The Trans-Pacific Partnership is back: experts respond


Deborah Gleeson, La Trobe University; Belinda Townsend, Australian National University; Kimberlee Weatherall, University of Sydney; Pat Ranald, University of Sydney, and Peter Robertson, University of Western Australia

The latest incarnation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is said to have “fewer bad bits”. But as our experts point out below, there’s still a great deal wrong with, or missing from, the regional free trade agreement.

The new TPP is informally known as the TPP11, after the United States pulled out of the original 12-country bloc earlier this year.

While the agreement has not yet been finalised, the 11 trade ministers have released a statement saying that the “core elements” have been agreed.

Twenty provisions from the original TPP have been suspended, but there are still a few areas to be worked out, including those relating to state-owned enterprises.

The Conversation’s experts respond:


Peter Robertson, Dean and Professor, University of Western Australia Business School:

Trade deals such as the TPP11 that include some countries and exclude others are inherently flawed mechanisms for extracting the most benefit from trade (also known as “gains from trade”).

All trade deals are about “swings and roundabouts”. That is, a redistribution of income from producers to consumers and governments. For example, when we remove tariffs on automobiles, then consumers gain but producers and their employees lose. When we impose a tariff on agriculture, consumers lose by paying higher prices at the grocery store and producers gain.

Under reasonable circumstances there is reason to believe that the sum of the gains exceeds the losses. But when you add up all the potential winners and losers from the TPP11, from an Australian perspective you end up with pretty much zero. Or, to be more precise, an 0.5% increase in GDP by 2030.

The gains are so small because the TPP11 diverts attention away from big trade issues like agricultural protectionism in Europe and the US, and focuses on smaller issues among a few countries who have mostly already liberalised every sector that is possible given the current political willpower.

From a global perspective the TPP11 could even have negative effects because it encourages us to buy from member countries, and not from outsider countries who may in fact have better and cheaper products.

The biggest winners in the world from current protectionist arrangements are the agricultural producers in Japan, the US and Europe where agricultural protection remains extreme and untouchable politically. We need trade agreements that focus on the big issues, not the small ones.


Pat Ranald, Research Associate, University of Sydney:

The TPP11 retains all provisions on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) from the previous TPP, except for two narrow improvements which only apply if investors have specific contracts or authorisations with governments.

Despite claimed “safeguards”, ISDS enables all other foreign investors to bypass national courts and sue governments for compensation in international tribunals if they can argue that changes in domestic laws or policies harm their investment. The cases are tried by tribunals composed of investment lawyers who can continue to represent clients. There is no independent judiciary, and no precedents or appeals to ensure consistency of decisions.

Many of the 817 known cases involve public interest laws. Swiss Pharmaceutical company Novartis is suing the Colombian government over the plans to reduce prices on a patented treatment for leukaemia. The US firm Bilcon won its claim against the Canadian government for US$101 million after a provincial government refused to approve a quarry in an ecologically sensitive area. The French company Veolia is claiming compensation from the Egyptian government for a rise in the minimum wage.

Even if a government wins a case, defending it can take years and cost millions. The US tobacco firm Philip Morris shifted some assets to Hong Kong and used ISDS in an Australia-Hong Kong investment agreement to claim billions in compensation for Australia’s plain packaging law. It took more than four years and reportedly cost A$50 million in legal fees for the tribunal to decide that Philip Morris was not a Hong Kong company.

ISDS gives additional legal rights to global corporations to sue governments in unfair international tribunals, undermining democratic regulation in the public interest. Trade agreements should not increase corporate power at the expense of communities.


Kimberlee Weatherall, Professor and Associate Dean (Research),
The University of Sydney Law School

The TPP11 suspends the most controversial copyright provisions. But not everything controversial is out.

The TPP11 will no longer extend the term of copyright to 70 years after the author’s death – a big deal for Canada and New Zealand where copyright lasts 50 years after death.

It also suspends the anti-circumvention provisions, which means the TPP11 won’t make avoiding access measures (for example, technology that locks your ebooks or movies to a particular device) a crime. Although there’s a sting in the tail for Australia here – the TPP text on anti-circumvention is less restrictive than our free trade agreement with the US, and so we lose the benefit of that extra flexibility.

The incredibly complex safe harbours provisions are also suspended – this leaves members with more flexibility to adjust copyright in the digital environment (but also potentially means no protection for online service providers for the acts of their infringing customers).

Also suspended is a funny little footnote that might have given TPP11 authors a claim on payments from some cultural funds (such as Canada’s). However, a provision that encourages copyright to be balanced is not suspended, so that’s good news.

But there is still a cornucopia of enforcement procedures and remedies, and very broad criminal liability for infringing copyright – including liability for “aiding and abetting” others’ infringement. There are broad provisions that allow right holders to claim any equipment used to infringe copyright.

And, beyond copyright, the ministers haven’t suspended a controversial provision (a first of its kind internationally) on the theft of trade secrets, and they’ve retained some key provisions on geographical indications and trade marks that are going to complicate efforts by countries in the region to use geographical indications (such as “Manuka honey”) to develop local artisan and agricultural communities.

So while I’m happy to celebrate some realisation that the intellectual property chapter of the original TPP had serious problems, there is still quite a lot to dislike about what remains.


Deborah Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Public Health, La Trobe University,
Belinda Townsend, Research Fellow, Australian National University:

The list of 20 items ministers have agreed will be suspended in the re-branded TPP includes several of the intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals that were demanded by the US but deeply unpopular amongst the other TPP countries. These rules would have made medicines less affordable in the Asia-Pacific region.

Importantly for Australia, the provisions specifically targeting biologic medicines were on the list of suspended items. Our recent study found that this expensive class of drugs cost Australian taxpayers more than A$2.2 billion in 2015-16. Suspending the biologics rules means fewer barriers to making lower-cost treatments for conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis available – at least for now.

Also suspended were rules requiring countries to provide patents for new uses, methods and processes of using existing products; extensions to patent terms; and what is known as “data exclusivity” – monopolies on clinical trial data submitted to regulatory agencies like the Therapeutic Goods Administration. These provisions would have primarily impacted developing countries, delaying access to generic medicines. They would also have cemented existing monopolies on new medicines in developed countries, including Australia – making it more difficult to reform our patent laws in future.

There is no doubt that suspension of these rules is a positive development. But simply putting them on ice for later implementation if the US re-joins the accord could just mean delaying their effects until a later time.

Despite the suspension of these specific items, there remain other provisions in the intellectual property chapter that could reduce access to medicines in the region. A better option than freezing a limited list of selected provisions would be to remove, or at least suspend, the whole intellectual property chapter.

There are many other parts of the TPP that could affect health, which have not been suspended or renegotiated. One example is the TPP’s alcohol labelling rules, which remain unchanged. These may create difficulties for countries wanting to mandate effective health warnings or other types of health information on alcohol containers.

Worse, there only seems to be some minor tinkering around the edges of the investment chapter being considered. The changes don’t appear to affect the chances that claims could be brought by corporations against governments over health and medicines policies. It’s a shame the TPP11’s negotiators haven’t taken the opportunity to exempt all health policies from potential investor-state disputes – tobacco control measures remain the only health policies that countries can elect to explicitly exclude.

There is still time for a more comprehensive reassessment of the TPP, including its likely impact on health and human rights: the agreement has not yet been finalised.

The ConversationSuspending a small number of the worst provisions doesn’t mean an agreement that is good for health.

Deborah Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Public Health, La Trobe University; Belinda Townsend, Research Fellow, NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in the Social Determinants of Health Equity, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University; Kimberlee Weatherall, Professor and Associate Dean (Research) The University of Sydney Law School, University of Sydney; Pat Ranald, Research Associate, University of Sydney, and Peter Robertson, Professor, University of Western Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Australia’s tenuous place in the new global economy


Richard Holden, UNSW

The Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) has released a report titled Australia’s Place in the World, which considered how Australia should respond to changing attitudes to globalisation.

At home and around the world, there is a backlash against free trade and globalisation. The report asks what course Australia should navigate through these choppy economic and political waters.

The backdrop, of course, is the UK Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump as US President.

If that’s not motivation enough, one could easily add to CEDA’s list: the performance of Marine Le Pen in France’s recent presidential election, the election of the far-right AfD to the German parliament, and the looming role of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in the Queensland election.

Tariffs and trade

The report is broken into three sections: Global Economy, Global Security, and Global Governance, but it is the first and third that speak directly to Australia’s economic fortunes in the age of Trump.

One obvious, but correct and important observation the report makes is that Australia has been a huge beneficiary of free trade over the past 30 years. Not only have our exporters gained access to major overseas markets, but consumers in Australia have also benefited from reduced tariffs.


Read more: With a free trade deal Australia can win China’s dairy market


For example, the price of a typical sedan has basically halved in real terms due to the removal of a 100% car tariff. But while trade and globalisation have made the economic pie bigger, the sharing of those benefits has been much more uneven. Just ask manufacturing workers.

What is missing from the report’s recommendations is how to deal with and compensate the losers from globalisation in Australia. That is important, both economically and politically.

Global rise of populism

The rise of populist parties around the world has been associated with this failure to compensate globalisation’s losers.

Part of what it takes to address this issue is so-called “place-based policies” which Rosalind Dixon and I have previously discussed. Broadly, this refers to the people who are affected when industries move away from particular areas and employment opportunities dry up.

The CEDA report argues, however, that:

Policies such as moving from transaction taxes on property to broad-based land tax to address housing affordability and labour mobility need to be designed along with transition pathways. GST reform with a broader base to remove the need for stamp duty could be another option.

The report also points out that Australia’s company tax rate is uncompetitive, and that the proposed shift to a 25% rate under the Coalitition’s “Enterprise Tax Plan” would only happen by 2026-27, if it happens at all. These are all good points, and would make for good policy. Yet the only one that looks vaguely likely to happen is replacing stamp duty with land tax – and that would be done at a state government level.


Read more: Lessons from Brexit: the fruits of globalisation must be shared with low- and middle-income groups


The federal government floated the idea of GST reform and retreated almost immediately after the opposition predictably attacked it viciously and effectively as being “regressive”. The Enterprise Tax plan also looks to be in danger, as several crossbench MPs seem likely to side with Labor and want tax cuts only for small businesses. That’s utterly stupid economics, but apparently good politics.

Middle power leadership?

As the report notes: “Global cooperation is growing increasingly important in a world that faces a number of crises that require cross-border solutions.”

This is surely true, although the report paints a rosy picture of Australia’s potential role as a “middle power”, claiming that we were important in the establishment of the United Nations.

True, Australia played a relatively important role in establishing APEC and the G20. But that involved leadership from figures like Hawke, Keating and Rudd. I, for one, don’t see anyone on the present political landscape with those leadership and persuasion skills.

Perhaps the bigger challenge is that President Trump seems determined to radically undermine international institutions. Even Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was unhelpful in the Trans Pacific Partnership rebound effort that Malcolm Turnbull and others were trying to arrange.

What can Australia do in the face of orchestrated attacks on global institutions by the biggest and most important nations? Very little, I fear. The age of Trump is a difficult time for Australia and its leaders. Many things are out of our control.

What we can do, however, is resist the tide of populism at home, and provide stable and functional government. Both major parties have a patchy recent record in that regard, and the federal opposition has made some populist-type moves on trade and protectionism.

The ConversationLet’s hope they don’t really believe it.

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

It’s time for a royal commission into banking regulation


Pat McConnell, Macquarie University

The handling of recent financial scandals show that regulators are confused about what they do, or should do. And as a result the regulation of the financial system, which is vital to a strong functioning economy, is just not working effectively.

We can see the problem in the recent testimony to the House Economics Committee. Recounting the sequence of events that led the Commonwealth Bank to inform regulators of the alleged breaches of money-laundering legislation, CBA Chair Catherine Livingstone said:

We were having board meetings at the time I was being called to Canberra by the Treasurer. When the board meeting, which went over multiple days, finished, which was lunchtime on the Wednesday, I immediately phoned the other two regulators, ASIC and APRA.

This raises a raft of questions. Having known about the allegations of money laundering since 2015, why did CBA not inform the regulators until August 2017? Why did the treasurer warn CBA before CBA talked to the two regulators? When did the Treasurer first hear of the money-laundering breaches? And why did the treasurer not instruct AUSTRAC (an agency of the Attorney General’s department) to inform ASIC and APRA?

In a previous parliamentary hearing, Greg Medcraft, Chairman of ASIC, had said:

I met two days before with the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank, the chair of risk and the chair of the audit committee… There was no mention of what happened. Then I saw the announcement and, about a week later, the chair called me in to apologise. Timeliness and transparency are big issues in this one

So, either ASIC and/or APRA were aware of the allegations of money laundering at CBA and took no action until prompted by the treasurer, or the communications between the various agencies of government are not working as planned. Either way, this is no way to regulate a modern financial system.

Even more regulatory confusion

Just as he is due to leave his role as head of ASIC, Greg Medcraft managed to end two high profile cases with modest wins.

Both ANZ Bank and NAB have settled with ASIC for their parts in manipulating the BBSW intereset rate benchmark. Although the settlement remains to be approved by the Federal Court.

Westpac remains the hold out, and the prosecution’s case has opened in the Federal Court.

But in the euphoria at ASIC, a niggling question remains – what about the Commonwealth Bank?

For some time, Medcraft has warned that action against CBA had not been ruled out and that information was being gathered. Recently Medcraft confirmed that the regulator had “plenty of time” to take action against CBA.

This also raises a number of questions. Not least why ASIC has not filed claims against CBA or announced that there would be no action taken against the bank. If CBA has no case to answer then ASIC should come out and exonerate the bank and relieve its long-suffering shareholders.

But if CBA has even a minor case to answer, and the regulator has held off hoping that the bank would settle without going to court, then ASIC may have been much too clever for their own good.

As a result of a shareholder action following the alleged money-laundering scandal, ASIC is now looking at whether the CBA board “complied with continuous disclosure laws when it decided not to alert investors to the suspicious behaviour”.

This leaves ASIC in an extremely difficult position – looking at a possible failure to disclose the money-laundering scandal at CBA, while at the same time hinting that CBA may have done the same thing with BBSW.

But ASIC is not the only regulator to be operating in the dark. The latest Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) legislation only adds to the confusion on how best to regulate financial services.

When questioned in recent Senate Estimates about the regulatory impact statements that have been done for new BEAR legislation, Helen Rowell, deputy Chair of APRA, replied that she personally had “not seen them; I couldn’t say whether anyone else within APRA has seen them”.

This is despite the fact that APRA has been given an extra A$40 million over four year to handle the new legislation – for what, and where did this figure come from?

Again, this is no way to regulate a banking system. The confusion around what regulators do and how they do it, must be sorted out.

Where next?

The most obvious answer to clearing up this mess is to initiate a royal commission that looks specifically at banking regulation. In particular, what form a modern banking regulation system should take; which regulators should do what; what the responsibilities of parliament, ministers and regulators should be; and how regulators should share information and tackle common problems (such as banking culture).

Such a royal commission should concentrate on clearing up issues of regulatory philosophy, structure, legal requirements and administration. Whether or not there is an all-purpose banking royal commission, the failures in the current system have to be remedied.

Of course, the government has only got itself to blame for getting in this mess.

The government’s own Murray Inquiry into the Financial System made a recommendation that could have helped. The inquiry recommended the establishment of a new Financial Regulator Assessment Board (FRAB), which would:

advise government annually on how financial regulators have implemented their mandates. Provide clearer guidance to regulators in Statements of Expectation and increase the use of performance indicators for regulator performance.

Sounds sensible? Not to the government, as it chose to accept all of the major recommendations of David Murray’s inquiry except for this one.

And, instead of having one professional body that looks at the performance of regulators, there has been a nonstop procession of “independent” inquiries, by banks themselves, the banking industry and even regulators. No big picture, just a patchwork of unconnected recommendations. And undoubtedly more to come.

The ConversationAn opportunity missed.

Pat McConnell, Visiting Fellow, Macquarie University Applied Finance Centre, Macquarie University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

You may be sick of worrying about online privacy, but ‘surveillance apathy’ is also a problem



File 20171107 1032 f7pvxc.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Do you care if your data is being used by third parties?
from www.shutterstock.com

Siobhan Lyons, Macquarie University

We all seem worried about privacy. Though it’s not only privacy itself we should be concerned about: it’s also our attitudes towards privacy that are important.

When we stop caring about our digital privacy, we witness surveillance apathy.

And it’s something that may be particularly significant for marginalised communities, who feel they hold no power to navigate or negotiate fair use of digital technologies.


Read more: Yes, your doctor might google you


In the wake of the NSA leaks in 2013 led by Edward Snowden, we are more aware of the machinations of online companies such as Facebook and Google. Yet research shows some of us are apathetic when it comes to online surveillance.

Privacy and surveillance

Attitudes to privacy and surveillance in Australia are complex.

According to a major 2017 privacy survey, around 70% of us are more concerned about privacy than we were five years ago.

Snapshot of Australian community attitudes to privacy 2017.
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

And yet we still increasingly embrace online activities. A 2017 report on social media conducted by search marketing firm Sensis showed that almost 80% of internet users in Australia now have a social media profile, an increase of around ten points from 2016. The data also showed that Australians are on their accounts more frequently than ever before.

Also, most Australians appear not to be concerned about recently proposed implementation of facial recognition technology. Only around one in three (32% of 1,486) respondents to a Roy Morgan study expressed worries about having their faces available on a mass database.

A recent ANU poll revealed a similar sentiment, with recent data retention laws supported by two thirds of Australians.

So while we’re aware of the issues with surveillance, we aren’t necessarily doing anything about it, or we’re prepared to make compromises when we perceive our safety is at stake.

Across the world, attitudes to surveillance vary. Around half of Americans polled in 2013 found mass surveillance acceptable. France, Britain and the Philippines appeared more tolerant of mass surveillance compared to Sweden, Spain, and Germany, according to 2015 Amnesty International data.


Read more: Police want to read encrypted messages, but they already have significant power to access our data


Apathy and marginalisation

In 2015, philosopher Slavoj Žižek proclaimed that he did not care about surveillance (admittedly though suggesting that “perhaps here I preach arrogance”).

This position cannot be assumed by all members of society. Australian academic Kate Crawford argues the impact of data mining and surveillance is more significant for marginalised communities, including people of different races, genders and socioeconomic backgrounds. American academics Shoshana Magnet and Kelley Gates agree, writing:

[…] new surveillance technologies are regularly tested on marginalised communities that are unable to resist their intrusion.

A 2015 White House report found that big data can be used to perpetuate price discrimination among people of different backgrounds. It showed how data surveillance “could be used to hide more explicit forms of discrimination”.


Read more: Witch-hunts and surveillance: the hidden lives of queer people in the military


According to Ira Rubinstein, a senior fellow at New York University’s Information Law Institute, ignorance and cynicism are often behind surveillance apathy. Users are either ignorant of the complex infrastructure of surveillance, or they believe they are simply unable to avoid it.

As the White House report stated, consumers “have very little knowledge” about how data is used in conjunction with differential pricing.

So in contrast to the oppressive panopticon (a circular prison with a central watchtower) as envisioned by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, we have what Siva Vaidhyanathan calls the “crytopticon”. The crytopticon is “not supposed to be intrusive or obvious. Its scale, its ubiquity, even its very existence, are supposed to go unnoticed”.

But Melanie Taylor, lead artist of the computer game Orwell (which puts players in the role of surveillance) noted that many simply remain indifferent despite heightened awareness:

That’s the really scary part: that Snowden revealed all this, and maybe nobody really cared.

The Facebook trap

Surveillance apathy can be linked to people’s dependence on “the system”. As one of my media students pointed out, no matter how much awareness users have regarding their social media surveillance, invariably people will continue using these platforms. This is because they are convenient, practical, and “we are creatures of habit”.

Are you prepared to give up the red social notifications from Facebook?
nevodka/shutterstock

As University of Melbourne scholar Suelette Dreyfus noted in a Four Corners report on Facebook:

Facebook has very cleverly figured out how to wrap itself around our lives. It’s the family photo album. It’s your messaging to your friends. It’s your daily diary. It’s your contact list.

This, along with the complex algorithms Facebook and Google use to collect and use data to produce “filter bubbles” or “you loops” is another issue.

Protecting privacy

While some people are attempting to delete themselves from the network, others have come up with ways to avoid being tracked online.

Search engines such as DuckDuckGo or Tor Browser allow users to browse without being tracked. Lightbeam, meanwhile, allows users to see how their information is being tracked by third party companies. And MIT devised a system to show people the metadata of their emails, called Immersion.

The ConversationSurveillance apathy is more disconcerting than surveillance itself. Our very attitudes about privacy will inform the structure of surveillance itself, so caring about it is paramount.

Siobhan Lyons, Scholar in Media and Cultural Studies, Macquarie University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Shorten recruits Keneally for Bennelong, as citizenship crisis claims Lambie


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Labor is running high-profile former New South Wales premier Kristina Keneally in the December 16 Bennelong byelection, upping the stakes for both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten in the battle.

Shorten rang Keneally, who is a commentator and presenter on Sky, at the weekend to ask her to contest the seat, which is on a margin of nearly 10%. The byelection has been triggered by its Liberal member John Alexander, 66, a former tennis star, resigning in the dual citizenship crisis after it became obvious he had inherited his father’s British citizenship.

Meanwhile, that crisis has now captured its eighth victim, with Jacqui Lambie, a Tasmanian crossbench senator, announcing on Tuesday morning that she was resigning from parliament.

Lambie – who was originally part of the Palmer United Party before quitting it, forming her own group and being re-elected in 2016 – inherited UK citizenship.

An emotional Lambie, breaking the news in a Launceston radio interview, said she realised she had a problem after former Senate president Stephen Parry went public with his UK citizenship.

“I’m obviously doing my autobiography, I’ve gone back over dad’s stuff and straight away I just thought ‘oh my God’ …By Thursday last week I rang him and I said ‘Dad, I’m gone, aren’t I?’ and he said ‘you know what sweetheart? I think we’re gone’.”

Lambie said that if there was a byelection in the lower house federal seat of Braddon, where there is a question mark over the citizenship of Labor member Justine Keay, she would think about running. “I’d certainly have a good look at it, I just have to see what else is going on,” she said. She ruled out running in a state seat in the coming election.

Later she made a tearful statement to the Senate.

Jacqui Lambie, always a colourful character.
Facebook

Keneally, who lives just outside the Bennelong electorate but has a long association with the area, said: “I am not running in Bennelong because John Alexander is a dual citizen.

“That’s why we’re having this byelection but that is not why I am
running. I am running because this is a moment, this is an opportunity
for the community in which I live to stand up and say to Malcolm Turnbull, ‘Your government is awful’.”

Shorten said the byelection was “a great opportunity to send a message to Mr Turnbull to pull up your socks, lift your game, focus on the people and not yourself”.

Keneally, 48, was premier from December 2009 to March 2011 when the government was defeated at the election. After the announcement of her Bennelong candidature, federal Coalition members and commentators immediately started homing in on the NSW Labor scandals involving Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald, who were both eventually jailed.

Nathan Rees, the premier she replaced in a coup, described her as “puppet” of powerbrokers Obeid and Joe Tripodi, prompting her much-quoted reply: “I am nobody’s puppet, I am nobody’s protege, I am nobody’s girl”.

Health Minister Greg Hunt said: “You’ve got a comparison here. One, Kristina Keneally, fought for Eddie Obeid. The other, John Alexander, fought for Australia on the international [tennis] courts.”

Turnbull, who is in the Phillipines, was asked about Bennelong and said: “Don’t let Kristina Keneally do to Bennelong what she did to NSW”.

“She is Bill Shorten’s handpicked candidate, so obviously, Eddie Obeid
and Bill Shorten have formed the same view about Kristina Keneally.”

Labor defeated the then prime minister, John Howard, in Bennelong in 2007 with another high-profile candidate, TV personality Maxine McKew. But she lost the seat to Alexander after one term.

But former premiers inevitably carry the barrage of their earlier political years. In the 2013 election the ALP ran former Labor premier Peter Beattie in the Queensland seat of Forde but he failed to wrest it off the Liberal National Party.

The ConversationKeneally is American-born but long ago renounced her US citizenship.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/k3zus-7afe23?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Newspoll 55-45 to Labor as Turnbull’s better PM lead falls to 2. Qld and Alabama polling


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted 9-12 November from a sample of 1630, gave Labor a 55-45 lead, a one point gain for Labor since last fortnight, and their largest Newspoll lead since February. Primary votes were 38% Labor (up 1), 34% Coalition (down 1), 10% One Nation (up 1) and 9% Greens (down 1). This is Turnbull’s 23rd consecutive Newspoll loss as PM, 7 short of Abbott.

29% were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance (down 2), and 58% were dissatisfied (down 1), for a net approval of -29. Shorten’s net approval was up five points to -19. The biggest story in the personal ratings was Turnbull’s lead as better PM over Shorten narrowing from 41-33 to 36-34, by far Turnbull’s lowest Newspoll lead over Shorten since he ousted Abbott to become PM.

This result will increase leadership speculation, and hard right commentators will say the Coalition should return to a proper conservative leader. However, while this is Turnbull’s worst better PM rating, Shorten often led Abbott while Abbott was PM. The better PM measure favours incumbents more than would be expected given voting intentions.

Newspoll asked a best Liberal leader question with three options: Turnbull, Julie Bishop and Peter Dutton. Bishop led Turnbull 40-27, with 11% for Dutton. Among Coalition voters, Turnbull was ahead 42-39 with 7% for Dutton. Dutton won 24% with One Nation voters.

If we count Labor/Greens as left, and Coalition/One Nation as right, there has been little change between the total left and right votes in the last six Newspolls. The total left vote has been 47% in all six, and the total right 44-45%. One Nation’s preference flow to the Coalition is likely to be stronger than the 50% at the 2016 election, which Newspoll uses, so Labor’s two party lead is probably overstated.

The fall in Turnbull’s better PM lead is likely due to the citizenship debacle, with voters thinking he has lost control of the situation. By 45-42, voters favoured changing the Constitution to allow dual citizens to run for Parliament.

The Bennelong by-election will be held on 16 December. Former NSW Premier Kristina Kenneally today announced she would contest the by-election for Labor. Kenneally has a high public profile. While Labor was smashed at the 2011 NSW election, the damage was done long before Kenneally became Premier, and she has not been blamed for that loss. Kenneally appears to be a very good choice for Labor.

With Essential and YouGov below confirming the trend in Newspoll, Kevin Bonham’s poll aggregate is now at 54.2% two party to Labor, a 1.0 point gain for Labor since last week, and Labor’s best for this term.

Lambie’s probable disqualification will un-un-elect McKim

Two weeks ago, I wrote that Tasmanian Liberal Senator Stephen Parry’s disqualification would see One Nation’s Kate McCulloch defeat Green Nick McKim for the 12th and final seat, reversing the 2016 election result.

Jacqui Lambie has revealed she has a Scottish father, and has resigned from the Senate. If both Parry and Lambie are disqualified, the Senate recount reverts to electing McKim instead of McCulloch. So it now appears that the High Court will not have to rule on whether an elected Senator who has done nothing wrong himself can be unelected.

SSM plebiscite polling

The result of the same sex marriage plebiscite will be declared at 10am Melbourne time tomorrow. In Newspoll, 79% said they had voted, up 3 since last fortnight. Of these 79%, Yes led 63-37 (62-35 from the 76% who had voted last fortnight).

In Essential, 45% thought the postal survey a bad process that should not be used in the future, 27% a good process that should be used in the future, and 19% a good process that should not be used.

If Yes wins, 58% in YouGov thought the government should pass a law legalising same sex marriage straight away, 18% ignore the result, and 14% wait before passing a law. By 46-42, voters thought MPs who personally oppose same sex marriage should vote for the bill.

Essential 54-46 to Labor

This week’s Essential, conducted over the last two weeks from a sample of 1820, gave Labor a 54-46 lead, a one point gain for Labor since last week. Primary votes were 38% Labor, 36% Coalition, 9% Greens, 8% One Nation and 3% Nick Xenophon Team. Additional questions use one week’s sample.

Turnbull’s net approval was down 11 points to -12 since October, and Shorten’s net approval was down six points to -13. Unlike Newspoll, Turnbull maintained a 40-28 lead as better PM (42-28 in October).

By 44-40, voters thought Turnbull’s proposal to resolve the dual citizenship crisis did not go far enough. By 49-30, they thought disqualified MPs should repay public funding of their election campaigns. By 44-31, voters disapproved of privatising the NBN when completed.

YouGov primary votes: 34% Labor, 31% Coalition, 11% Greens, 11% One Nation

This week’s YouGov poll, conducted 9-12 November from a sample of 1034, gave Labor a 52-48 lead by respondent preferences, a 3 point gain for Labor since last fortnight. Primary votes were 34% Labor (up 1), 31% Coalition (down 5), 11% Greens (up 1) and 11% One Nation (up 2). By previous election preferences, this poll would be about 55-45 to Labor.

Hanson had a 48-45 unfavourable rating (50-42 in early September). Greens leader Richard di Natale had a 33-29 unfavourable rating (39-26). Nick Xenophon had a 53-28 favourable rating (52-28). Abbott had a 56-36 unfavourable rating (57-34).

By 61-16, voters thought a full audit into all parliamentarians regarding dual citizenship a good idea. By 63-26, they thought it unacceptable to legally avoid paying tax. By 55-27, voters said they would not take part in a tax avoidance scheme, which is probably not an honest assessment.

Qld ReachTEL poll of One Nation voters, and more Galaxy seat polls

A ReachTEL poll of over 3400 voters was conducted for the Sunday Mail. From the Poll Bludger’s write-up and comments, it appears this poll was of just One Nation voters, not all voters. Sky News reported this poll as 52-48 to the LNP, but they appear to have extrapolated One Nation preferences in this poll (74.5% to LNP), and applied those preferences to other polls.

If 3 in 4 One Nation preferences are going to the LNP, Labor has shot itself in the foot by changing the electoral system from optional preferential to compulsory preferential voting last year. Labor can hope that this poll had self-selection issues, with hard right One Nation supporters more likely to participate than those who are simply disillusioned with both major parties.

In deputy Premier Jackie Trad’s South Brisbane, the Greens had a 51-49 lead over Trad according to a Galaxy poll taken last week. However, this poll assumes that LNP voters will assign their own preferences, rather than follow their party’s How-to-Vote card. In practice, over half of major party voters follow the card. With the LNP putting the Greens behind Labor on all its cards, Trad should retain South Brisbane easily.

In Burdekin, the LNP had a 51-49 lead over Labor, a 2 point swing to the LNP since the 2015 election.

Following Moore’s alleged sex encounter with 14-y/o, Alabama Senate race tightens

The Alabama Senate by-election will be held on 12 December. Last Thursday, the Washington Post reported that extreme right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore had had a sexual encounter with a 14 year-old girl when he was 32.

The three polls taken since this revelation are between a 4-point lead for Democrat Doug Jones, and a 10-point lead for Moore, averaging at Moore by 2 points. There have been 12-point shifts in Jones’ favour from the previous editions of both JMC and Emerson, and a 5-point shift in Opinion Savvy.

The ConversationWhat happens next depends on whether voters quickly get over the scandal, or whether it festers, and continues to damage Moore. If the former happens, Moore should win comfortably, but the latter outcome would give Jones a real chance. An example of a scandal that festered in Australia was Bronwyn Bishop’s Choppergate affair.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Twitter analysis shows Queensland Labor has put Adani behind them


Axel Bruns, Queensland University of Technology

There’s still plenty of time to go in the current Queensland state election campaign, but early signs from the social media trail offer some encouragement for Labor premier Annastacia Palaszczuk. She is receiving considerably more retweets than Liberal Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls, and chatter about the controversial Adani mine project has declined in recent days.

Twitter and Facebook are now a standard part of the campaigning toolkit for all major parties. Previous state and federal campaigns suggest that voters who’ve already seen a party’s messages in their social media feeds may be a little more open to a chat when the local candidate comes doorknocking. (Labor’s internal review of its 2013 campaign stresses the combination of online and in-person campaigning, for example.)

On Twitter, we’ve identified 60 Labor and 48 Liberal National Party candidates, as well as central party and campaign accounts. The Greens are represented by 34 accounts, while One Nation and Katter’s Australian Party each have only a handful of tweeting candidates. Combined, over the first two weeks of the campaign, they’ve sent some 3,300 tweets in total, and received some 54,000 @mentions and retweets.

Twitter @mentions and retweets per party, 30 Oct. to 12 Nov. 2017.
Axel Bruns / QUT Digital Media Research Centre

These are far from evenly distributed, however. @mentions of parties and politicians tend to favour the incumbent, and this is not surprising: more of the debate on social media and elsewhere will be about the track record of the current government, rather than about the promises of the opposition.

At 30,000 tweets, Labor accounts have received nearly double the @mentions of the LNP (17,000) to date, and this is in line with patterns in previous state and federal elections.

It’s the retweets that tell a more remarkable story. The nearly 7,000 retweets for Labor candidates’ tweets amount to more than twelve times the 570 retweets received by the LNP. During an election campaign, retweets usually do indicate some level of endorsement.

The pattern in this election is considerably different from recent elections. In 2016, for example, the incumbent federal Coalition received far fewer retweets than the Labor opposition. In the 2015 Queensland election, Campbell Newman’s incumbent Liberal National Party government also struggled to attract retweets for its messages.

These patterns do not point to a significant mood for change or substantial willingness amongst Twitter users to promote the LNP’s campaign messages. Conservative commentators may want to chalk this up to a purported left-wing bias in the Australian Twittersphere – but that claim is not borne out by our analysis, showing Twitter contains sizeable communities of both left-wing and right-wing supporters.

Adani and One Nation generate heat for the major parties

Labor also seems to have weathered the early onslaught of critical coverage well.

The first week of the campaign saw a substantial volume of debate about the controversial Adani mine project, which divides opinion between the southeastern population centres around Brisbane (where concerns about environmental impacts are high) and the regional centres near the mine (which anticipate greater job prospects from the mine).

During week one some 1,500 tweets per day, both by and to candidates, contained the word “Adani”. Hashtags related to the controversy (#adani, #stopadani, #coralnotcoal, and others) were the most prominent topical hashtags in our overall dataset, in addition to generic tags like #qldvotes, #qldpol, and #auspol.

The story is further complicated by the fact that, in his role at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Premier Palaszczuk’s partner was involved in Adani’s application for a A$1 billion loan. Palaszczuk announced at the end of the first week of campaigning that she would veto that loan if the application were successful.

Judging by our Twitter data, this veto threat appears to have neutralised the Adani debate to some extent. “Adani” tweets by and to candidates declined from 1,500 to less than 600 in week two. The overall volume of tweets by and to these accounts has also dropped from over 5,000 to some 3,700 per day in week two.

This shift in position may indicate that Labor believes that supporting Adani will lose more votes in the southeast than it will gain further north. Our social media patterns seem to bear out this view.

Meanwhile, with Pauline Hanson’s much-publicised arrival on the campaign trail the second week has seen more discussion about the role that One Nation may play in the next parliament. In particular, the announcement on the evening of Friday 10 November that the LNP will preference One Nation over Labor in more than half the seats in Queensland has already generated substantial debate. Some 20% of tweets by and to candidates on the following Saturday included keywords related to One Nation and/or preferencing.

While the LNP announcement – after the evening news on a Friday – was probably timed to minimise media scrutiny of its decision, it remains to be seen whether this debate will carry over into the third week of the campaign. Labor will no doubt seek to exploit this preference arrangement to attract traditional conservative voters who remain critical of One Nation.

The ConversationAnd finally, if you’re still uncertain about which hashtag to use to join the debate: in tweets by and to candidate accounts, plain old #qldvotes leads #qldvotes2017 by more than ten to one so far. It’s a landslide.

Axel Bruns, Professor, Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

With One Nation on the march, a change to compulsory voting might backfire on Labor


Doug Hunt, James Cook University

The Queensland Labor government’s change back to compulsory preferential voting could increase informal voting and actually backfire, with a strong flow of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation preferences to the Liberal National Party.

What appeared to be a masterly, if cynical, move from Labor now looks far from smart. This is especially so as opinion polling shows a strong flow of One Nation preferences to the LNP, making it the beneficiary of full preferential voting.

Paradoxically, Labor preferences may assist the LNP in some rural seats where One Nation comes second to the LNP. One Nation, which looks set to win a few seats, will itself be helped by preferences from Katter’s Australian Party and also from the LNP.

The difference between optional and compulsory preferential voting

In April last year, Queensland parliament increased the number of electoral districts from 89 to 93. This move, initiated by the LNP with the support of crossbench members, was trumped by Labor, also with crossbench support. Labor amended the Bill to additionally re-introduce compulsory preferential voting.

The introduction by Labor of compulsory full preferential voting owed nothing to democratic electoral theory. Like all previous voting system changes, Labor expected to get some advantage.

Labor proposed two related reasons for the change: to reduce informal votes and achieve consistency between state and federal elections. However, optional preferential voting has meant that Queensland elections have the lowest rate of informality across all Australian parliaments. This is despite Queensland being having a high informal vote in federal elections.

The return to full preferential voting will actually increase the number of informal votes. An informal vote is a ballot paper where the voter has failed to put a number every box, or otherwise not complete it properly.

Compulsory, or full preferential, voting requires an elector to number every box beside each candidate on the ballot paper sequentially in order of the voter’s preference. If no candidate achieves a majority of “1” votes on the first count, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated from the ballot, and their votes allocated to the remaining candidates according to the eliminated candidate’s second preference.

This process continues until one candidate reaches a majority (50% plus one) of votes. The aim is to elect the most preferred candidate, rather than the simple plurality required under first-past-the-post voting.

FPV Formal Ballot Paper Example.
Electoral Commission of Queensland

This is the system used in federal elections and in all other states except New South Wales, which uses optional preferential voting. Queensland elections were conducted via full preferential voting from 1962 until 1992. Optional preferential voting was then introduced following a recommendation of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission.

Under optional preferential voting, voters can choose how many, if any preferences they allocate to candidates. They can simply vote 1, or they can vote for some or all candidates in order of their preference. Counting proceeds as with full preferential voting.

This system maximises choice for voters, ensuring that they don’t have to indicate any preference for someone they don’t wish to elect. Optional preferential voting therefore seems like the most democratic form of voting.

On the other hand, full preferential voting arguably maximises the democratic principle of public participation, by ensuring that voters’ second (and so on) preferences pass on to other candidates. Their votes are therefore not wasted. So, elections more accurately reflect the will of the people, as the winner can claim the support of most voters.

Under optional preferential voting, if large numbers of electors limit their preferences to one candidate, someone without majority support may be elected.

What history tells us

The real reason for a return to full preferential voting was to assist Labor in garnering preferences from the Greens. These preferences typically flow heavily to Labor – as high as 80% in many cases.

However, optional preferential voting meant that Greens voters increasingly just voted 1 for their own candidate, robbing Labor of votes. ABC election analyst Antony Green calculated that had full preferential voting been in place in 2015, Labor would have won an additional eight seats and an absolute parliamentary majority.

Labor also hoped to pick up preferences from other candidates in order to stave off Greens challenges in inner-city districts.

The optional preferential voting experience in Queensland shows that over time, the proportion of the electorate not stating full preferences generally increases. Academic John Wanna warned of a defacto first-past-the post system, calling it a “denial of a true democratic outcome”.

In 2012, 70% of electors voted 1 only. This proportion fell to 55% in the 2015 election, apparently due to disaffection with the Newman LNP government, when many voters deliberately put the LNP last on the ballot paper.

In 2016, Labor appeared in a winning position with the change to compulsory preferential voting. 2017 is different.

The difficulty in predicting the outcome of Queensland’s state election is compounded not just by changes to the electoral system, but by volatile political factors.

Chief among these is the resurgence of support for One Nation. In the 2015 election, standing in only 11 electorates, the party garnered a statewide vote of less than 1% – though Hanson herself lost narrowly to the LNP in the seat of Lockyer.

Recent opinion polls suggest support for One Nation at around 18%, prompting commentators to assign it a “kingmaker” role in a likely hung parliament.

So it’s impossible to gauge the impact of a return to compulsory compared with optional preferential voting with certainty. In most seats, it won’t change the outcome.

However, some seats will likely be decided differently under full preferential voting. In a close election, that can determine which party wins on 25 November.

The ConversationIronically, given the LNP’s vehement criticism of the change to full preferential voting last year – it was the ‘death of democracy’, according to one parliamentarian – they are likely to be the main beneficiary of the changed system.

Doug Hunt, Adjunct Associate Professor, College of Arts, Society and Education, James Cook University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Hanson loses replacement senator – before he is even sworn in



File 20171113 27632 9237qw.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Fraser Anning (centre) was escorted into the Senate by David Leyonhjelm and Cory Bernardi.
AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Pauline Hanson has lost one of her four Senate votes, in a dramatic blow-up with the man she unsuccessfully pressured to step aside to allow Malcolm Roberts back into the parliament.

On Monday, Queensland’s Fraser Anning replaced Roberts, who was declared ineligible by the High Court because he was a dual British citizen.

But just before he walked into the chamber to be sworn in, Anning flagged he would sit as an independent.

Anning later declared he had not left One Nation – it was Hanson who had kicked him out.

The setback for Hanson comes as One Nation’s vote is apparently surging in the Queensland election. Polling published in The Courier-Mail at the weekend showed strong support for One Nation in various regional and urban fringe seats with a vote of more than 20% in some, although it would not have won any of the seats on the figures.

The Anning defection follows weeks of tension with Hanson and her adviser James Ashby, and a bitter clash at the One Nation party meeting on Monday morning.

Hanson said in a statement that before the High Court decision she had tried to speak with Anning while he was overseas, but her efforts “fell on deaf ears”. She’d had to communicate through his brother Harry instead.

She had indicated to Harry Anning “that given the work Malcolm Roberts had achieved as chair of the banking inquiry and his role in challenging climate change, it would be in the federal party’s and Australia’s best interests” for him to be returned to the Senate.

Anning had made no attempt to contact her or any One Nation executive members after multiple requests to discuss his plans, she claimed – something Anning disputes. “Instead he chose to release scathing media releases demanding I pledge my support to him without even meeting or speaking to him,” she said.

The statement said Anning only spoke with Hanson on Monday morning “but those talks quickly failed when she refused to allow several Anning staff into the party meeting. The staffers had formerly worked for Roberts and she would not have them at the meeting “because of their disloyalty to their former employer and myself.”

Anning then walked out of the meeting.

One Nation senators Brian Burston and Peter Georgiou sought to mediate, but they were told “only minutes before he was sworn into the Senate” that Anning would sit as an independent, Hanson’s statement said.

Anning had a different version. He said he had been verbally attacked in the partyroom. “This was profoundly shocking to me as I had been a friend and supporter of Pauline for over 20 years … the attack was so vitriolic that I was obliged to simply walk out.”

He said Burston and Georgiou had told him Hanson demanded he not employ the staffers – he had said this was unacceptable. He believed these demands were actually coming from Ashby, “who had previously conducted a witch-hunt against anyone he thought supported me, and it was he who had turned Pauline against me”.

At the last minute, Anning’s office asked Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm and the Australian Conservatives’ Cory Bernardi to escort him for the swearing in, which his One Nation colleagues had been due to do. Anning said Hanson had told the One Nation senators not to do so.

“The next thing I knew, I saw on the TV that I had supposedly become an independent. This was news to me!

“It seems that without even contacting me, Pauline has unilaterally kicked me out of her party,” he said. “I have to say I’m stunned.” He said it was “simply false” to say he’d left One Nation. “If I’m no longer a One Nation senator, it is because Pauline has expelled me by press release.”

Hanson’s statement said she believed former employees of Roberts contacted Anning several months ago, encouraging him to move to Bernardi’s party if Roberts lost his seat.

She said before Roberts came under the citizenship cloud she had asked Anning to contest the state seat of Gladstone, but he dismissed the request on the grounds he and his wife were moving permanently to the US.

Leyonhjelm said Anning told him on their way into the chamber that he wouldn’t be sitting as a One Nation senator.

He had been aware of the tensions earlier but had been told by a One Nation senator at the weekend that all was well with Anning.

Asked if Anning might join the Liberal Democrats Leyonhjelm said he had not spoken to him about that. Anning would have to be comfortable with the party, he said.

The ConversationRoberts is running for a seat in the Queensland election.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/k3zus-7afe23?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Cormann and Shorten reach deal on citizenship disclosure


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The government has agreed to Labor’s December 1 deadline and tougher conditions in a deal on MPs citizenship disclosure clinched between Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and deputy Senate leader Mathias Cormann on Monday.

The agreement comes after last week’s haggling over timing and the terms of disclosure, and a meeting and an exchange of sharp letters between Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Shorten. It paved the way for an immediate motion in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives after it returns on November 27.

Under changes obtained by Labor, MPs will have to go back as far as their grandparents and say what steps they have taken to confirm that they did not inherit foreign citizenship from their parents and grandparents.

The original proposal by Turnbull only went back as far as parents. It required only that MPs stated when they nominated they were not, to the best of their “knowledge and belief”, a citizen of any other country.

The resolution includes a provision requiring an MP who at the time of nomination, was a foreign citizen (or is currently), to state on what basis they contend they should not be disqualified under Section 44(i) of the Constitution.

This covers the situation of several Labor MPs, who took steps to renounce their foreign citizenship but did not receive confirmation before they nominated. Labor has legal advice these MPs are safe; the government has advice they are breaching the Constitution.

Labor claimed it got all it wanted in the deal; the government claimed the ALP wished to include further clauses designed to clear MPs on the basis that they had taken “reasonable steps” to renounce dual citizenship.

The government compromised twice in bringing forward the date of disclosure. Most recently it was saying it should be December 7.

A later disclosure date would have required a special recall of parliament to consider any referrals to the High Court. These will now be able to be dealt with in the last week, starting December 4, of the current timetable.

The government is flagging it will refer up to four Labor MPs to the court, although it is not clear whether it will wait to do this until the December 4 week, or seek to move the week before.

In the Senate, Australian Conservatives leader Cory Bernardi claimed a senator was ineligible to sit and the government was aware of it. The senator in question is not a member of the government. Tasmanian crossbencher Jacqui Lambie’s eligibility has been questioned in recent days.

Meanwhile, a ministerial vacancy has opened with the elevation of Scott Ryan to the Senate presidency on Monday morning. Ryan has been special minister of state.

Turnbull will reshuffle his ministry at some later point, in what are expected to be quite extensive changes. The High Court’s recent disqualification of the Nationals Fiona Nash has opened another vacancy. In the meantime, Cormann will take over responsibility for the special minister of state portfolio.

The byelection for the seat of Bennelong, vacated by John Alexander who believes he had dual citizenship, will be held on December 16. Alexander will have to free himself of his UK citizenship before nominations close for the byelection.

Shorten told a meeting of Labor senators: that Labor was “behind the eight ball” in Bennelong, where the Liberals have a margin of nearly 10%.

“But we are going to give it every effort,” he said, defining the battle as “about the direction in which the nation is headed.

“One point we will be making in Bennelong is that because of the increasing and disturbing closeness and proximity between One Nation and the Liberal Party, that a vote for the Liberal Party in Bennelong is effectively a vote for One Nation on the national stage.

“When you look at One Nation’s voting record in the Senate, nearly 90% of the time they are voting with the Liberals.

The Conversation“So for the voters who think they are voting for One Nation as a protest against the Government, they are not. And for people who vote Liberal because they don’t agree with some of One Nation’s extreme views, they are, in fact, endorsing them,” Shorten said.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/k3zus-7afe23?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.