Give Victims The Right To Appeal Soft Sentences

Earlier this year, two women were convicted of assaulting a paramedic but avoided prison after a judge found there were special circumstances justifying a more lenient punishment.  The Victorian public were outraged.

Although the Government tightened the laws around offences against emergency services workers, the public's confidence in the courts had already been shaken.  This is a problem because Australians have consistently reported low confidence in the courts, especially their protection of victims' interests.

Any one of us could be a victim of crime, and if that happens, we need to know that the standards applied by the courts will be in line with our community values.  We need to trust that the courts have the same idea of justice that we have.

To hold judges to this expectation, when a sentence for a serious crime is unjustly lenient, victims should be able to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to seek leave to appeal the sentence.

The DPP is responsible for the prosecution of serious offences in the County and Supreme Courts.  It reviews all sentences handed down in these cases.  The DPP is also committed to consulting with victims throughout the prosecution process.  But victims have no power and there is no way to hold prosecutors to this commitment.

Simply formalising the right of victims to be consulted by the DPP would not be effective.  It might even be more onerous for victims.  In South Australia, the Victims Rights Commissioner has had to pay for legal counsel for victims so they can defend their rights in court.

By contrast, victim appeal would slightly adjust the power balance between the prosecutor and the victim.  After reviewing a sentence and deciding whether or not to appeal, the DPP would brief victims about its reasoning and the chances of an appeal succeeding.  If victims are not satisfied with this advice, they would be able to direct the DPP to appeal anyway.

The aim would not necessarily be to increase the harshness of sentences.  It would be to reassure the public about the reasoning behind the sentencing process.

In this way, victim appeal would increase public confidence in the courts.  Judges and prosecutors would have to attend to victims' interest because failing to do so might lead to a victim appeal.  The reform would also increase the satisfaction of victims with the criminal justice process by making sure that their concerns are given a proper hearing.

The main risk is that the reform would lead to a flood of appeals, at great cost to the taxpayer.  There are a number of factors that lessen this risk.

First, this concern underestimates how difficult participation in the criminal justice process can be for victims.  Prosecutions of serious offences can take many months.  It is unlikely that victims would prolong this experience without careful consideration.

Secondly, appeals activated by victims would lead to an application for leave to appeal.  This means there would be a preliminary hearing, at which the Court of Appeal could exclude frivolous appeals.  As an additional benefit, we would have a public record of victims' satisfaction — if there were many leave hearings, this would indicate a real problem.

Thirdly, there is significant scope for more appeals against sentence.  In 2016-17, the DPP made 18 such appeals, down from 43 in 2008-09.  About one percent of convictions for serious offences are appealed.  There is a good reason for appeals to be rare.  The legal standard that must be met is very high:  the original sentence must have been so "manifestly inadequate" that it was unavailable to the judge under the law.  But all else being equal, there is no reason for appeals to be becoming rarer.

Victim appeal may seem counterintuitive but it is far less radical than other proposed solutions to this problem.

For example, mandatory sentencing laws interfere with the historical independence of the courts.  They also increase the possibility of unjustly harsh sentences, which is the flipside of the problem we want to correct.  Most importantly, mandatory sentencing tells the public that we simply can never expect to have a judiciary we can trust to represent our values.

Similarly, it would also be an overreaction to give victims more rights in court.  Prosecutions are run by the state in recognition of the fact that crime harms not only victims but society itself.  Taken too far, victims' rights entails a revolution of our traditional adversarial justice system.

We do not need to overhaul the system, we need to improve its ability to correct its mistakes.  Victorians deserve to know they can trust the courts to apply community standards and deliver justice for victims.  Victim appeal would be a modest procedural change with a powerful positive effect on how victims and the community interact with and view the criminal justice system.

Ten Points About The Paris Climate Agreement

SUMMARY

1. The binding international emissions reduction obligations (the "Paris obligations") imposed on Australia by the Paris Climate Agreement (the "Paris Agreement") will result in significant and irreparable economic and social costs without producing a discernible environmental benefit.
2. Australia is not "on track" to meet the Paris obligations despite extensive and prolonged government intervention in the energy market that has resulted in Australia having the fourth highest electricity prices in the developed world, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
3. Significant further reductions in emissions from the energy, transport, and agricultural sectors beyond those already planned are required for Australia to meet its Paris Agreement obligations.
4. It has been acknowledged by government ministers that Australia has committed to the deepest cuts to emissions per capita in the developed world.
5. The four largest greenhouse gas emitters in absolute terms are not in the Paris Agreement (the United States) or their emissions are not constrained by the Paris Agreement (China and India) or are not on target to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement (the European Union).
6. Australia can legally withdraw from the Paris Agreement, or can unilaterally reduce its emissions obligations, at any time, and for any reason.
7. What Australia does will make no noticeable difference to the global climate.  Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full by all signatory nations it would only produce a two-tenths of one-degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100, according to researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

---

BACKGROUND

On 11 August 2015, the federal government announced Australia would adopt a policy of a obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels. ⁽¹⁾

The obligation is known as an "Intended National Determined Contribution" under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ("UNFCCC").

The obligation was announced in preparation for the 21st Conference of the Parties ("COP21") to the UNFCCC to be held in Paris from 30 November to 11 December 2015.  The obligation extended Australia's previous commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 based on 2000 levels.

On 12 December 2015 following the conclusion of "COP21", 195 Parties to the UNFCCC (including Australia) agreed to the terms of what became known as the "Paris Climate Agreement".  Under Australian law, the Paris Agreement is a treaty. ⁽²⁾

The Paris Agreement consists of a Preamble, 29 Articles, and 16 principles, many of which are completely unrelated to environmental matters and make reference to matters such as "Mother Earth", "climate justice", "empowerment of women", and "international equity". ⁽³⁾  For example, the Preamble says:

"Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligation on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, person with disabilities and people in vulnerable situation and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and international equity."

"Noting the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including oceans, and the protection of biodiversity, recognized by some cultures as Mother Earth [sic], and noting the importance for some of the concept of 'climate justice' [sic], when taking action to address climate change."

The purpose of the Paris Agreement, set out in Article 2, is to:

• Hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
• Increase the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate change resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development.
• Make finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. ⁽⁴⁾

Subsequent articles deal with matters such as mechanisms for the accounting and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, the provision of financial resources by developing countries to developing countries, and the sharing of technology.

---

AUSTRALIA WILL NOT MEET ITS PARIS OBLIGATIONS WITHOUT FURTHER SUBSTANTIAL INTERVENTION

Some have claimed that no further intervention is required for Australia to meet its Paris Agreement obligations.

• On Alan Jones' 2GB program, 11 September 2018 the Prime Minister, The Hon Scott Morrison, said "... 26 per cent, we will meet in a canter ... we will just meet it because of technology and business as usual." ⁽⁵⁾
• The Minister for Energy, The Hon Angus Taylor MP, said on Sky News on 6 September 2018 "... we're going to reach the ... 26 per cent emissions reduction target anyway." ⁽⁶⁾
• The Minister for the Environment, the Hon Melissa Price MP, stated on 9 October 2018 on the ABC AM radio program "we are already on target to do that [meet the Paris obligations]." ⁽⁷⁾
• The Minister for Defence, The Hon Christopher Pyne MP, said on Sky News on 3 September 2018 "We will reach our 26 per cent target on schedule with the measures we have in place." ⁽⁸⁾

This is false.  Australia is less than a third of the way to meeting the Paris Agreement obligations.  And most of the reduction to emissions has come from restrictions on land clearing practices which cannot be repeated. ⁽⁹⁾

The best available evidence suggests that Australia will not meet its emissions reduction obligations under current policy settings.

• The Department of Environment estimated that under the status quo emissions in Australia are expected to decline by just five per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels. ⁽¹⁰⁾
• The IMF estimated that Australia's emissions will be 43 per cent higher by 2030 than what was expected in 2015. ⁽¹¹⁾
• The Climate Action Tracker estimates that under current policy settings Australia's emissions will be 30 per cent above the Paris Agreement requirements. ⁽¹²⁾
• The Jacob's Report for the Finkel Review released on 21 June 2017 contained the following statement:  "Emissions fall in the BAU but not enough to meet the annual emissions targets." ⁽¹³⁾
• The Energy Security Board found that, under the status quo, emissions from the electricity sector would be nine per cent higher than what would be required under the Paris Agreement. ⁽¹⁴⁾  And the electricity sector only accounts for around one-third of all emissions in Australia.

A report which has been relied upon by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Energy to support the claim that Australia is on track to meet the Paris Agreement obligations actually shows the opposite.  The 2017 Review of Climate Change Policies states that we (Australia) are "on track to meet our 2030 target", meaning the Paris Agreement obligation.  However, that same report estimates that Australia's emissions will be just five per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. ⁽¹⁵⁾

Substantial further government intervention will be required for Australia to meet its Paris Agreement obligations.  If cuts to emissions do not occur in the electricity sector (which accouts for the most emissions at 33 per cent), then they will need to take place in the transport sector (which accounts for the second most emissions at 19 per cent) and the agriculture sector (which accounts for the third most emissions at 14 per cent), according to figures from the Department of Environment.

---

AUSTRALIA'S EMISSION REDUCTION OBLIGATIONS ARE THE DEEPEST IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD

Australia's headline obligation is to reduce emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels.  However, the obligation is the deepest when viewed on a per capita or a per GDP (known as emissions intensity) basis.  Under the Paris Agreement, Australia's emissions must drop 50 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels on a per capita basis, and emissions per unit of GDP must drop by 64 per cent. ⁽¹⁶⁾

The nature of this commitment has been explicitly noted a number of times by government ministers, including by two former Prime Ministers.  In a joint media release the then Prime Minister, The Hon Tony Abbott MP, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Hon Julie Bishop MP, and the Minister for the Environment, The Hon Greg Hunt MP, said:

• "Our emissions intensity and emissions per person will fall further than other developed economies [emphasis added]." ⁽¹⁷⁾

In a joint media release the then Prime Minister, The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Hon Julie Bishop MP, and the Minister for the Environment and Energy, The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, said:

• "This target ... will halve our per capita emissions making it one of the highest targets in the G20 on that basis [emphasis added]." ⁽¹⁸⁾

An accompanying fact sheet from the government noted:

• "On a reduction in per person and emissions intensity basis, our target will exceed those of the United States, Japan, the European Union, Korea, and Canada [emphasis added]." ⁽¹⁹⁾

Figure 1:  Per Capita Emission Reduction Obligations under the Paris Agreement

Source:  Department of Environment

---

AUSTRALIA CAN WITHDRAW FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENT

Article 28 deals with withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.  It reads:

• "At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary."
• "Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal."
• "Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement." ⁽²⁰⁾

The provisions of Article 28 whereby a country can't withdraw within three years of entering into the Paris Agreement is unclear, given that a current government can't bind the actions of a future government.  The principle of parliamentary sovereignty recognises for instance that the Turnbull government can't restrict the Morrison government from reversing its promises under the Paris Agreement. ⁽²¹⁾  Hence, the government can withdraw from the Paris Agreement, with immediate effect.

---

AUSTRALIA CAN REDUCE ITS EMISSION OBLIGATIONS UNILATERALLY

Article 4.11 of the Paris Agreement allows for unilateral alternations to the emissions obligation.  That Article states

"A Party may at any time adjust its existing national determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition, in accordance with the guidance by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement." ⁽²²⁾

However, while Article 4.11 says "with a view to enhancing its level of ambition", this does not prohibit a country from lowering its obligations.  Susan Biniaz, the US State Department's lead climate change lawyer throughout the negotiations of the Paris Agreement, noted "it doesn't legally prohibit [a Party] from changing [targets] in another direction". ⁽²³⁾

---

THE NATURE OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT HAS FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED

The nature of the Treaty has fundamentally changed since Australia singed up in 2015.  At the time it was expected that other nations would adopt measures to reduce emissions.  However, many signatory nations are not on track to meet their Paris Agreement obligations:

• China, the world's largest emitter, is expected to increase its emissions by 150 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. ⁽²⁴⁾
• The United States, the second largest emitter, has provided formal notice that it will be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. ⁽²⁵⁾
• None of the European Union nations, collectively the third largest emitters, are on track to meet their emission reduction requirements. ⁽²⁶⁾
• India, the fourth largest emitter, will meet its emission reduction requirements under the business as usual scenario, meaning the Paris Agreement has no effect. ⁽²⁷⁾

---

EUROPE SHOULD NOT CONTROL AUSTRALIA'S ENERGY POLICY

Representatives of the European Union (EU) have stated that they will not participate in a free trade agreement with Australia if Australia is not party to the Paris Agreement.

• The French foreign affairs minister, Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne, stated "No Paris Agreement, no trade agreement." ⁽²⁸⁾
• The EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom stated that a "Paris deal reference [is] needed in all EU trade agreement[s] today." ⁽²⁹⁾
• The European Parliament passed a resolution to make ratification and implementation of the Paris Agreement a condition for future trade agreements. ⁽³⁰⁾

Trade with other nations is an important cornerstone of prosperity.  However, it is not the only consideration.  The demand that Australia implement the Paris Agreement is an intolerable requirement.  It would provide the EU with effective control of Australia's domestic energy policy and consequently erode Australia's national economic sovereignty.  Australia should not be a signatory to such a trade agreement.

• The EU is hypocritical.  The EU insists that Australia implement the Paris Agreement obligations, yet no EU nation is on track to meet its Paris Agreement obligations. ⁽³¹⁾
• Electricity prices in the EU are cheaper than in Australia, in part because of their use of nuclear energy. ⁽³²⁾  This provides the EU with a competitive advantage over Australia which they are seeking to maintain by locking Australia into the Paris Agreement while they ignore it.

The costs of implementing the Paris Agreement in Australia dwarf the benefits of extended trade with the EU:

• The EU estimated a €2.7-4.2 billion (AUD$4.3-6.8 billion) gain in GDP for Australia by 2030 from the FTA. ⁽³³⁾
• My research estimated implementing the Paris Agreement would cost at least $52 billion by 2030. ⁽³⁴⁾

---

THE PARIS AGREEMENT IS BAD FOR AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS

A component of the Paris Agreement is the Green Climate Fund (GCF).  The GCF is administered by the United Nations and uses taxpayer funds from developed nations to provide hand-outs to wind, solar, and other carbon mitigation programs in developing nations.  To date the fund is worth $USD10 billion, of which Australia has provided $AUD200 million. ⁽³⁵⁾

There are serious concerns about the efficacy of the GCF:

• Rodríguez Osuna, who was a civil society observer on of the fund's board, said "the fund has no information disclosure policy and no accountability mechanism, yet the board is approving project proposals." ⁽³⁶⁾
• Liane Schalatek, also a civil society observer on the fund's board and associate director of a German-based green group, said "there is a real lack of transparency" about how decisions are made. ⁽³⁷⁾
• Less than a tenth of the funding has gone to the kind of projects that make up the fund's mandate:  those owned and controlled by the poorer nations themselves. ⁽³⁸⁾

Moreover, large investment banks appear to have been amongst the biggest beneficiaries of the program:

• A project provided $USD265 million in equity and grants to Geeref Next, a Luxembourg-based investment fund. ⁽³⁹⁾
• $USD110 million in loans and grants was provided to Kazakhstan by way of London-based United Green Energy, and the investment arm of Kazakhstan's sovereign wealth fund. ⁽⁴⁰⁾

---

A "LOW CARBON FUTURE" IS A POLITICAL INVENTION, NOT AN INEVITABILITY

Figure 2:  Number of New Coal-fired Power Stations

Source:  Global Coal Plant Tracker

A "low carbon future", and the "transition to renewable energy" are political inventions, not inevitabilities.  Coal-fired power stations are numerous, dominant, and continue to be constructed around the world.

• There are 2,240 coal-fired power stations currently in operation around the world.
• A further 708 have been announced, have received pre-permission or permission to be constructed, or are currently under construction.
• There are 236 forthcoming coal-fired power stations in China;  88 in India;  70 in Indonesia;  42 in Turkey;  36 in Vietnam;  25 in the Philippines;  and 23 in Bangladesh. ⁽⁴¹⁾

However, there are zero new coal-fired power stations expected to be implemented in Australia under the Paris Agreement.

Similarly, Australia is one of the few nations in the developed world which doesn't utilise nuclear power, ⁽⁴²⁾ despite being home to 30 per cent of world's uranium deposits. ⁽⁴³⁾

Figure 3:  Number of Nuclear Reactors by Country

Source:  Statista

---

THE PARIS AGREEMENT WILL IMPOSE IRREPARABLE ECONOMIC DAMAGE

The government's original plan of implementing the Paris Agreement emission reduction obligations solely in the electricity sector would have cost at least $52 billion by 2030, in terms of the higher cost of generating electricity. ⁽⁴⁴⁾  This is because the Paris Agreement puts reducing emissions ahead of reducing electricity prices or improving supply reliability.  Policy which focusses on emissions reductions necessarily will lead more intermittent, weather-dependent energy being generated from wind and solar, at the expense of reliable base-load energy which comes from coal-fired power stations.

The contribution of solar and wind energy generation has grown from around one per cent in 2007 to 16 per cent today.  Over that period, prices have risen by 130 per cent.  This follows a period of real price stability from the early 1980s to 2007, when wind and solar where virtually non-existent.  This has led to Australia having the fourth highest electricity prices in the developed world.

The government has claimed that it is decoupling the Paris Agreement, and emission reductions more generally, from energy policy.  For example, the Minister for Energy, the Hon Angus Taylor MP, stated that "my first and only priority is to reduce power prices." ⁽⁴⁵⁾  However, the government remains committed to the Paris Agreement emission reduction obligations.  If emissions reductions will not be mandated in the electricity sector, emissions will need to be reduced in other sectors, such as agriculture and transport.  The government is yet to outline how the emissions reductions will be met.

Figure 4:  International Comparison of Electricity Prices

Source:  Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

---

THE PARIS AGREEMENT WILL HAVE NO DISCERNIBLE IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE

The Paris Agreement will make no noticeable difference to the global climate, even if all nations meet their national emissions reduction requirements.

A 2015 research report from leading climate researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that:  "assuming the proposed cuts [under the Paris Agreement] are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century ..." ⁽⁴⁶⁾

Similarly, Dr Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School, estimates that adopting all promises under the Paris Agreement from 2016–2030 will reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.05°C.  This would come at the cost of at least $USD1 trillion. ⁽⁴⁷⁾

Further, Australia accounts for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions from human activity.  And human activity accounts for just three per cent of total emissions. ⁽⁴⁸⁾  Even the complete deindustrialisation of the Australian economy would make no noticeable difference to the global climate.

Even Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel said the complete cessation of all emissions from Australia would do "virtually nothing" to the global climate. ⁽⁴⁹⁾

---

CONCLUSION

Policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia have imposed substantial costs without delivering a discernible environmental benefit.  Rather than continuing with the Paris Agreement, Australia should focus on being a world leader in something that will make a tangible difference to people around the world, such as the provision of clean drinking water. ⁽⁵⁰⁾

---

ENDNOTES

1. Abbott, Tony, "Australia's 2030 emissions reduction target", media release, (11 August 2015)

2. The Paris Agreement is included in the "Australian Treaty Series": Paris Agreement, signed 12 December 2015, [2016] ATS 24 (entered into force 9 December 2016).

3. United Nations, "Paris Agreement", (2015)

4. Ibid.

5. The Alan Jones Show, "Interview with Prime Minister Scott Morrison", 2GB, (11 September, 2018)

6. Sky News Australia, "Interview with Angus Taylor", (16 September, 2018)

7. Lane, Sabra, "Interview with Melissa Price", ABC AM, (9 October 2018)

8. Sky News Australia, "Interview with the Minister for Defence, Christopher Pyne", (3 September 2018)

9. Department of Environment, "Australia's emissions projections 2017", Australian Government, (December 2017)

10. Ibid.

11. Parry, Ian; Mylonas, Victor; Vernon, Nate, "Mitigation Policies for the Paris Agreement: An Assessment for G20 Countries", International Monetary Fund, (2018)

12. See the Climate Action Tracker.

13. Jacobs Consulting, "Report to the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Energy Market", (21 June 2017)

14. Energy Security Board, "The National Energy Guarantee: Consultation Regulation Impact Statement", Canberra, Australia, (29 June 2018)

15. Department of the Environment and Energy, "2017 Review of Climate Change Policies", Canberra, Australia, (2017)

16. Bishop, Julie, 'Australia's 2030 emissions reduction target' Media release (11 August 2015).

17. Ibid.

18. Turnbull, Malcolm, Bishop, Julie & Frydenberg, Josh, 'Ratification of the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol' Joint media release (10 November 2016).

19. Australian Government, 'Australia's 2030 climate change deal' (2015) .

20. Ibid.

21. Blackshield, Tony and Williams, George, "Australian Constitutional Law and Theory", The Federation Press (2010)

22. United Nations, "Paris Agreement", (2015)

23. Editorial, 'United States announces plans to withdraw from Paris Agreement on climate change' (October 2017) 111(4) The American Journal of International Law 1036-1044).

24. Department of the Environment and Energy, "Australia's 2030 climate target", Canberra, Australia, (2015)

25. The White House, "Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord", (1 June 2017).

26. See Climate Action Tracker.

27. Cass, Oren, "Testimony of Oren M. Cass before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology", (1 December 2015)

28. Keating, Dave, "EU tells Trump: No Paris climate deal, no free trade", Forbes, (8 February 2018),

29. See Cecilia Malmström on Twitter

30. European Parliament, "European Parliament resolution on 2 July 2018 on climate diplomacy", (2018)

31. Climate Action Network Europe, "Off Target: Ranking of EU countries' ambition and progress in fighting climate change", Brussels, Belgium, (June 2018)

32. ACCC, "Retail electricity price inquiry: final report", Canberra, Australia, (2018)

33. European Commission, "Impact assessment: Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with Australia", (2017)

34. Wood, Richard J., "Why Australia must exit the Paris Climate Agreement", Australia, (August 2018)

35. McDonald, Eewn, "Australia and the Green Climate Fund: Supporting new climate investments", speech to 4th Australasian Emissions Reduction Summit, Melbourne, Australia, (2017)

36. Kumar, Sunjay, "Green Climate Fund faces slew of criticism", Nature, (20 November 2015)

37. Tabuchi, Hiroko, "U.N climate projects, aimed at the poorest, raises red flags", New York Times, (16 November 2017)

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. Coalswarm, "Global coal planet tracker", (July 2018)

42. See Statista

43. Australian Energy Resources Assessment, "Uranium and Thorium", (2018)

44. Wood, Richard J., "Why Australia must exit the Paris Climate Agreement", Australia, (August 2018)

45. Taylor, Angus, "Speech to the National Small Business Summit, Council of Small Business Organisations Australia", Sydney, Australia, (2018)

46. Reilly, John, "Energy and Climate Outlook: Perspectives from 2015", MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change", MIT, United States, (2015)

47. Lomborg, Bjorn, "The impact and cost of the 2015 Paris Climate Summit, with a Focus on US policies", Chapter 15 from Marohasy, Jennifer (ed.), "Climate change the facts: 2017", Connor Court publishing, Melbourne, Australia, (2018)

48. Marohasy, Jennifer (ed), "Climate Change: The Facts 2017", Connor Court Publishing, Melbourne, Australia, (2018)

49. Quoted in Bolt, Andrew, "Climate change policies are all pain and no gain", Herald Sun, (12 July 2017)

50. Lomborg, Bjorn, "Fight tuberculosis, not climate, to save lives", The Australian, (12 October 2018)

Jerusalem A Decision Too Big For Wentworth

The Liberals should stop trying to play identity politics.  They're not very good at it and they should leave that sort of thing to the Labor Party.  The race/class/gender/religion card is a dangerous one to play, especially when it comes to foreign policy.  There should only ever be one thing that determines Australia's foreign policy, namely what's in our national interest.

Make no mistake.  The decision of Prime Minister Scott Morrison to consider moving Australia's embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is welcome and should be supported.  It is a powerful and proud statement of Australia's support for democracy and freedom in the Middle East.  Jerusalem is Israel's capital city and that is where Australia's embassy should be located.

It is naive to think that in the short-term it won't produce some negative repercussions, but it is always in Australia's long-term national interest to stand with democracies.  The fact that if Australia was to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be one of only a handful of countries to do so is irrelevant.  The justice of an issue should not be decided by a vote of the so-called "international community".  The "international community" might have its place, but most of its members are not democracies.

The problem with the government announcing considering moving Australia's embassy to Jerusalem is not the decision itself.  It's the way the decision was made that's the problem.  It's the right decision but for all the wrong decisions.  On the surface at least, it looks like a decision of politics not principle.  Which is a tragedy.

The decision risks forever being portrayed by those opposed to it as motivated by identity politics, as the Liberals face a crucial byelection in a seat whose population is 12.5 per cent Jewish.  The decision risks being portrayed as the Liberals appealing to the identity of voters who are Jewish.  Whether anyone in Wentworth, Jewish or not will change their vote because of what the government announced is arguable anyway.

A BYELECTION PLOY?

Just a few months ago the secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said that Australia's embassy "will remain in Tel Aviv" and the decision of the Trump administration to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem "had not been helpful".  Morrison, in his previous role as treasurer said in July about a possible move:  "It's not the Government's policy.  It's never been under review and we're not doing it."  Now, four days before the Wentworth byelection the government has reversed that position.

The fact the Prime Minister hasn't actually announced he's moving the Australian embassy in Israel, only that he's "open to" doing so, similarly risks presenting the decision as a byelection ploy.  Presumably if the government undertakes a review of the merits of moving the embassy there's a chance that in the end it will decide to keep the embassy where it is.

Understandably Morrison is doing everything he can to win the Wentworth byelection and stay in office.  But some policies are too important to be decided and announced in the middle of byelection campaigns.  One of the Prime Minister's great strengths is that he's not going to die wondering.  Unlike his predecessor Morrison actually wants to defeat the Labor Party.  But victory, either tomorrow or at the next federal election, as nice as it would be for the Liberals, is not an end in itself.

The Liberals should want to win elections so they can implement policies in the national interest, like moving the Australian embassy to Jerusalem.  It shouldn't be the other way around.  Hopefully the Liberals never think that our country's involvement in the politics of the Middle East is a means to the end of domestic politics.

If this week's announcement from the government truly was based on principle the test will come, not if the Liberals hold Wentworth tomorrow, but if they lose it.  If the Liberals lose Wentworth and we never hear again about the embassy being moved, the PM will have succeeded in revealing that the Liberals' commitment to furthering democracy and freedom around the world is as skin deep as a byelection campaign promise.

Sexual Assault Too Serious A Crime For A Campus Verdict

A basic legal right is that if you are accused of something as serious as sexual assault, the case against you must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Australia's universities are stripping away this basic legal right by determining such cases at the much lower threshold of the "balance of probabilities".

In August, the University of Sydney established a policy that says the standard or proof for "sexual assault and sexual harassment is 'on the balance of probabilities', which requires satisfaction on the evidence that the matter found to have occurred is more likely to have occurred than not".

The University of Tasmania has released a draft behaviour policy that similarly emphasises that sexual misconduct will be determined "on the balance of probabilities".  This is inconsistent with legal principles.

The new policies follow campaigns by some well-intentioned groups, including End Rape on Campus Australia.

EROC Australia argues that because universities are not adjud­icating whether the law has been broken but merely whether a university policy has been breached, the threshold for proof should be "substantially lower".

This, it says, would make "the university complaints process a more accessible avenue for survivors seeking some form of redress and acknowledgment of their experi­ence".

The argument does not take into account the seriousness and consequences of a university finding an individual committed sexual assault.  It cannot be compared to a university deciding whether a student has plagiarised — this is a university effectively adjudicating a criminal matter.  A finding of guilt in a criminal matter such as sexual assault is a tattoo on your forehead from society that we unquestionably, with complete certainty, condemn your actions.

This is why the threshold for proving guilt in such a crime is set so high.

It is far beyond the role and capacity of university administrators to make determinations on allegations of sexual assault.  University of Technology Sydney deputy vice-chancellor Shirley Alexander is right when she says "penalties for sexual assault are determined by the criminal justice system, not universities".

In practical terms, a university is in no way equipped in legal powers or the technical capacity of the police to gather evidence about a crime.  Nor does it have the judicial skills to undertake a fair trial on such a serious matter.  There are criminal courts under despotic reg­imes that have a greater capa­city to investigate criminal matters than a university administrator.

Universities Australia's new guidelines on sexual assault and harassment, which encourage the lower threshold, argue that the "understanding of, and responses to, sexual assault and sexual harassment — or any form of violence against women — need to evolve from a purely legal approach to one that prioritises the needs of the person who experiences the ­violence".

The assertion that a "legal approach" does not prioritise the rights of a victim is absurd — but our judicial system also respects the right of the accused to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.  Our criminal justice system exists to balance the rights of victims and the accused, which is precisely why it has the capacity to make findings of guilt.

Universities effectively making criminal determinations undermine the basic legal rights that individuals are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

As former chief justice Robert French wrote in a 2011 judgment:  "The presumption of innocence has not generally been regarded in Australia as logically distinct from the requirement that the prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt."

A university finding could prejudice a criminal trial.  If a case is highly publicised, it raises questions as to whether a jury can fairly try a person who already has been labelled as guilty by another public institution.

This raises the possibility that a member of the community is found not guilty by the courts through the normal legal process yet is punished secondarily by a university.

The US campus experience has shown how lowering the threshold and expanding the definition of sexual misconduct has disastrous implications for due process.

Emily Yoffe, contributing editor at The Atlantic, wrote that the Obama-era Title IX instruction to universities, which included lowering the threshold for guilt to more likely than not, had led to "adjudications that assume guilt, rely on junk science, gut fundamental fairness, engage in racial animus, and disregard the effects of ending men's education and crushing futures".

This is why the Trump administration reversed the requirement that colleges lower the criterion to "more likely than not".

Yoffe, normally a left-wing critic of the Trump administration, welcomed the reform.

A university does have a responsibility to determine whether an individual is a threat to safety on campus following allegations of inappropriate conduct.  A determination that an individual is a danger to the university community could be made at a lower threshold of guilt.

Notably, this does not require a university to make a determina­tion as to what in fact happened.  This may sound like quibbling over semantics but it is a key distinction between a public institution that takes seriously its duty of care and one pretending to be a court that determines criminal liability.

Every human rights lawyer in Australia should be distressed by this attack on fundamental legal rights.  The federal government must not let students and staff be stripped of their legal rights by university administrators.

Moving Embassy To Jerusalem Could Spark Peace Process

The Morrison government's announcement that it will now consider recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a welcome reiteration of our liberal democratic values in foreign policy.

Australia's embassy is currently in Tel Aviv, which is a fine city — it is a modern cosmopolitan commercial and cultural hub with beautiful beaches and fabulous night life.  But it is not Israel's capital.

Israel's capital is Jerusalem.  Jerusalem is the home of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, the administrative apparatus and the President and Prime Minister.

Israel is the only country that does not get to select its own capital and have that recognised by other nations.  It would be strange for Australia's American embassy to be located in New York and not Washington, DC, or our British high commission to be in Manchester and not London.

A decision to move the embassy would be a welcome affirmation of Israel's right to self-determination like any other nation.

A relocation would follow the lead of the United States under President Donald Trump.  However, the idea is not new.  American presidential candidates have promised it for decades, both Democrats and Republicans including presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

In Australia, Senator James Paterson's maiden speech in 2016 declared that, "It would be a symbolic but important step for Australia to formally recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital city and to move our embassy there."

The Liberal Party's federal council also passed a motion calling for the embassy to be moved.

The Morrison government has reiterated its support for a negotiated two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  In recent days, however, it has been claimed that Australia moving the embassy undermines the peace process.  The sad reality is that there are currently no negotiations that moving the embassy could undermine — since the Palestinians are refusing to meet without preconditions.

A potential positive result of Australia and other countries moving their embassies to Jerusalem is that it places pressure on the Palestinians to finally return to the negotiating table.  It also helps address a potential sticking point by pressuring the Palestinians to recognise Israel's right to exist and the thousands-of-years-long bond between the Jewish people and Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, it is important to not exaggerate the implications of moving the embassy.  The religious and historical sites of the Old City in Jerusalem can continue to be accessed by people of all religions.  The facts on the ground, that is, Israel's claim to and physical location in Jerusalem, will continue.  The proof that moving the embassy does not change the reality on the ground already exists.  Following initial protests, there has been no change in the situation in Israel following the US decision earlier this year.

The notion that moving the embassy undermines a future peace settlement is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history and the peace process.

Israel's capital has been located in Jerusalem since 1950, following the events of the Independence War in which a coalition of Arab states rejected the United Nations partition plan that included both a Jewish and a Palestinian state.  This is notably before the 1967 war that unified West Jerusalem with the east that includes the Old City.

Australia's embassy would inevitably be located in West Jerusalem after a peace settlement.  There is no scenario in which a peace agreement would not include a recognition of Israel's capital in West Jerusalem — with an open possibility for a Palestinian capital located in the east of the city where Australia could locate a Palestinian embassy.

The international community's approach to Israel, most commonly from nations not part of the liberal democratic family, has been one of demonisation.  UN Watch calculated that of the 97 United Nations resolutions criticising countries between 2012 and 2015, a whopping 83 were against Israel.

This is substantially more condemnation than of hermit state North Korea, economic basket case Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia where the big human rights breakthrough in recent months is that women will be able to drive for the first time.

There are some that will never recognise the right of the Jewish people to self-determination;  there are some who will continue to target the one Jewish state for special criticism and treatment.

Australia's foreign policy should be driven by our values — not by the potential for backlash from nations that are both less liberal and less democratic than ourselves.  Israel is the only functioning liberal democracy in the Middle East.  It deserves our moral and symbolic support.  In an increasingly polarised world, we will only be respected by our neighbours and allies if we stay true to our beliefs.  Now is not the time to waiver.

As Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying, "You have enemies?  Good.  That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

An Australian decision to move the embassy would right a historical wrong, stay true to our liberal democratic values, and put the State of Israel on an equal footing with the rest of the international community.

Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Is A Win For Women

Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court is a win for women.  It is a win for the rule of law, which all peaceful and just societies are built upon.  Central to the rule of law is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  This evolved from Clause 39 of Magna Carta and remains the central pillar of justice in Western legal systems.

During the past few weeks, this basic legal and ethical principle has been besieged by a push to #BelieveAllWomen.  This phrase was written is sky high letters on banners at protests, hashtagged and quoted by the most virtuous of Twitter personalities and, most worryingly, was even regurgitated by some members of the Senate.  But what would be the long-term ramifications if our society did away with due process and really did "believe all women"?

Well to begin with to believe all women implies that all women are the same, or similar enough that they can all be thrown into one category.  Moreover, it implies that all women are inherently honest, at least when it comes allegations of sexual misconduct.  In doing so it places women back upon the pedestal that the first two waves of feminism successfully took them down from.

When women fought for their rights and equal treatment it was on the presumption that women are just as capable as men.  And of course we are, women are just as intelligent and complex as their male counterparts, but that also means they are just as capable of lying, manipulating and doing all of the Machiavellian things that are part & parcel of human nature.  Women fought for equal treatment, not special treatment.  To obtain the legal status of men means you take on the legal and personal responsibilities as well, meaning that your testimony must be corroborated before guilt can be determined.

The presumption of innocence exists and operates effectively in societies not only because it is just but also because it is logical, as it is intrinsically difficult to prove a negative.  It is a critical thinking exercise perhaps best explained by the philosopher Bertrand Russell in his famous teapot analogy.  Meant to be a criticism of religion, Russell explained that if the onus of proof is not placed upon the person asserting a claim anything can be "true" as long as it cannot be disproven.  The example he used was an assertion that there is a very small teapot revolving around the earth.  Negative proof would assume that teapot's existence until enough facts to the contrary could be gathered.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer openly stated that "there's no presumption of innocence" in regards to Brett Kavanaugh.  Considering Kavanaugh's accuser could be believed despite not providing the date, location or any corroborating evidence to counter Kavanaugh's detailed diaries and repeated clearance by FBI investigations into his background, it felt at times that Kavanaugh might as well have been attempting to disprove there was a teapot revolving around the earth.  He was not fighting against evidence but an emotional belief that bordered on the dedication of the most devoutly religious.

No matter who you believe in this case, you must remember the legal system is not based on belief, or who you want to believe or who you should believe because of their gender, it is based on evidence and due process.  Justice is and should remain blind, especially in circumstances where partisanship places blinkers on people's views.

If we do believe all women and make it the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence, this would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the justice of our legal system.  Due process is there to ensure that the innocent do not get punished, as a state that punishes the innocent cannot claim to be just.  This is not to say that Kavanaugh definitely did not assault Ford, but right now it cannot be proven that he did so in the eyes of the law and, just as importantly, of society he is innocent.

To dismantle traditional safeguards in order to make it easier for survivors of sexual assault to proceed through the legal system may seem like a good idea at face value, but it is a concept that is open for misuse and manipulation.  Public condemnation can never take the place of a fair trial and testimony must be given equal weight regardless of gender.  I could not stand by and see my brother, father or son cut off from the protections of the law.

Regulators, The Royal Commission And Crony Capitalism

The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation, and Finances Services Industry has uncovered some inexcusable behaviour.  Charging client's fees without providing services, pressured selling of insurance to a man with down syndrome, and thousands of breaches for providing unsolicited advice and insurance are just a few examples highlighted in the Royal Commission's interim report released last Sunday.

Almost as damning has been the lack of response from regulators.  According to the Royal Commission, "[w]hen misconduct was revealed, it either went unpunished or the consequences did not meet the seriousness of what had been done."

But what most observers haven't pieced together is that business misconduct and regulator inaction are two sides of the same coin:  crony capitalism.

Crony capitalism is an economic system where government and business are linked.  Governments provide favours to certain businesses, such as through direct subsidisation, favourable tax treatment, or erecting regulatory barriers to market entrants which stunts competition.

Those businesses return the favour by building a factory in a marginal seat, providing donations, or promotion of a broader political agenda through advertising.

Crony capitalism was epitomised by the Global Financial Crises of 2007-08 in the United States where banks were bailed out with taxpayer dollars at the expense of working-class Americans.

Some ideologues have tried to place the crises at the feet of free markets.  However, there is nothing free about a market where government confiscates workers' hard-earned income and uses it to bail out multi-billion dollar businesses and line the pockets of wealthy executives.

Capitalism proper, by contrast, is a system of profit and loss, risk and reward, intense competition between businesses, government neutrality, and level legal playing fields.

By definition, there is no room for government favouritism, special favours, or backroom lobbying in a capitalist system.  These are all hallmarks of cronyism.  And Australia's financial sector is far more cronyist than it is capitalist.

Banks in Australia can profit without providing good customer service as a substantial part of their market share is guaranteed by government.

The "four pillars" policy prevents underperforming banks from being merged with or acquired by better performing banks.

Compulsory superannuation provides financial institutions with a guaranteed revenue stream.

The myriad of prudential and corporate regulations shields the big firms from smaller would-be competitors who cannot afford the expensive accountants, lawyers, and human resource departments to sift through the paperwork and red tape.

The implicit government guarantee of the major four banks who are "the too big to fail" means in the event a bank was to go under they would be bailed out by taxpayers, as occurred in the United States.

Finally, there is the issue of regulatory capture, where regulators act to advance the interest of the businesses they regulate rather than forward the "public interest" however defined.

Regulatory capture is unavoidable as staff from regulators routinely work for the businesses they once regulated.  Regulatory officials do not want to be too harsh on businesses lest they undermine their future employment prospects.

This all gets to a broader point about the proper role of government.  The more a business relies upon government for its commercial success, the more incentive there is for that business to lobby for favourable treatment.

Even the left-wing, taxpayer funded Grattan Institute found in a recent report that corporates in highly regulated industries donated the largest share of all donations in 2015-16 and 2016-17.  The report also stated that "highly regulated industries lobby hardest", and found that 45 per cent of clients on the federal lobby register in 2018 represented clients in highly regulated industries, compared with 15 per cent in less regulated industries.

The logic of these findings is to reduce the size, scope, and reach of government interference.

Banks should stand on their ability to meet the needs of consumers, shareholders, and employees, not through lobbying, rent-seeking, and special favours.

To achieve this, superannuation should be made voluntary.  This would force financial institutions to offer better services to entice workers to give up their hard earned money, rather than automatically receiving a slice.

The four pillars policy should be abolished.  This would put underperforming banks on notice that they are at risk of being taken over.

Government should make it clear that banks will not be bailed out if they fail.  The "too big to fail" policy results in the socialisation of losses and the privatisation of profits.

And red tape and regulation should be slashed by, perhaps counter-intuitively, reducing the role of the major financial and corporate regulators.

The failures of Australia's financial system highlighted in the Royal Commission's interim report are substantial.  But they are an unavoidable consequences of a crony capitalist system that is designed to benefit big business, big regulators, and big government at the expense of consumers, shareholders, and employees.

Free market capitalism, buttressed by highly competitive markets and the real threat of commercial failure, is the best way to safeguard and protect consumers.

This means substantially reducing the role of government putting banks at the mercy of the market.

Reds On The Red Carpet

For the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who watched Apollo 11 land on the moon in 1969, there are few moments more iconic than the vision of astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting the American flag into the lunar surface.

While the first steps by man on an extraterrestrial surface were a magnificent accomplishment for the human race — indeed a "giant leap for mankind" — it was the planting of the flag which proved a powerful symbol of the West's technological superiority over the Communist powers in the East.

So it is no surprise that a supposedly anticipated new film about the life of Armstrong and the Apollo 11 mission reportedly neglects to include a scene portraying that very moment.  The star of First Man, Ryan Gosling, went as far as to suggest that the film's purpose was to transcend "countries and borders".

This can of course be contrasted with the words of US president John F. Kennedy in 1962, who committed the United States to putting men on the moon:  "For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace."

That mainstream Hollywood would do this is a natural consequence of the shift of funding from domestic to foreign sources.  Much ink has been spilled discussing the growing power of non-Western money, and in particular how red China is flexing its muscle to see changes in the industry.  Unfortunately, the analysis is usually superficial, and lacks an appreciation for the strategic importance of Hollywood as a means of presenting and spreading Western ideals around the world.

China is a huge and increasingly wealthy country.  Studios frequently see China as an opportunity to supplement falling audience numbers in the United States.  China is also a totalitarian and hypersensitive regime that won't hesitate to censor content, so giving Hollywood access to its market doesn't come without a cost to film producers.

Pleasing Chinese audiences (or more accurately, censors) is now a priority for Hollywood studios.  And there is a litany of examples that demonstrate what this looks like in reality:  the 2012 remake Red Dawn, originally to feature a Chinese invasion of the American mainland, was edited at the last minute to feature North Korean armed forces.  In 2013's Iron Man 3, classic supervillain Mandarin was re-imagined from a Chinese-born evil genius to a drunken British actor, who was actually a diversion for the true villain of the story — a white male, of course.

2014's Transformers 4 was partly filmed in Hong Kong and featured the resolute Chinese Communist Party standing against invading robots, while the Americans flounder.  This years' Avengers 4 collected over $1.3 billion from non-US sources during its cinematic run, making it one of the biggest financial success stories in film history.  The rumours that a representative of the Chinese Communist Party was present on the set of that film is strongly reminiscent of political commissars assigned to Soviet military units to ensure the correct political opinions were being adhered to (or the Commonwealth government's proposal to embed agents from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission in financial institutions to "proactively" enforce regulations ...)

Given all this, it's not too strange to hear veteran martial arts actor Jackie Chan himself note that "these days, they ask me, 'do you think the China audience will like it?'  All the writers, producers — they think about China.  Now China is the centre of everything."

Surrendering artistic integrity in the pursuit of Chinese audiences proves that Hollywood is as profit-driven and capitalistic as any other.  The hypocrisy of then producing films that usually portray economic liberalism in the worst possible light is bad enough.  But the consequences of this shift present special problems for the West.  Hollywood is unique due to its role as a source of "soft power", which refers to economic and cultural influence in international affairs.  While the impact on the content of the films is frequently analysed, the strategic ramifications of China effectively colonising an important source of Anglo-American soft power receives too little attention.

Historically, the US relies on Hollywood to underwrite Pax Americana, the post-war peace characterised by widespread Anglo-American cultural norms and the economic and military position of the United States.  By popular acceptance, Hollywood became the lens through which the United States and its allies were seen by the rest of the world.  Through this, the US has been able to spread its values around the world, such that American archetypes have become globally-understood tropes.

This is not to say that American cultural values are perfect or that Pax Americana has been without flaws.  The West rightly coalesced around the United States after the Second World War as it was obviously superior to the powers of the Warsaw Pact as a force to protect liberty and economic prosperity.

Since the end of the Cold War, the cultural rot within the West has become more pronounced.  It is just one symptom of this problem that Hollywood does not recognise its role as custodian of a uniquely Western tradition.  The values that were once a feature of Hollywood must now be sacrificed to accommodate the prejudices of the Chinese market and the sensibilities of the Chinese Communist Party.

The West is now in the position of effectively disseminating the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party.  This is not an accident.  The Peoples Republic has not been shy about its aggressive efforts to build up its own soft power, and Hollywood is undoubtedly a part of that agenda.  Closer to home, a report of an investigation launched by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2016, allegedly outlining "brazen" Chinese government infiltration at every layer of the Australian government, remains classified.

What's happening in Hollywood isn't just a nuisance for consumers;  it's an underestimated threat to the West.  It's not easy to predict what a fall of Pax Americana would look like, but one should not expect a Hollywood ending for Australia.

The Left's Libricide

Recently, Erik Jensen, founding editor of the Saturday Paper and convener of the Horne Prize for essays, had been so struck by what he considered to be an intolerable amount of "chauvinism and condescending accounts" contained within the essays themselves, that he set about changing the guidelines for submission.

Without consulting any of the four judges or the paper's proprietor, Mr Jensen decided that henceforward, the prize would no longer accept essays by non-Indigenous writers about the experience of the "First Nations Australians" and it certainly would not accept essays about the LGBTQI community from people who "have not had direct experience of this community".

Happily, Mr Jensen's meddling was outed by a journalist, and his guidelines were decried as thoroughly untenable by sensible people around the country.  Two of the judges, David Marr and Anna Funder immediately resigned on the grounds that such restrictions were injurious to both their profession and to freedom of speech.  "If we're not going to accept whites writing about Indigenous experience," asked Marr, "how can we have whites judging Indigenous writing?"

Following the brief controversy, the editor scrapped his guidelines.  This is just as well, because as a member of the white male patriarchy, Mr Jensen would have to have disqualified his own book on feminist novelist and poet, Kate Jennings.

While this might well have been a small victory for common sense, the entire episode reveals the effect of identity politics on freedom of speech.  This was raised two years ago by Lionel Shriver, when she donned a Mexican sombrero at the Brisbane Writers' Festival and delivered a speech in which she dared to point out that taken to their logical conclusion, identity politics and cultural appropriation would spell the end for writers of fiction.  In that memorable address, she brought into sharp focus the potentially devastating effect on literature this ubiquitous movement would have, if it were permitted to continue unchecked.

Naturally enough, Shriver's address incurred the unassuageable wrath of the Left, which was exemplified by Yassmin Abdel-Magied who, ostensibly overcome with the "stench of privilege in the air" marched out of the hall mid-speech and then penned a breathless article for the Guardian about just how offended she had been by Shriver and her attitude which had "dripped with racial supremacy".

In the last two years however, Shriver has dramatically changed the way in which she approaches her craft.  These days, the author admits that she assiduously avoids incorporating non-white protagonists into her stories lest she be called a racist.  Essentially, Shriver has felt it necessary to censor and curtail her imagination, thought and expression.  The experience has also set her on a very different and rather unexpected path in that she has become a regular contributor to the Spectator.

In her life-changing speech, Shriver also remarked with optimism that she hoped cultural appropriation and identity politics would be nothing more than a passing fad.  Unfortunately, this latest attempt by the editor of the Saturday Paper to impose identity politics on the Horne prize suggests otherwise.

It is difficult not to see identity politics and cultural appropriation as anything other than pre-emptive book burning.  History is replete with instances of mass libricide committed by totalitarian regimes.

On 10th May 1933, German students gathered in Berlin to burn books which contained "unGerman ideas".  Truth, rational thinking and knowledge, the cornerstones of Western civilisation, were condemned by students and professors alike in favour of mysticism, speculation and collective thinking towards a common goal.  As the propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels gave a rousing speech, encouraging the students to commit "to the flames the evil spirit of the past", they incinerated 20,000 volumes among which were works by Ernest Hemmingway, Thomas Mann, H.G. Wells, Marcel Proust and Emile Zola.

When Mao Zedong proclaimed that "Revolution is not a dinner party!" and unleashed his red terror, any volume which failed to conform to party propaganda, among them sacred texts and Confucian writings, were torched.  Libraries were ransacked and destroyed, and in a matter of just a few weeks, 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation was annihilated.  In contrast, more than a billion copies of the Little Red Book were printed and distributed to be used by students to accuse their own teachers of betraying the party.

In the 1970s, communist authorities in Vietnam posted lists of banned books in an effort to root out all remnants of the "decadent South".  People were so terrified of being found with prohibited material and subsequently denounced, that they rushed to throw their books onto the ever growing pyres of paper.  Under the Khmer Rouge, most of the books, bibliographical records and newspaper collections of the national library were burned because they were deemed to contain information contradictory to the Khmer Rouge view of history.  Nearly all of Cambodia's 60 librarians were killed between 1975 and 1979, and the capital's library was gutted and used as a pigpen.

Back in 2012, when al-Qaida invaded Mali, it destroyed monuments and libraries in Timbuktu dating back seven centuries.  Ancient manuscripts, which covered a range of subjects from astronomy, poetry, music, medicine and women's rights were seen as pagan writings, condemned as sinful and tossed into the flames.  Mercifully, not all of sub-Saharan Africa's rich medieval history was lost, thanks to the heroic efforts of a librarian and his band of conspirators who over a six-month period, smuggled out manuscripts hidden under soft drinks and vegetables, in donkey carts.

In Ray Bradbury's prophetic classic novel Fahrenheit 451 set in a not-too-distant future, books are burned by a special task force of firemen.  In our not-too-distant future, this pre-emptive book burning will be carried out by the social justice brigade rather than the Fire Brigade.  It is they who will be throwing our books onto the flames.

The Great Divide Driving Voter Disgust

Australians are frustrated, disengaged and pessimistic.  There is widespread and growing dislike of politicians, the political process and lacklustre policy outcomes.  Australians think that the system is being stacked against them, their communities, families and potential for human flourishing.

"Public satisfaction with our democratic processes and public trust in the politicians we elect are at some of the lowest levels ever recorded," Professor Ian McAllister of the Australian National University surmised after the 2016 election.  Just a third of Australians are satisfied with the way that democracy is working.  Three-quarters think that "our government does not prioritise the concerns of people like me" — among the highest in the developed world.

Australia's shambolic political predicament is caused by a new divide driven by different identities, lifestyles and cultures.

Inners base their identity on educational and professional achievements.  They have degrees and live in the inner-city with professional jobs.  They value change, autonomy and diversity.  Their politics is cosmopolitan liberal.  Inners are a minority but dominate the upper echelons of Australian society — from politics and the bureaucracy to the media, civil society, universities and corporates.

Outers base their identity on family, community and nation.  They value stability, safety, and unity.  They live in the suburbs, have low to middle incomes and less education.  Outers are under relentless pressure in our ever-changing world.  They are marginalised, politically, culturally and economically in today's graduate-dominated knowledge economy era.

In the past self-identifying working class Australians voted overwhelmingly for Labor, and middle class Australians mostly choose the Liberal Party.  In 1970, political scientist Robert R. Alford wrote that "Australia's politics have been dominated by class cleavages before and since its foundation as a nation in 1901".

This is no longer the case.  A self-identifying working class voter is now more likely to vote for the Coalition than Labor, according to data from the Australian Election Study;  many middle class voters now opt for Labor and the Greens.  The Inners-Outers divide overlaps and often overrides the traditional left-right class distinctions of yesteryear.  Working class Outers who feel disillusioned by Labor's strong Inners focus are increasingly voting for the Liberals;  meanwhile, middle class Inners who are disappointed by the conservative political right are opting for Labor and the Greens.

The major parties cannot be all things to all people.  The Liberal Party struggles to simultaneously speak to the voters of Wentworth and western Sydney.  The Labor Party struggles to speak to inner-city Melbourne at the same time as North Queensland.  The outcome is insincerity and opportunism, which drives further frustrations, instability and fracturing across the political spectrum — including voting for the Inner parties, such as the Greens, and Outer parties, such as One Nation.

We should welcome the influence of Inners in many fields.  Inners-led campaigns on issues ranging from racial equality and women's liberation to gay rights have made Australia a more tolerant, interesting and forward looking society.  Nevertheless, Australian politics is too Inners centric.

Inners have come to dominate Australia's political, economic and cultural institutions.  Inners lead, staff and influence both major parties.  Since the "consensus" driven reform era of the 1980s, policymaking has become an iceberg.  On the surface, politicians, bureaucrats, corporate leadership, trade unionists, journalists and academics — who went to similar universities, live in near identical suburbs and have comparable values — argue about a narrow set of policy options.

Australia is not alone in these trends.  The "Inners" and "Outers" are inspired by British author David Goodhart's The Road to Somewhere.  Goodhart argues Britain is split into two tribes:  the Anywheres, the educated, mobile middle class, which values autonomy, openness and fluidity;  and the Somewheres, the less educated, more rooted, working class which values security and group identity.  Charles Murray's Coming Apart identified how America's educated elite are living geographically, politically and socially separate lives to those who have less education.

British magazine The Economist celebrated its 175th anniversary last month by declaring that the liberal creed is on the defensive.  From Donald Trump to Brexit, movements are defining themselves in opposition to a "liberal elite".  The association between liberalism and elitism is undermining core premise of liberalism, that all individuals are morally equal.

Inners pursue technocratic and paternalistic governance by the supposedly best and brightest, that is, decision making by themselves.  Process is often lacklustre.  Yesterday I released a report in conjunction with the new Democracy Foundation's Evidence Based Policy Research Project which found that Australian state and federal governments are failing to follow best practice policy-making — they are making policy on the run without full analysis and consultation.

Meanwhile, the growth and complexity of the regulatory state empowers Inners to make policy in their interests, often excluding Outer voices.  Managerialism may have mostly been a technical success — it has been 25 years since a recession — but it has not stopped many feeling helpless, disengaged and governed over.  Outers are frustrated and losing faith in a political system dominated by people unlike themselves.

Australia should respond to these challenges in a pluralist manner.  Both Inners and Outers are legitimate voices and should be allowed to contribute to the national debate.  The century long centralisation of power in Canberra must come to an end.  It is time for a localism agenda to empowers local communities towards for inclusive decision making at the state, city and local level.

The challenge in the years ahead will be to find and strengthen what unites us.  We will be stronger if a divided Australia can learn to live together.

Evidence Based Policy Research Project

The Evidence Based Policy Research Project commissioned free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, and progressive think tank Per Capita Australia, to analyse 20 public policies using the ten criteria of the Wiltshire test for good policy making.

This research project was commissioned ‘to coax more evidence-based policy decisions by all tiers of Government by reviewing and rating 20 high profile government decisions against the Wiltshire business case criteria’. These policies were assessed for good process, not based on the outcome or even intention of the policies.

The IPA found that Australia’s governments, both state and federal, are failing to undertake best practice policymaking. This failure is undermining the quality of public policy and is having a detrimental impact on faith in public institutions.

The IPA and Per Capita agreed that the policies that came closest to best-practice decision-making processes were legalising Uber in Queensland, voluntary assisted dying legislation in Victoria, criminal justice reforms in NSW and access to medical cannabis legislation in Victoria.

IPA Director of Policy said Simon Breheny:

“The Institute of Public Affairs was proud to participate in this project alongside Per Capita. In an era of declining public trust in politicians, democracy and institutions, it is essential now more than ever that policymaking is undertaken in a thorough and consultative manner. Good policy process – from actually undertaking cost-benefit analysis to having a detailed plan for how a policy will be rolled out – is not a left-right issue; it is an issue of basic competency.”

“While values and principles are paramount to decide what direction policymaking should take, if not combined with careful analysis of the problem and gathering of disperse knowledge, outcomes can be dire. We have found that far too often decisions are being made on the fly without proper process, and the Australian people are suffering the consequences.”

This research was funded by a former Secretary of the NSW Treasury, Percy Allan, EY and the Susan McKinnon Foundation.

Reform ABC And Unis By Funding Cuts

In a public debate in Canada a few months ago with the psychologist Jordan Peterson and the philosopher Sam Harris, Bret Weinstein, the American evolutionary biologist, got to the heart of the crisis engulfing some of our society's key cultural and political institutions.

"We've arrived at a place in history where the sense-making apparatus that usually helps us figure out what to think about things has obviously begun to come apart — the political parties, the universities, journalism — all of these things have stopped making sense, and alternative sense-making networks have begun to rise," Weinstein said.

The story that's emerged this week of three university academics having their hoax research papers on gender and race published in academic journals is evidence for Weinstein's argument.

The journal Gender, Place & Culture published one of those hoax papers, on the topic of the sexual behaviour of dogs in dog parks.  One reviewer supported its publication but said more attention should be paid to the question of "black feminist animal studies".  The point is not only that such a paper was published, but that papers that were not intended as a joke have been bestowed with academic credibility.  Last year the same journal published a "feminist posthumanist" analysis of what squirrels ate "to question and retheorize the ontological given of 'otherness'."

Such examples of academics no longer making sense could be dismissed as isolated, one-off cases if it wasn't for the fact that an attitude that gives us a feminist posthumanist critique of squirrel food morphs into something else.  Like the opinion expressed by someone like Catharine Coleborne, the Dean of Arts at the University of Newcastle in New South Wales, who last year claimed that universities should not teach the concept of "Western Civilisation" because to do so perpetuated notions of hierarchy, inequality, gender difference and elitism.

When traditional political parties stop making sense, the alternative sense-making networks Weinstein describes produce Brexit, Donald Trump and democratic populism.  But at least those traditional political parties have started a process of reflection and analysis.  There's no guarantee that, say, here in this country the Liberal and Labor parties will exist in their current form in 20 or 30 years.

THREAT OF EXTINCTION

The government doesn't guarantee the future of political parties, unlike what the government and taxpayers do for universities and journalism (or to be more precise, the ABC).  Which explains why although political parties have sought to reform themselves and maintain their relevance to the public, universities and the ABC have not, for the simple reason they see no need to.

Some of the work of the ABC still helps Australians figure out what to think about things, but it is an ever-diminishing proportion of what the ABC does.  If it didn't already exist there's little chance a government of any persuasion would decide to spend a billion dollars a year inventing it.

The pity of the debacle at the ABC which has seen the managing director sacked and the chairman resign is that from all appearances it wasn't the product of a difference of opinion about principle.  By all accounts the chairman wanted a journalist sacked because he thought doing so would help get the ABC more money from the government.  Such is what taxpayer-funded journalism has turned into.

In the absence of the threat of extinction, there's no impetus for the ABC to undertake any sort of reform such as — for example — airing a wider diversity of political viewpoints.  Which is why it is pointless for any Coalition MP to talk about reforming the ABC unless they support the ultimate sanction of denying the ABC government funding if the ABC doesn't change.

The same principle applies to publicly funded universities.  Any private organisation is free to provide or deny a platform and an audience to whosoever it wishes.  But publicly funded universities are in a different category entirely.  With public funding should come at a minimum a commitment from university administrators to the free expression of ideas without the threat of violence.

Australia's public universities and the ABC are probably the two institutions that since the 1980s successive federal Coalition governments have complained the most about.  Yet for decades Coalition governments have left universities and the ABC to do as they've pleased.