sources to support her statement that “we’ve always had climate change – it’s been much, much hotter and much, much colder. And even 110,000 years ago, it was four degrees hotter.” </p>
<p>A spokesman for Jacqui Lambie referred The Conversation to two books about climate change: Al Gore’s <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8714.An_Inconvenient_Truth">An Inconvenient Truth</a> (2006) and Tim Flannery’s <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48463.The_Weather_Makers_?from_search=true">The Weather Makers</a> (2001). His response, edited below for clarity, said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In a time when everyone says the science is settled, it’s clear that not every one understands the basic science of climate change – and they deny, perhaps through ignorance, the science of natural climate change.</p>
<p>When it comes to climate change, most people think that the average world temperature has been constant for millions of years. Gore and Flannery’s books prove it hasn’t. </p>
<p>Flannery admits that the average world temperature has naturally and regularly increased and decreased over millions and millions of years because of variations in Earth’s orbit and angle tilt. (See attached pages 41 and 42)</p>
<p>Flannery writes about a climate pioneer – and respected scientist – called Milutin Milankovitch who explains in detail why natural climate change is so regular, strong and causes the ebb and flow of ice ages.</p>
<p>Indeed, if you asked this question, most people would be clueless: What’s the average world temperature? In other words, what’s the temperature that we don’t want to increase – because that would mean global warming? Two or three degrees above what base line temperature?</p>
<p>Flannery reveals it early in his famous book on page five at ‘around 14 degrees.’ Recent media reports in the Economist say its between 14.5C and 15C.</p>
<p>So now for the important reference: Al Gore’s: An Inconvienient Truth</p>
<p>We can’t find anywhere in Gore’s book where he actually states what the average world temperature is. However, he draws it in his famous graph where he compares both CO2 levels and average world temperature levels for the last 650,000 years. </p>
<p>Ice core samples from the Antarctic allow for the accurate calculation of average world temperature.</p>
<p>It puts climate change into context. It’s ridiculous trying to justify or talk about climate change when people talk time periods of 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. 5,000 year blocks is just a starting point for a sensible conversation.</p>
<p>So I’ll send you the original pages of Gore’s books – and our modified pages where we’ve drawn a red line and traced back average world temperature for the last 650,000 years and made some comments </p>
</blockquote>
<p>(Editor’s note: you can see a clearer version of the original chart <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=93M6C24ac9MC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=the+grey+line+shows+the+world%27s+temperature+an+inconvenient+truth&source=bl&ots=-w_h3699_v&sig=noSLo1SmYxEbjo3WGy9-su5SvmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6u570xJjSAhWGUrwKHQu-DAsQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=the%20grey%20line%20shows%20the%20world's%20temperature%20an%20inconvenient%20truth&f=false">here</a>):</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157280/original/image-20170217-4243-yui5mz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157280/original/image-20170217-4243-yui5mz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157280/original/image-20170217-4243-yui5mz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157280/original/image-20170217-4243-yui5mz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157280/original/image-20170217-4243-yui5mz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157280/original/image-20170217-4243-yui5mz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157280/original/image-20170217-4243-yui5mz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157280/original/image-20170217-4243-yui5mz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A chart from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, copied and sent to The Conversation by Jacqui Lambie’s spokesman.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8714.An_Inconvenient_Truth">Image from Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth, sent to The Conversation by Jacqui Lambie's office.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157264/original/image-20170217-4269-17x5veu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157264/original/image-20170217-4269-17x5veu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157264/original/image-20170217-4269-17x5veu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157264/original/image-20170217-4269-17x5veu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157264/original/image-20170217-4269-17x5veu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157264/original/image-20170217-4269-17x5veu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157264/original/image-20170217-4269-17x5veu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157264/original/image-20170217-4269-17x5veu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Modified version of a chart from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth featuring red annotations made by Jacqui Lambie’s office that do not feature in the original chart.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jacqui Lambie's office</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When asked by The Conversation if Senator Lambie was representing his work accurately, Tim Flannery said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’m happy to hear that Senator Lambie is reading The Weather Makers. She is certainly correct that Earth’s climate has varied greatly over geological time. 110,000 years ago, however, Earth was not four degrees warmer, but around as warm as it is today.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73064/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie responded to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment regarding our FactCheck on her climate change comments.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/726492017-02-13T07:18:52Z2017-02-13T07:18:52ZFactCheck Q&A: is violent crime getting worse in Victoria and do people feel less safe than ever?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156272/original/image-20170209-8649-1ohnrm6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KENnpdXe9-A?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, February 6, 2017. Watch from 1:46.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t think Victorians have ever felt as unsafe as they do now. I think people are worried about home invasions, carjackings. The numbers tell the story. Burglaries are up 21% year on year in Victoria. Assaults are up 11%. Murders are up 9%. – <strong>Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4563427.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, February 6, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Following a question on ABC TV’s Q&A program, Josh Frydenberg – who holds the inner Melbourne seat of Kooyong – said he thought people in his home state feel more unsafe than ever and that burglaries, assaults and murders were up year-on-year in that state.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"828576665177509889"}"></div></p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his statement, a spokesman for the minister referred The Conversation to the following table from Victoria’s <a href="https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/latest-crime-data/recorded-offences-1">Crime Statistics Agency</a>, which processes, analyses and publishes the state’s crime statistics independently of Victoria Police. These figures cover crimes recorded by police:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156319/original/image-20170210-8651-1fdzdwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156319/original/image-20170210-8651-1fdzdwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156319/original/image-20170210-8651-1fdzdwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156319/original/image-20170210-8651-1fdzdwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156319/original/image-20170210-8651-1fdzdwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156319/original/image-20170210-8651-1fdzdwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156319/original/image-20170210-8651-1fdzdwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156319/original/image-20170210-8651-1fdzdwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This table outlines the offence categories that had statistically significant movements from October 2014 to September 2016. All other offence categories remained stable during this period. It also covers only crimes recorded by police, not all crime.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/latest-crime-data/recorded-offences-1">Victoria's Crime Statistics Agency</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Frydenberg’s spokesman added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It would appear that in trying to remember the stats he mixed up robberies (21.5%) with burglaries (13.7%).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The minister’s office has provided a good source for his figures, and readily acknowledged some numbers were mixed up. </p>
<p>So what are the real numbers are on burglaries, assaults and murders? And was Frydenberg’s overall point – that crime is getting worse – correct? Is his view on how safe Victorians feel supported by the evidence?</p>
<h2>Two key sources for crime stats</h2>
<p>There are two main sources against which Frydenberg’s crime stats can be checked.</p>
<p>The first is the <a href="https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/latest-crime-data/recorded-offences-1">Crime Statistics Agency in Victoria</a> (Frydenberg’s source). These figures reflect crimes recorded by police.</p>
<p>But evidence shows that <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4530.02015-16?OpenDocument">not all Australians</a> who are victims of a crime report it to police, which means those figures are not showing the full picture. It depends on the crime; the reporting rate for break-ins is about 77%, and it’s about 93% for motor vehicle theft. But the reporting rate for robbery is about 52%, physical assault is at about 55% and it’s as low as 30% for sexual assault).</p>
<p>To get a better sense of true crime rates, a second, more reliable, measure of crime in the community is the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Main+Features12015-16?OpenDocument">crime victimisation survey</a> conducted each year by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
Since 2008, these surveys ask a <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Explanatory%20Notes12015-16?OpenDocument">large sample</a> of the population whether they have experienced certain personal and household crimes in the last 12 months.</p>
<h2>What do the stats on crimes recorded by police show?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/latest-crime-data/recorded-offences-1">Crime Statistics Agency data</a> that the minister’s office cited show that between September 2015 and September 2016:</p>
<ul>
<li>Burglary/break and enter offences were up 13.7% (not 21%, as Frydenberg said on Q&A; if he had said robberies, 21% would have been correct).</li>
<li>Assault and related offences were up 12.6% (slightly more than the 11% Frydenberg said on the show)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/embridge_cache/emshare/original/public/2017/01/d0/0535f6a9f/Offences%20data%20table%20-%20year%20ending%2030%20September%202016.xlsx">The number of murders</a> went from 56 to 61, an increase of 8.9% (matching Frydenberg’s figure of 9%)</li>
<li>The overall offence rate increased by 9.4%.</li>
</ul>
<p>Over the past five years, the offence rate per 100,000 people in Victoria has has an average annual increase of 5.4%.</p>
<p>So even though Frydenberg got some figures wrong, his broader point – that crime is getting worse in Victoria – is well supported by this data set. And he did quote the Crime Statistics Agency’s figure for murder correctly on Q&A.</p>
<p>But it’s possible these figures reflect the fact that people are increasingly likely to report crimes to the police.</p>
<h2>What does the Crime Victimisation Survey show?</h2>
<p>But what’s a better way to get a sense of whether Victorians are more or less likely to be a victim of crime than before? That was the point Q&A viewer Paula Maud made in her <a href="https://twitter.com/paula_maud/status/828576665177509889">tweet</a> requesting a FactCheck – and it’s a good point. </p>
<p>That’s where looking at the ABS crime victimisation survey figure can help us get a more accurate picture.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by+Subject/1367.0%7E2012%7EMain+Features%7ECrime+Victimisation%7E5.21">crime victimisation rate</a> gives us an indication of the total number of victims of a crime in each state and territory, or Australia-wide, expressed as a percentage of that population. </p>
<p>For example, if Victoria had a robbery victimisation rate of 0.3% in 2015-16, it means that three Victorians aged 15 and above in every 1000 (<a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Explanatory%20Notes12015-16?OpenDocument">excluding</a> members of the defence forces and overseas residents in Australia) reported that they were victims of robbery in that 12 month period.</p>
<p>The charts below show how the victimisation rate has changed for various crime categories between 2008 and 2016.</p>
<p>The ABS’ <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Main+Features12015-16?OpenDocument">crime victimisation survey</a> calls burglaries “break-ins” (meaning unlawful entry of a dwelling with intent to steal something). It covers robberies (meaning a theft in combination with a threatened or actual assault) as well.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aA9tH/4/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="650"></iframe>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3dI09/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="650"></iframe>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/K7WvN/5/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="650"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>The Crime Victimisation Survey doesn’t report on murder, but data from the <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/about_aic/research_programs/nmp/0001.html">National Homicide Monitoring Program</a> shows that the murder rate in Victoria, as in Australia generally, has declined by about a third since 1990. And the latest ABS <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0%7E2014%7EMain%20Features%7EHomicide%20and%20Related%20Offences%7E9">Victims of Homicide</a> data (which goes up to 2015) show the murder rate for Victoria has declined:</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PbuT1/7/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="505"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>Is crime in Victoria rising in the longer term?</h2>
<p>Between 2008 and 2016, most crime rates in Victoria decreased, the crime victimisation surveys show. (Sexual assault and domestic violence rates have gone up, which may reflect changing social attitudes and definitions around these crimes).</p>
<p>This general fall in the level of crime started <a href="http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2014/facts_and_figures_2014.pd">in the early 2000s</a> and is apparent in all Australian states except Western Australia, the crime victimisation survey shows. It’s also apparent in the United States, the United Kingdom and most European countries. </p>
<p>There have been a variety of explanations proposed for the “<a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/what-caused-crime-decline">great crime decline</a>”, none of them entirely satisfactory. But what is undeniable is that the level of crime in developed countries is now significantly lower than it was at the end of the 20th century.</p>
<h2>Have Victorians’ ever felt as unsafe as they do now?</h2>
<p>As <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-crime-getting-worse-in-australia-60119">noted</a> in previous crime stats FactCheck:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Public perceptions of crime and justice are commonly out of kilter with the facts. <a href="http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb182.pdf">Surveys</a> conducted by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that most people think crime is increasing when it is not.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That said, the <a href="https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/programs-and-projects/vichealth-indicators-survey-2015">2015 VicHealth Indicators survey</a> showed that the proportion of Victorians who reported feeling safe when walking alone after dark was 55.1%. That was down from 2011 when 59.3% said they felt safe, but not significantly different to the level when the same question was asked in 2007. </p>
<p>The 2017 <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2017/justice">Report on Government Services</a> on justice reported a steady fall in the proportion of Victorians who said they felt safe walking in their neighbourhood after dark. Interestingly, over the five-year period shown in the chart below, that change in feeling less safe walking down the street in Victoria wasn’t reported by people in most other states or territories.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156318/original/image-20170210-8634-1ume9ny.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156318/original/image-20170210-8634-1ume9ny.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156318/original/image-20170210-8634-1ume9ny.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156318/original/image-20170210-8634-1ume9ny.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156318/original/image-20170210-8634-1ume9ny.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156318/original/image-20170210-8634-1ume9ny.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156318/original/image-20170210-8634-1ume9ny.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156318/original/image-20170210-8634-1ume9ny.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Perceptions of safety in public places during the night.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2017/justice/rogs-2017-volumec.pdf">Report on Government Services, Volume C: Justice</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://ipsos.com.au/ipsos-public-affairs/the-issues-monitor/">IPSOS Issues Monitor survey</a> for December 2016 showed that crime was the most highly ranked issue for Victorians, with 41% selecting it as one of the three most important issues facing their state, up from 28% for most of 2014 and 2015. However, the current level of concern about crime in Victoria is about the same as it was in 2010.</p>
<p>Broadly speaking, it does appear that Victorians’ concerns about crime have increased in recent years.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Josh Frydenberg accurately quoted one set of official statistics on murder on Q&A, and was close to the mark (actually slightly underquoting) the figures on assault and related offences. However, as his office readily acknowledged, he got it wrong on the increase in burglaries. </p>
<p>Is his broader point that crime is worsening in Victoria correct? According to figures based on police records, yes. But we also know that many crimes never get reported to police, which means we’re better off looking at another, more reliable data set – the ABS’ annual crime victimisation survey.</p>
<p>That survey shows that between 2015 and 2016, the victimisation rate for break-in and physical assault rose, and stayed the same for robbery. Over the longer term, (between 2008 and 2016) most crime rates in Victoria decreased and this general fall is apparent in all Australian states except Western Australia.</p>
<p>A number of different sources show that Victorians are feeling more concerned about crime and safety in recent years. We don’t have enough comparable data to say if Victorians have ever felt as unsafe as they do now. <strong>– Stuart Ross</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This analysis is thorough and the author has relied on a variety of data sets to reach evidence-based conclusions.</p>
<p>One issue worth noting is the difference between public perceptions of crime versus the reality of crime that is occurring. The media focus on crime is one culprit in shaping our perceptions of reality. It is also worthy to note that when politicians speak of crime issues relevant to the public, they are often referencing recent events rather than the long term trend. <strong>– Terry Goldsworthy</strong></p>
<p><em>CORRECTION: The title of the murder victimisation rate chart changed on February 18 to replace “Murder victimisation rate (%)” with “Murder victimisation rate (per 100,000)”. The Conversation apologises for the error and thanks reader Cameron Lewis for spotting it.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72649/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Ross has done consulting work for the Victorian Department of Justice in the past. He has previously received funding from the ARC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Goldsworthy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg said he thought that Victorians have never felt more unsafe, and that burglaries, assaults and murders are rising year-on-year. Is he right?Stuart Ross, Director and Senior Researcher, Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/705932016-12-26T21:54:36Z2016-12-26T21:54:36ZYear in Review: FactCheck and the weasel-words, cherry-picking and overstatements of 2016<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150852/original/image-20161220-24310-1gl71mm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Conversation published 29 FactChecks over the eight week federal election campaign</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>2016 was the year of “<a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">post-truth</a>” politics, of <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/2016-lie-year-fake-news/">fake news</a> and “<a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/rendezview/out-of-the-way-logic-feelpinions-are-taking-over/news-story/6f4d0d5ba933b9a381b4581266fde0d1">feelpinions</a>”. But while facts may have fallen out of fashion abroad, the popularity of The Conversation’s FactCheck articles show that many Australians still expect and demand their politicians stick to some sort of mutually agreed upon reality.</p>
<p>Bald-faced lies are, thankfully, fairly rare in Australian politics. Being caught in an outright fib or blooper is still seen as shameful. The problem in Australia is that facts and statistics are frequently twisted to paint a misleading picture. </p>
<p>Weasel-words, cherry-picking and overstatements are common. Our politicians and lobby groups are masterful at disguising opinion and ideology as fact, and making statements that, ultimately, aren’t checkable. These tactics are harder to spot, but equally dangerous.</p>
<p>Sometimes FactCheck finds politicians and other public figures to be completely correct. We should recognise and commend leaders who use facts accurately, in context and tell the whole story. That’s when Australians have the best chance of making informed decisions about their country.</p>
<p>2016 was a federal election year in Australia, and our academic experts worked harder than ever during the marathon political campaign. We published 29 <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/election-factcheck-2016-27402">Election FactChecks</a> over the eight week campaign, nearly one every two business days – an impressive output from our experts given the rigour of The Conversation’s FactCheck <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">process</a>. </p>
<p>We ask authors to double-check the numbers, scrutinise the fine print, play devil’s advocate, question their assumptions, produce charts, provide links, improve their sourcing, rewrite their copy for clarity – and then all FactChecks are blind reviewed. That means an independent expert academic who doesn’t know the identity of the lead author checks that the story is sound.</p>
<p>Throughout the year, we fact-checked claims about all the key issues making headlines in Australia, and cast a sceptical eye on politicians and public figures of all political stripes. <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/factcheck-qanda-6550">Our Q&A FactChecks</a>, in which we fact-checked comments made on the ABC TV show each week, commanded a large audience.</p>
<p>A few themes came up over and over again: <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-how-much-was-spent-on-the-cambodia-refugee-deal-and-how-many-were-settled-68807">refugees</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-what-are-the-real-numbers-on-refugees-and-other-migrants-coming-to-australia-66912">asylum seekers</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-welfare-recipients-owe-the-australian-government-about-3-5-billion-61906">welfare reform</a>, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-the-job-market-got-so-bad-that-people-have-stopped-looking-for-work-67457">job market</a>, the state of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-what-are-the-facts-on-jobs-and-growth-in-australia-70114">economy</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-labor-planning-to-increase-taxes-by-100-billion-over-ten-years-59159">tax</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-does-australia-have-one-of-the-most-unequal-education-systems-in-the-oecd-58156">inequality</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-eight-of-australias-12-most-emission-intensive-power-stations-closed-in-the-last-five-years-65036">energy</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-australians-with-an-average-seafood-diet-ingest-11-000-pieces-of-plastic-a-year-55145">environment</a> to name a few. </p>
<p>You can read a list of our ten best-read FactChecks of 2016 at the end of this article. Some personal favourites that didn’t make the top ten include our 2016 <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-you-tell-fact-from-fiction-take-the-conversation-2016-factcheck-quiz-to-find-out-70212">FactCheck Quiz</a> produced by Deputy FactCheck Editor Lucinda Beaman; a FactCheck on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-refugees-cost-australia-100m-a-year-in-welfare-with-an-unemployment-rate-of-97-54395">welfare cost and unemployment rate of refugees</a>; a <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-suicide-one-of-the-leading-causes-of-maternal-death-in-australia-65336">handful</a> of FactChecks on <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-lyle-shelton-right-about-transgender-people-and-a-higher-suicide-risk-after-surgery-55573">suicide</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-eating-disorders-have-the-highest-mortality-rate-of-all-mental-illnesses-66495">risk</a>; one on how <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-australia-among-the-only-major-advanced-economies-where-pollution-levels-are-going-up-59731">emissions are tracking around the world</a>; a FactCheck on projected <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-as-the-climate-changes-are-750-million-refugees-predicted-to-move-away-from-flooding-63400">climate change refugee numbers</a>; a FactCheck on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-does-the-government-spend-more-on-negative-gearing-and-capital-gains-tax-discounts-than-on-child-care-or-higher-education-61009">“cost” of negative gearing</a>; an evidence-based analysis of <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-could-a-vote-among-under-30s-in-australia-possibly-deliver-a-greens-prime-minister-60256">whether a vote among under 30s could deliver a Greens prime minister</a>; and a FactCheck on <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-use-of-antibiotics-in-general-practice-20-above-the-oecd-average-68657">antibiotic overuse</a> in Australia. </p>
<p>FactCheck owes a debt of gratitude to our interns, who pore over transcripts, monitor the media and help track down expert authors to write the FactChecks. A special thanks to Jennifer Cooke, who helped coordinate FactCheck coverage as Deputy FactCheck Editor during the federal election and to the generous 3,500 readers who donated to a crowd-funding effort that allowed Lucinda Beaman to be hired as ongoing Deputy FactCheck Editor. </p>
<p>Most importantly, thank you to all our readers, who believed in 2016 that facts still matter.</p>
<h2>Top 10 best-read FactChecks of 2016</h2>
<ol>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-30-of-northern-territory-farmland-and-22-of-tasmanian-farmland-foreign-owned-65155">FactCheck: Is 30% of Northern Territory farmland and 22% of Tasmanian farmland foreign-owned?</a> By Bill Pritchard, University of Sydney, Erin Smith, University of the Sunshine Coast (reviewed by Jeffrey Wilson).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-are-many-refugees-illiterate-and-innumerate-59584">Election FactCheck: are many refugees illiterate and innumerate?</a> By Georgina Ramsay, University of Newcastle (reviewed by Lucy Fiske).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-has-the-nbn-been-delayed-59906">Election FactCheck Q&A: has the NBN been delayed?</a> By Rod Tucker, University of Melbourne (reviewed by Thas Ampalavanapillai Nirmalathas)</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-what-are-the-real-numbers-on-refugees-and-other-migrants-coming-to-australia-66912">FactCheck Q&A: what are the real numbers on refugees and other migrants coming to Australia?</a> Khanh Hoang, Australian National University (reviewed by Sara Davies)</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-the-australian-sex-party-right-about-religious-organisations-tax-and-record-keeping-61427">Election FactCheck: is the Australian Sex Party right about religious organisations, tax and record-keeping?</a> By Bronwen Dalton, University of Technology Sydney (reviewed by Ann O'Connell).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-one-in-three-age-pensioners-living-under-the-poverty-line-65715">FactCheck Q&A: are one in three age pensioners living under the poverty line?</a> By Rafal Chomik, UNSW Australia (reviewed by Ben Phillips).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-global-demand-for-coal-still-going-through-the-roof-60234">Election FactCheck Q&A: is global demand for coal still going through the roof?</a> By Lynette Molyneaux, The University of Queensland (reviewed by John Rolfe).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-it-true-australias-unemployment-payment-level-hasnt-increased-in-over-20-years-59250">Election FactCheck Q&A: is it true Australia’s unemployment payment level hasn’t increased in over 20 years?</a> By Peter Whiteford, Australian National University (reviewed by Gerry Redmond).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-australia-among-the-lowest-taxing-countries-in-the-oecd-59229">Election FactCheck Q&A: is Australia among the lowest-taxing countries in the OECD?</a> By Helen Hodgson, Curtin University (reviewed by Kevin Davis).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-has-the-coalition-presided-over-the-most-sustained-fall-in-australian-living-standards-since-records-began-60327">Election FactCheck: Has the Coalition presided over the most sustained fall in Australian living standards since records began?</a> By Peter Whiteford, Australian National University (reviewed by Roger Wilkins).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You can read all our 2016 FactChecks on our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">FactCheck page</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Bald-faced lies are fairly rare in Australian politics but, in 2016, weasel-words and cherry-picking were common. Politicians and public figures are experts at disguising opinion and ideology as fact.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/702122016-12-16T03:31:24Z2016-12-16T03:31:24ZCan you tell fact from fiction? Take The Conversation 2016 FactCheck quiz to find out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150436/original/image-20161216-26056-1pmnjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who got their facts right in 2016?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://urbanlight.net.au/">Chris Zissiadis, urbanlight photography</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>2016 was the year that gave us “post-truth” as the <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year</a>, assurances that people “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA">have had enough of experts</a>”, and an increasingly powerful tide of <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/2016-lie-year-fake-news/">fake news</a>. </p>
<p>Through all this, FactCheck ploughed on. Our experts fact-checked the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/election-factcheck-2016-27402">2016 Australian federal election</a>, claims from lobby groups, and assertions across the political spectrum. All FactChecks are <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">blind reviewed</a> by a second expert to ensure accuracy.</p>
<p>We think facts matter more than ever. So who got it right and who got it wrong in 2016?</p>
<p>Take The Conversation’s 2016 FactCheck quiz to find out. </p>
<iframe width="100%" height="1000" id="enp-quiz-iframe-266" class="enp-quiz-iframe" src="https://engagingnewsproject.org/quiz-embed/266"></iframe>
<p>Read the full FactCheck articles here:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Would backpackers be <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-would-backpackers-be-better-off-working-in-australia-than-nz-england-or-canada-69332">better off working in Australia</a> than NZ, England or Canada?</p></li>
<li><p>Have average out-of-pocket costs for GP visits <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-average-out-of-pocket-costs-for-gp-visits-risen-almost-20-under-the-coalition-66278">risen almost 20%</a> under the Coalition?</p></li>
<li><p>Has the Grand Mufti of Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-has-the-grand-mufti-of-australia-condemned-terrorist-attacks-overseas-62688">condemned terrorist attacks overseas</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Do eating disorders have the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-eating-disorders-have-the-highest-mortality-rate-of-all-mental-illnesses-66495">highest mortality rate</a> of all mental illnesses?</p></li>
<li><p>How unusual is <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-how-unusual-is-compulsory-voting-and-do-90-of-new-zealanders-vote-without-it-62443">compulsory voting</a>, and do 90% of New Zealanders vote without it?</p></li>
<li><p>Are one in three age pensioners <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-one-in-three-age-pensioners-living-under-the-poverty-line-65715">living under the poverty line</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Have eight of Australia’s 12 most emission intensive power stations <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-eight-of-australias-12-most-emission-intensive-power-stations-closed-in-the-last-five-years-65036">closed in the last five years</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Does the government spend <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-does-the-government-spend-3-billion-each-year-on-the-offshore-asylum-seeker-detention-system-61677">$3 billion each year</a> on the offshore asylum seeker detention system?</p></li>
<li><p>Is the Australian Sex Party right about <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-the-australian-sex-party-right-about-religious-organisations-tax-and-record-keeping-61427">religious organisations, tax and record-keeping</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-crime-getting-worse-in-australia-60119">crime getting worse</a> in Australia?</p></li>
<li><p>Is <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-global-demand-for-coal-still-going-through-the-roof-60234">global demand for coal</a> still going through the roof?</p></li>
<li><p>Is Australia among the <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-australia-among-the-lowest-taxing-countries-in-the-oecd-59229">lowest-taxing countries in the OECD</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is a week’s worth of Newstart equal to what a politician can claim for <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-a-weeks-worth-of-newstart-equal-to-what-a-politician-can-claim-for-one-night-in-canberra-64598">one night in Canberra</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-australias-foreign-debt-nearly-1-trillion-up-from-74-billion-last-year-60250">foreign debt nearly $1 trillion</a>, up from $74 billion last year?</p></li>
<li><p>Has the <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-has-the-nbn-been-delayed-59906">NBN been delayed</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is Australia the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-australia-the-world-leader-in-household-solar-power-56670">world leader in household solar power</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Has the level of casual employment in Australia stayed steady for the past <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-the-level-of-casual-employment-in-australia-stayed-steady-for-the-past-18-years-56212">18 years</a>? </p></li>
<li><p>Can foreign seafarers be paid <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-can-foreign-seafarers-be-paid-2-an-hour-to-work-in-australian-waters-under-laws-passed-by-labor-55939">$2 an hour</a> to work in Australian waters, under laws passed by Labor?</p></li>
<li><p>Does Australia run one of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-australia-run-one-of-the-most-generous-student-loan-schemes-in-the-world-52696">most generous student loan schemes</a> in the world?</p></li>
<li><p>Are Australians <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-australians-paying-twice-as-much-for-electricity-as-americans-69980">paying twice as much</a> for electricity as Americans?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>For all our FactCheck coverage, click <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70212/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Who got it right and who got it wrong in 2016? Take The Conversation’s 2016 FactCheck quiz to find out.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/688072016-11-20T23:50:23Z2016-11-20T23:50:23ZFactCheck Q&A: how much was spent on the Cambodia refugee deal and how many were settled?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146510/original/image-20161118-19371-199qxy7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Labor MP Kate Ellis, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation is fact-checking claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qJxGfngVvrg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, November 14, 2016, watch from 0.40.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>…when it comes to the government’s previous attempts, we know when there was announced with great fanfare that people were all set to head off to Cambodia, and of course we saw that millions of taxpayer dollars – but very few lives which were changed by that. <strong>– Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Development Kate Ellis, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4553607.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, November 14, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Shortly after the Australian government <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-shores-up-defences-against-asylum-seekers-as-us-deal-provides-escape-for-refugees-68715">announced</a> it planned to send refugees from Papua New Guinea and Nauru to the US, Labor’s Kate Ellis told Q&A viewers that the government had previously said it would send people to Cambodia, that millions of taxpayer dollars were spent and “very few lives which were changed by that”.</p>
<p>What was Ellis talking about – and was she correct?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>Kate Ellis is referring to an <a href="http://www.refworld.org/docid/5436588e4.html">agreement</a> signed by Australia and Cambodia on September 26, 2014, providing for the relocation of refugees from Nauru to Cambodia. The agreement was intended to cover any person who:</p>
<ul>
<li>had arrived in Australia by boat as an asylum seeker and been removed to Nauru for processing;</li>
<li>had undergone refugee status determination in Nauru and been found to be a refugee, as defined in the 1951 Refugee Convention;</li>
<li>met certain unspecified “entry and settlement requirements” of Cambodia;</li>
<li>had been provided with information by Cambodian officials on the living conditions, customs, traditions, culture and religion of Cambodia; and</li>
<li>voluntarily accepted an offer of settlement in Cambodia.</li>
</ul>
<p>When asked for a source to support her statement, a spokesperson for Kate Ellis referred the Conversation to a <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F7c5373e7-1e5d-401d-b707-c1325abac2d2%2F0002;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F7c5373e7-1e5d-401d-b707-c1325abac2d2%2F0000%22">Senate committee hearing</a> that took place in November 2016.</p>
<p>In that hearing, Labor senator Murray Watt said about $55 million had been earmarked for the agreement, “divided between $40 million in aid and about $15 million for the actual resettlement”, to which a senior official from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection replied: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Yes, not all of which has been drawn down.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the same <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/7c5373e7-1e5d-401d-b707-c1325abac2d2/toc_pdf/Legal%20and%20Constitutional%20Affairs%20References%20Committee_2016_11_11_4578.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/7c5373e7-1e5d-401d-b707-c1325abac2d2/0000%22">Senate hearing</a>, another departmental official, Claire Roennfeldt, said $3.48 million of the $15 million earmarked for the resettlement program had been spent since the agreement was struck.</p>
<p>It appears the money is spent through payments to service providers rather to the government of Cambodia directly.</p>
<p>Another exchange between Watt and another senior Department of Immigration and Border Protection official, David Nockels, revealed the number of refugees resettled:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Senator Watt: And I am right that in total there have been five people resettled there? Is that right?</p>
<p>Mr Nockels : Five or six… Excuse me, Secretary. It is six. Two are still there.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When asked if all these numbers discussed in the Senate hearing were up to date, a spokesman for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection told The Conversation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The testimony referenced is correct, however, current figures for the total expenditure of the resettlement assistance to date is now $4.77 million.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So Kate Ellis was correct. It is fair to describe the Cambodia deal as having cost millions of taxpayer dollars but changing very few refugee lives. </p>
<h2>Why was the Cambodia deal pursued?</h2>
<p>When the agreement was signed in September 2014, then immigration minister, Scott Morrison, <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/143035/20141222-1032/www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/sm/2014/sm218187.htm">described it</a> as a regional solution that was</p>
<blockquote>
<p>about providing genuine resettlement in a third country.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It came at a time when conditions were worsening and tensions were rising at the two regional processing centres in Nauru and on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG). There was a clear and urgent need for an answer to where the people found to be refugees at these two centres would subsequently go.</p>
<p>The Australian government maintained that they would never be settled in Australia, and neither Nauru nor PNG had a workable settlement policy. So the agreement with Cambodia appeared, to some, to offer a much-needed solution. </p>
<p>However, others expressed concern about the workability of the agreement from the outset, including the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2014/9/542526db9/unhcr-statement-australia-cambodia-agreement-refugee-relocation.html">United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) and António Guterres</a> (then the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, now the Secretary-General-designate of the United Nations).</p>
<p>It was never clear how many people the agreement would cover. Its provisions do not specify a number, and state only that decisions about the number and timing of relocations are to be made by Cambodia. </p>
<h2>What happened next?</h2>
<p>At the time it was signed, <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/143035/20141222-1032/www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/sm/2014/sm218207.htm">Scott Morrison announced</a> that the two countries would:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>undertake an initial trial arrangement with a small group of refugees which will be followed by further resettlement in accordance with Cambodia’s capacity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He said there would be “<a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/143035/20141222-1032/www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/sm/2014/sm218187.htm">no caps</a>” to the agreement, and there were <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/scott-morrison-to-head-to-cambodia-to-sign-refugee-resettlement/5766282">reports that as many as 1,000 people</a> could be relocated. </p>
<p>But Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Interior, Sar Kheng, <a href="http://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/refugees-09252014175418.html">rejected such a high number</a>, committing only to Cambodia accepting “three to four people first”.</p>
<p>In April 2015, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/27/four-nauru-refugees-who-agreed-to-go-to-cambodia-wait-to-fly-out">four people accepted offers of resettlement</a> to Cambodia from Nauru – an Iranian couple, an Iranian man, and a man from Myanmar. </p>
<p>The four <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-04/refugees-from-nauru-detention-centre-arrive-in-cambodia/6521972">arrived in Cambodia in June 2015</a>. Despite <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/four-refugees-detained-by-australia-on-nauru-volunteer-to-resettle-in-cambodia">rumours of more refugees</a> joining them, just one more man – a Rohingya from Myanmar – <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/fifth-refugee-transferred-to-cambodia-from-nauru-under-55m-resettlement-deal-20151125-gl8ec3.html">joined them in November 2015</a>. </p>
<p>By May 2016, he would be the only one left in the country, with the initial four refugees all choosing to return to their countries of origin between <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/first-failure-of-australias-55-million-cambodia-refugee-plan-20151016-gkb42q.html">October 2015</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/refugee-leaves-cambodia-after-being-deeply-unhappy-with-move-from-nauru-20160527-gp6170.html">May 2016</a>, despite having been assessed to have genuine fears of persecution or other serious harm there. </p>
<p>Rumours of further transfers from Nauru <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/15/three-nauru-refugees-volunteer-to-be-resettled-in-cambodia">again surfaced in October 2016</a>, but only one more man – from Syria – is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/sixth-refugee-flown-from-nauru-to-cambodia-under-55-million-deal-20161108-gskxqe.html">known to have gone</a>. </p>
<p>These transfers bring the total number of refugees currently in Cambodia to two, with one saying <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-03/nauru-refugee-in-cambodia-could-have-australian-funding-cut/7472966">he would leave if he could</a>.</p>
<h2>Breaking down the cost</h2>
<p>At the time it was signed, immigration minister Scott Morrison <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/143035/20141222-1032/www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/sm/2014/sm218187.htm">announced</a> that Australia would provide Cambodia with $40 million over four years “to support various overseas aid development projects”, in addition to the approximately $79 million that it was providing in aid to Cambodia. </p>
<p>In October 2015, Michael Pezzullo, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/c952e672-02c0-4a05-9274-643291cd067d/toc_pdf/Legal%20and%20Constitutional%20Affairs%20Legislation%20Committee_2015_10_19_3916_Official.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%222010s%202015%2010%2019%22">clarified</a> that Australia was providing $40 million “in development assistance – not directly related to the resettlement per se”, as well as $15 million for the overall resettlement program that would be “pay on performance”. </p>
<p>It appeared that the $15 million would not be paid all at once, but rather would be disbursed on a progressive basis depending on how many refugees were resettled. </p>
<p>As discussed earlier, a spokesman for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection told The Conversation that the current figure for the total expenditure of the resettlement assistance to date is now $4.77 million.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Kate Ellis was correct. It is a fair to describe the Cambodia deal as having cost millions of taxpayer dollars, while changing very few refugee lives. <strong>– Madeline Gleeson</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound analysis. There appears to be some difference in approach by politicians as to how much the Cambodian deal has actually cost. This is because the government has divided the funds between $40 million in aid and approximately $15 million directly for resettlement services and support. </p>
<p>I think it is more accurate to view the resettlement agreement amount holistically as totalling $55 million. This is because the “development assistance” was tied to the resettlement agreement. Putting any dispute as to the exact monetary contribution aside, it is correct that it has assisted very few refugees. <strong>– Maria O'Sullivan</strong></p>
<p><em>CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said it was Labor senator Tim Watts who asked about the Cambodia deal in the Senate hearing. In fact, it was Labor senator Murray Watt. The Conversation takes responsibility and apologises for this error, which was introduced in the editing process.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68807/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Madeline Gleeson is the author of a new book, 'Offshore: Behind the Wire on Manus and Nauru', available now from NewSouth Books.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria O'Sullivan 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>After Australia announced a refugee deal with the US, Labor’s Kate Ellis told Q&A that millions of dollars were spent on an earlier deal with Cambodia, yet very few lives were changed. Is that right?Madeline Gleeson, Research Associate, Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/669122016-10-17T01:49:15Z2016-10-17T01:49:15ZFactCheck Q&A: what are the real numbers on refugees and other migrants coming to Australia?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141549/original/image-20161013-16242-wyvvxm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Q&A panellists discussed migration and refugees, but struggled to agree on what the numbers show. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation is fact-checking claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ofzqQy4nc68?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, October 10, 2016.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>SHEN NARAYANASAMY: I think there is an alternative because when you understand that we take 800,000 people a year and we have done so since Prime Minister John Howard, the highest intake in history, it’s because we know it turbo-charges our economy and contributes to our society. </p>
<p>JIM MOLAN: 800,000 per year? </p>
<p>SHEN NARAYANASAMY: 800,000 per year. </p>
<p>JIM MOLAN: 200,000 per year. </p>
<p>SHEN NARAYANASAMY: No, 800,000. </p>
<p>JIM MOLAN: 200,000 per year. </p>
<p>SHEN NARAYANASAMY: This is the problem. </p>
<p>JIM MOLAN: 200,000 per year.</p>
<p>JANE MCADAM: Permanent. 600,000 temporary….</p>
<p>… TONY JONES: The fact checkers are going to be all over this one.</p>
<p><strong>– The architect of Australia’s Sovereign Borders strategy, retired general Jim Molan, speaking with GetUp’s Shen Narayanasamy, director of UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law Professor Jane McAdam and host Tony Jones on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4528829.htm">Q&A</a>, October 10, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>On Q&A, panellists duelled over the numbers of migrants Australia takes a year. Is it 200,000 or 800,000? How many are permanent and how many are temporary? </p>
<p>Let’s check the facts.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>The Conversation asked the three panellists for sources and comment to support their statements. </p>
<p>Shen Narayanasamy referred to a recent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5feVcMAQM">speech</a> she had given. Her figure of 800,000 included visas issued under categories such as family reunion, skilled workers, a special eligibility category, humanitarian visas issued to refugees, student visas, 457 temporary workers visas and 417 working holiday visas. You can read her full response <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/20/66912-2016-10-13-factcheck-80000-migrants-FactCheck-800000migrants-SN13.10.2016.pdf?1518059169">here</a>. </p>
<p>Jim Molan said it was “important to understand the nature of these 800,000 visas and what relevance they have to a discussion on how generous we are to refugees”.</p>
<p>Jane McAdam said that her comment was intended to clarify the breakdown of the figures quoted by Shen Narayanasamy, “specifically that the 200,000 figure mentioned by Jim and Shen referred (roughly) to the number of new permanent migrants each year, and that the remaining 600,000 in Shen’s figure were temporary visas”. You can read her full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-jane-mcadam-67054">here</a>. </p>
<p>Depending on how you look at it, all the panellists are broadly correct. Whether or not the figure is 200,000 or 800,000 depends on what categories you include.</p>
<p>Let’s break it down.</p>
<h2>Permanent migration</h2>
<p>The entry and presence of non-citizens in Australia is regulated by the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/">Migration Act</a> and <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/">Regulations</a>, and <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/20planning">administered</a> by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection under the <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/2015-16-migration-programme-report.pdf">Migration Programme</a>.</p>
<p>Broadly speaking, permanent migration is capped each year but temporary migration is not. </p>
<p>Each year, the Australian government determines how many permanent visas can be handed out across categories such as skilled, family and humanitarian (which includes refugees onshore and offshore). The bureaucrats planning this take into account research, community views, economic and labour forecasting.</p>
<p>The umbrella Migration Programme can be broken into two parts: a migration program and a refugee and humanitarian program. </p>
<p>Under the migration program, for the <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/20planning">year 2015-2016</a>, the bureaucrats planned for 190,000 permanent visas, comprising up to:</p>
<ul>
<li>128,550 skilled places, </li>
<li>57,400 family stream places, and </li>
<li>565 special eligibility stream places</li>
</ul>
<p>Under the <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/annual-reports/annual-report-full-2015-16.pdf">Refugee and Humanitarian</a> program, there were 13,750 places allocated in 2015-2016, consisting of:</p>
<ul>
<li>11,000 places available for the resettlement of refugees offshore, and </li>
<li>2,750 places available for onshore applicants who did not arrive in Australia by boat</li>
</ul>
<p>(These numbers exclude the one-off 12,000 places made available to <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Refu/response-syrian-humanitarian-crisis">resettle Syrian and Iraqi refugees</a>.)</p>
<p>The actual numbers of permanent visas granted each year may not exactly match the planned levels.</p>
<p>The tables below show the Department’s <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/live-in-australia/historical-migration-statistics">publicly available historical data</a> on the planning levels and the outcomes of both the migration and humanitarian and refugee programs for the last decade. </p>
<p><strong>Table 1: Australia’s planned permanent migration intake for 2005-2015</strong></p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-4ncol" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4ncol/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="350"></iframe>
<p><strong>Table 2: Migration Programme outcome by stream 2005-2015</strong> </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-p7Tjg" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/p7Tjg/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="490"></iframe>
<p><strong>Table 3: Humanitarian and Refugee visas granted 2005-2015</strong> </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-HmGJo" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/HmGJo/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>Refugee and humanitarian visas have been steady at around 6-10% of Australia’s overall permanent migration intake for the last decade. Most of Australia’s migrants are not refugees. This is despite a growing need for international protection both within the region and abroad.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.unhcr.org/524c31a09">Only 33 countries</a> have formal resettlement programs with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-australia-take-more-refugees-per-capita-through-the-unhcr-than-any-other-country-47151">Australia ranks</a> <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/524c31a09">highly</a> within this group of countries.</p>
<p>But only a small fraction of the world’s refugees are settled through the UNHCR program. If we look at the the broader picture, <a href="http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/getfacts/statistics/unchr2015/">based on 2015 figures,</a> Australia does not rank highly for overall refugee intake or refugee intake per capita.</p>
<h2>Temporary migration</h2>
<p>In contrast to permanent migration, temporary migration in Australia is not planned in detail. The number of visas granted each year fluctuates.</p>
<p>As temporary migrants come and go, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many temporary visa holders are in Australia at any given time. </p>
<p>On my calculations, the <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics">Department’s latest available statistics</a> show there are around 1 million people in Australia on visas held by visitors, students, 457 workers and asylum seekers on <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/051-">bridging visa E visas</a> (a category for people making arrangements to leave, finalise their immigration matters or who are waiting for an immigration decision).</p>
<p>But this is by no means a complete picture as there are other categories not accounted for in that calculation.</p>
<h2>Net overseas migration</h2>
<p>Looking at the numbers of visas granted or held does not give us the full picture in terms of the <em>net</em> number of arrivals for a given year. We need to also take into account temporary visa holders who leave the country, and those who are already in Australia. </p>
<p>For example, a person may transition from a temporary to permanent visa in Australia. Such a visa grant would not constitute a person entering Australia. </p>
<p>For this reason, the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features52014-15?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2014-15&num=&view">Australian Bureau of Statistics</a> (ABS) measures net overseas migration by <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3412.0Technical+Note12010-11">calculating</a> those visa holders (or “travellers”, to use the ABS’ term) who have been in Australia for 12 of the last 16 months. The measurement is intended to exclude short-term visitors. </p>
<p>According to the ABS figures for 2014-2015, net overseas migration to Australia was estimated at 168,200.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Depending on how you look at it, all participants are correct. </p>
<p>It is true that roughly 200,000 permanent visas are granted each year.</p>
<p>For any given year, the total of permanent and temporary visa holders in Australia at any given time may be higher or lower than 800,000.</p>
<p>Further, if we are looking at net overseas migration, the numbers are different still. </p>
<p>In the context of the refugee debate – which was the main focus of the Q&A discussion – it is important to emphasise that the numbers of permanent visas available to refugees (both onshore and offshore) accounts for a relatively small proportion of Australia’s overall permanent migration intake. </p>
<p>This has been consistent for much of the past decade. <strong>– Khanh Hoang.</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound analysis of the debate that took place on Q&A. The author is right to note in their conclusion that all participants were technically correct. I agree with Jim Molan that the figure of 200,000 – which represents the number of permanent migrants moving to Australia – is most relevant to discussion about refugee policy.</p>
<p>What is especially important to remember is that Australia’s annual humanitarian intake scheme remains a very small, static percentage of Australia’s overall migration scheme. <strong>– Sara Davies.</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66912/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Khanh Hoang is Co-chair, Refugee Rights Subcommittee, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sara Davies receives funding from Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>On Q&A, panellists duelled over the numbers of migrants Australia takes a year. Is it 200,000 or 800,000? How many permanent and how many temporary? Let’s check the facts.Khanh Hoang, Associate Lecturer, ANU College of Law – Migration Law Program, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.