Australian Politics

Indecision about sexuality question in the Australian census

The Albanese government has made a complete hash of the proposed inclusion of questions about sexuality and gender in the five-yearly census. They were in, then they were out, and now questions about sexuality may be in. It didn’t have to be this way.

The whole episode demonstrates a misunderstanding of the role of the census and the options for other means of collecting statistical information.

It also underscores a lack of appreciation of how sampling is often just as good as the comprehensive coverage of a census. All undergraduates of economics learn that if a sample is carefully chosen for a survey, the estimates of the underlying population parameters are almost as reliable as those obtained from a census. (Perhaps our Prime Minister skipped those lectures in economic statistics.)

Moreover, the results of surveys are much timelier than any information that can be derived from a census.

It’s worth going through some of the background to our census to understand how this fiasco played out. The census is the dominant activity of the Australian Bureau of Statistics; it is estimated to cost around $600m to conduct each time. It is a continuous focus of the ABS, from the planning to the execution to the evaluation stages.

Our census has a relatively large number of questions already. In other countries – the US, for instance – there are only a handful of questions asked; it is essentially a headcount. It is also only conducted every 10 years.

Ways of reducing the cost impact of censuses have been in active consideration for many years all over the world. One option is to follow the US example and conduct them only every 10 years. Having fewer questions is also a common consideration. Some countries have considered dropping their censuses altogether.

(Australia is unlikely ever to completely drop the census because of its role in redrawing electoral boundaries as well as providing the basis for some funding for local, state and territory governments. It is really the only source of detailed, small-area data, albeit on a very lagged basis.)

There was a time when the number of questions in our census grew likely Topsy. There is always a constituency for every topic – about housing and income, for instance.

There is also a handful of demographers and consultants who essentially make their living from accessing census data at a detailed level.

There are some very poor rationales for keeping many of the questions. We have better data through administrative sources, through the banks as well as other officially collected statistics. No one really believes the answers to the income questions, and the broad income brackets specified make this information not very useful.

The unfortunate reality is that there are always strong opposing forces should there be any suggestion that certain questions are dropped.

It is one reason why the Australian census was relatively unchanged for many years; it is generally a one-way street, enlarging its scope. Doing so can also introduce its own set of problems such as respondent fatigue. Last time, there were additional questions about long-term health conditions and the Australian Defence Force.

During the last election campaign, the Labor Party pledged to include questions about sexuality and gender in the next census. But there was insufficient thought given to the practicalities of doing so. No doubt it felt good; there was some symbolic benefit. The LGBTI+ groups welcomed the promise.

Even under the best-case scenario, census-derived information on sexuality and gender would not be available until 2027, all going well, after the next census is conducted in 2026. This is a long time to wait given there are alternatives that could be undertaken much more quickly.

For example, the ABS conducts large household surveys every month to estimate the rate of unemployment and other labour market indicators. There are supplementary questions attached to most of these surveys. One option would have been to include questions about sexuality and gender in these surveys. The involvement of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare could have strengthened the integrity of this approach.

The other benefit of using supplementary surveys is that they can be repeated on a regular basis and, in this way, some picture of any changing patterns in people’s sexuality and gender identification can be detected quickly. These surveys also involve relatively small numbers of respondents compared with the census; any backlash is likely to be relatively muted.

Had the federal government proceeded down this alternative path, the issue would have been resolved by now. To be sure, there will always be some contention, even disagreement, about the official statistical agency asking people questions about their sexual preferences and gender identity. For example, some people may have strong objections to being asked about their sexual preferences, regarding this issue as an entirely private matter.

In all likelihood, any questions about sexuality and gender would have to be made optional, just as the question about religion in the census is optional. But note here that almost all census respondents do answer the question about religion. Responses for members of households aged 15 and under would also not be required.

The normal testing of questions could take place involving consultation with representatives of the LGBTI+ community as well as others. There are examples of questions used in other countries, including Canada, New Zealand and the UK.

The position the federal government has landed on is completely unsatisfactory. The ABS is effectively being instructed to test questions on sexuality but not gender, a split that will displease some activist groups.

It has raised the profile of the issue, potentially leading to conservative groups becoming involved. Rather than diluting the potential divisiveness of the issue, the political heat has been turned up.

There was always a simpler and faster option that would have yielded information about the LGBQI+ community much more quickly and with a reasonable degree of accuracy. This is not to downplay the complexities of achieving consensus on the precise questions, particularly in respect of gender identity. But testing and piloting on a small scale should have been able to iron out some of these problems.

The Albanese government is now left to sort out this mess of its own making.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/labors-census-debacle-political-mess-of-its-own-making/news-story/80238bbd339df591dbf42adcf64f7391

*******************************************************

Populist Greens open new battle front for Albanese

Australia is now engaged in a dangerous political experiment – a radical left-wing party assaulting the Albanese Labor government to achieve a deeper fracturing of the parliament and a 2025 minority government with the Greens empowered and more influential than ever.

Greens leader Adam Bandt is Australia’s version of the former US presidential candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders. Bandt has long since replaced Pauline Hanson as Australia’s most lethal populist. He pioneers a new brand and a new ambition: progressive populism is the brand and selling the Greens as the nation’s authentic social democratic party is the ambition.

The Greens have contempt for the Coalition. But Bandt’s real target is Labor. Every move by the Greens is designed to delegitimise and discredit the Labor Party. Bandt’s aim is to steal Labor votes on the left, increase the Greens’ primary vote and win more seats in the parliament.

His ultimate cause is unmistakeable – to terminate Labor as a majority governing party and drive Labor into permanent minority governing arrangements with minor parties and independents, the Greens being the main beneficiaries. This would constitute a structural change in our parliament and governance with vast consequences for public policy and the Australian people.

The 2025 election will see Albanese Labor fighting on two fronts – against the Peter Dutton-led Coalition on the right and against the Greens on the left. It is a more intense version of the dilemma faced by the Rudd-Gillard government, where it succumbed to these pressures.

Such pressures are now far greater. The key is Australia’s cultural and economic fracture as a nation. It is far harder for the major parties – Labor and the Coalition – to hold the loyalty of their voters. Fracture is the story of the times – promoted by the Greens, the teals, the Muslim vote campaign and independents.

At the 2022 election the primary vote for the major parties sank to a low 68 per cent. Much of the public is not voting to form a government; it is voting to express a personal preference.

The Greens and the teals brilliantly exploit the grievances of people impatient with the compromises, flaws and competing priorities of incumbent governments. There is no evidence their self-interested solutions will deliver, the upshot being weaker major parties, more timid leadership, redistributed power to minority groups and a great voice for radical and extreme demands. This is the road to Australian decline.

Yet the appeal is potent. Bandt calls the Greens the only social democratic party in our politics. He brands Labor a centre-right party and the Liberals as a far-right irrelevance. “It’s time to reject politics as usual,” Bandt told the National Press Club last week. “It’s rigged.”

He delivered a passionate, grievance-laden, destructive pitch, assailing the Labor-Coalition power structure and demanding that it be dismantled in the name of the people – the battle-cry of populists from time immemorial. Bandt called for a “new politics which puts people first”.

His supreme pitch is to persuade people they are being ripped off and trashed by big business, fossil fuel companies, Coles and Woolworths, banks, white billionaires, climate deniers, property investors, the Reserve Bank and the established political parties.

“People are angry,” Bandt said. “They’re right to be.” That’s because “the economy is rigged”. Who rigged it? That’s easy – “It’s been rigged by politicians from both Labor and the Liberals.” And, of course, “it’s been rigged by design”.

Indeed, it’s a conspiratorial situation. Bandt said: “People who were struggling to keep their head above water are going under, pushed down by billionaires and big corporations that make massive profits which are driving up inflation in the economy and the prices of things everyone needs. Since 2020, the wealth of the three richest people in this country has gone up 50 per cent.”

RedBridge Group Director Simon Welsh says the Greens are likely to secure “decent swings” in the upcoming federal election.
Coles and Woolworths have increased their profits while supermarkets prices “keep going up”. Bandt said: “It’s price gouging. Profiteering. Ripping people off. It’s immoral, but under Labor, it’s lawful.

“Millions of people are being robbed, fleeced and plundered by big corporations and billionaires in a heist facilitated and enabled by the politicians from Labor and the Liberals. You’re being ripped off at the supermarket, ripped off on your power bill, and ripped off on your mortgage.”

Don’t think Bandt is a lone voice. Many right-wing populists would agree. He said since Labor came to power “things have gotten a lot worse” – but the Liberals would be no better. “We can’t keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result,” Bandt said. ”Labor has lost themselves. People tell us it’s getting harder and harder to tell Labor and the Liberal apart. They’ve betrayed everyday people by refusing to take on the big corporations’ excessive profits.”

Bandt said Labor tried to wash its hands of the Reserve Bank’s actions but “this pain people feel was part of Labor’s plan”. Labor wasn’t running the economy in the cause of wiping student debt, providing affordable housing, expanding Medicare to include dental health, achieving a safer climate or helping people on income support.

What is the cause of the problem? “Big corporations do not pay their fair share of tax,” Bandt said. He claimed almost two in three coal and gas companies pay no tax, proving “the system is rigged”. Hence his policy: a $514bn big corporations tax over a decade with three elements: a 40 per cent tax on excessive profits; a revamped tax on offshore oil and gas; and a 40 per cent tax on the super profits of mining projects.

“Housing is rigged too,” Bandt said. He called for a rent freeze, said the Greens believed that ensuring “everyone has a home is the government’s job” and that at the next election the Greens would be “the party of renters, the party of first-home buyers and mortgage holders.”

He attacked Labor and Liberal, saying they “have not done anything to prevent” a genocide committed by Israel despite thousands of people protesting every weekend in our cities. Bandt said: “The problem is not the people, it’s the political class.”

Bandt’s populism is powerful. It will attract people beyond the Greens, including the populist right. His language reflects the sort of discussion the Greens will have in their door-knocking and direct campaigning. Polls show their national vote fairly stable around 12-13 per cent but this disguises their real threat.

It will come in targeted inner city or nearby seats. Bandt won’t carry the nation or the suburbs with his populism and may turn some electorates hostile. But inner city, highly progressive seats will be susceptible to this pitch with Bandt casting the Greens as the party of “moral clarity” and appealing to young people. Don’t expect him to win five new seats from Labor. That’s a dream.

Have no doubt, however, that Bandt is a serious problem for the Albanese government. It hasn’t learnt how to fight on two fronts and it hasn’t learnt how to effectively combat the Greens. Its dilemma is that many Labor loyalists, let alone voters, are susceptible to the pull of Green populism.

How does Labor repudiate Bandt without alienating progressive voters that it needs? There is no easy answer.

However, there is a far bigger problem. The Bandt agenda is a recipe for weaker investment, fewer jobs, higher prices and lower living standards. It reflects the shift in Australia’s economic policy debate to the left, apparent in the Albanese government, increasingly evident in the media, manifested in a distinctly more populist mood and being turbo-charged by the Greens.

Australia’s economic debate was once intelligent. Not any more – the nation is in danger of forgetting completely the national interest reform policies that will actually deliver growth, real income gains, strong investment and rising living standards. If so, it’s a tragedy.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/populist-greens-open-new-battle-front-for-albanese/news-story/7d4594bba0ea8d361a141df4443744df

**********************************************

Judge gets it right about spineless public prosecutors

Anyone concerned about the operation of our criminal justice system should thank judge Robert Newlinds. Sure, the NSW District Court judge copped a serve recently from the NSW Judicial Commission following a complaint lodged by chief prosecutor Sally Dowling SC.

But without Newlinds’ comments the spotlight would not be on whether prosecutions are heading to court when they should not. Given the damage done to innocent lives by these prosecutions, this is not an inconsequential issue for the country.

First a recap. When granting costs to a wrongly prosecuted defendant in December last year, Newlinds said this: “I do wish to record that I am left with a deep level of concern that there is some sort of unwritten policy or expectation in place in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of this state to the effect that if any person alleges that they have been the subject of some sort of sexual assault then that case is prosecuted without a sensible and rational interrogation of that complainant so as to at least be satisfied that they have a reasonable basis for making that allegation, which would include to at least being satisfied that the complainant has a correct understanding of the legal definition of sexual assault or sexual intercourse without consent.”

He raised concerns about what he apparently saw as a prosecutor failing “to perform the important role of filtering hopeless cases out of the system”, leading to the defendant spending eight months in jail for a crime he did not commit.

Judge Newlinds undoubtedly blundered in a number of key respects; for example, when he invited the solicitor advocate who was prosecuting the case before him to discontinue proceedings.

The judge compounded this error when he complained that it was “a substantial flaw in the system set up by the DPP of this state” to require solicitor advocates to get the approval of the chief prosecutor or their deputy before discontinuing proceedings.

Unfortunately for Newlinds, a cursory examination of the DPP Act would have revealed that under the act only the director or their deputy has power to discontinue proceedings. The statute prohibits further delegation of the power to discontinue meritless prosecutions. This was indeed a rookie error by the judge.

However, as the NSW Judicial Commission acknowledged, “no one judge in the state could claim (or be expected) to be familiar with the entirety of the statute book, or even the entirety of the statute book in a particular area of the law. This is perhaps especially so in the District Court.”

While Newlinds undoubtedly should have checked the DPP Act before making such colourful criticism of how matters are run in the DPP’s office, like many whistleblowers the judge made an important point of principle: how can a solicitor advocate, consistent with their duty to prosecute fairly and honestly, continue to run a case they think is hopeless? Is this fair to the court or the complainant – let alone the accused?

There is an alternative method of discontinuance that requires a prosecutor to consult with the complainant and then seek a direction from the court. Both these hurdles to pulling a prosecution are difficult. Indeed, criminal prosecutors inside the offices of DPPs in different jurisdictions have told me it’s easier to continue the proceedings once a defendant has been charged than to jump through the hoops to discontinue a trial, even if the case is manifestly hopeless.

In another example where Newlinds erred but nonetheless made a profound point that should be ringing through the chambers of parliament, the judge made intemperate remarks about the law on so-called tendency evidence, including evidence of prior false complaints by the complainant.

His comments, the Judicial Commission found, could be seen as lacking the impartiality and balance required of judges.

Fair point. But a law that makes it hard, if not impossible, to introduce evidence that the complainant has a history of making false complaints is rotten law, which Newlinds was substantially correct about – even if he made his point in the wrong way.

For sections of the media to celebrate Newlinds’s excoriation is a reflection more on them than him. Last month The Sydney Morning Herald was handed a leaked copy of the secret Judicial Commission’s report against Newlinds.

Good on them for getting the scoop and reporting it. It’s a shame the state-based newspaper, along with other media outlets, has shown not an ounce of curiosity by reporting public comments by several judges, including Newlinds, about the meritless prosecutions damaging the lives of defendants and complainants.

In September 2022 NSW District Court judge Penelope Wass awarded costs to a defendant but not before putting on the public record her concerns: “The bringing and continuation of unmeritorious cases in abrogation of the prosecutor’s responsibilities … imposes a burden not only on the criminal justice system but on all those involved in it, including complainants and, not the least of whom, any person against whom that prosecution either commences or continues.”

In yet another costs case arising from a sexual assault trial – R v SGH – Judge Wass found another unreasonable prosecution had been launched.

In R v Cowled; R v Wilson, District Court judge Gordon Lerve expressed concerns that too many sexual assault cases coming to court in recent years “were in fact doomed to failure from the outset”.

Later that year, the same judge granted costs to a defendant in a sexual assault case that the judge said was “doomed to failure”.

Unlike The Australian, other media outlets have been profoundly uninterested in these public concerns raised by judges at the coalface of the criminal justice system.

It’s true Newlinds went further, his language was injudicious and he made mistakes. So do many judges. It’s curious that the Judicial Commission acted so swiftly and harshly against Newlinds given The Australian has been told the judicial oversight body has dismissed other more serious complaints. Is a complaint by Joe Citizen and his lawyers taken less seriously than that of the chief prosecutor?

The other oddity about this matter is that the media normally loves a whistleblower, especially those crazy-brave enough to lift the lid on institutional failures that harm innocent people. Not here. No siree.

It seems this is an attempt to manufacture ideological uniformity while turning a blind eye to serious concerns about reckless prosecutions in sexual assault cases.

Whistleblowers are frequently a bit wild; taking on the establishment normally requires a lack of concern for normal graces and favours. While this newspaper reported Newlinds’ concerns, other media mostly turned away. They snapped back to attention when Dowling complained about Newlinds. But if it weren’t for his comments there might never have been a review by the ODPP into reportedly 400 cases awaiting trial.

The dark cloud over the prosecution of sexual cases in this country has grown bigger after the Judicial Commission’s report into Newlinds and the celebratory tone in response. Not to mention the recommended permanent removal of Newlinds from criminal trials.

Also benched is NSW District Court judge Peter Whitford. After the judge raised concerns about what he saw as meritless prosecutions in February, Dowling lodged a complaint against him with the Judicial Commission.

Who’s next? Judge Wass? Judge Lerve?

And what are we left with? A longer backlog of cases waiting trial dates. And if the public flogging of Newlinds leads other judges to shut up, we will be none the wiser about injustices happening under our noses.

This courageous judge deserves our thanks, even if he got a few things wrong.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/why-this-judicial-whistleblower-deserves-our-thanks/news-story/346a562fc5089a182a59552102a1a5aa

*************************************************

ISIS-sympathiser cleric Wissam Haddad’s ‘anti-democracy’ book scheme

An ISIS-sympathising fundamentalist cleric is calling for thousands of dollars in donations for “anti-democracy” booklets to “save Islam” to distribute across southwest Sydney and abroad.

Wissam Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, is crowd-funding for at least $2000 to produce more than 5000 self-made booklets, which he claims will dispel myths about democracy.

It comes as the preacher returned to YouTube with a new podcast, while claiming the government was withholding his passport, as he spruiked plans to launch a second religious centre in Victoria.

The fringe figure – Mr Haddad has been criticised and shunned by mainstream Islamic leaders, many of whom are frequent targets of his sermons – said he was prompted to pen the books after Muslim political movements launched ahead of the next federal election.

“With the shirk of democracy affecting (Muslims), we have put together a booklet refuting the common doubts surrounding the issue of voting,” Mr Haddad said.

“We are looking to raise $2000 to print 1000 booklets that will be printed and mass-distributed to the Muslim community for free.”

Attaching his bank details in a post to his near-10,000 followers, Mr Haddad said the booklets would “help save the Islam of the people”, adding on Tuesday that he was now printing about 5000.

On his new podcast, which has returned to YouTube after the platform took down his old account, Mr Haddad has been vocal about the recent British riots, and said followers from the UK had been in touch to distribute the anti-democracy material on British shores.

“A lot of people want to donate from the UK and are requesting a PDF,” Mr Haddad said, adding he also hoped to ship to the US. “If I can find someone to distribute, we can have them printed (there) as well.”

The Australian revealed in July how Mr Haddad had slammed democracy at his Bankstown-based Al Madina Dawah Centre, simultaneous but separate to an anti-democracy sermon by extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.

In August, he ramped up his calls to shun democracy.

“Democracy is not justice, it is not a way out … not for Muslims,” he said, claiming it was “one rule for some” and another for Muslims, referring to anti-terror laws and democracy.

“A democracy that’s supposed to be freedom … the right of speech, freedom of action, of religion, yet it only (is used) to target Muslims.”

Mr Haddad, who recently said the government was withholding his passport, has also spruiked plans to open a centre in Melbourne.

“There’s a couple of things I have to deal with in Sydney; once they’re out the way, we’re looking at opening up other (centres) across Australia, not just in Melbourne,” he said.

His stance is in contrast to mainstream Muslim leaders and organisations, and comes amid the community’s burgeoning political campaigns.

Muslim Votes Matter launched its national campaign on Sunday aiming to mobilise the community amid discontent with the Labor government, endorsing candidates who were strong on key topics, like Palestine.

Its national representative told The Australian it would aim to hold Labor accountable for a “failed” response to the Israel-Hamas war, targeting a hung parliament and “empowering” the community within the political process.

Another campaign, The Muslim Vote, has endorsed independent candidate Ziad Basyouny in Tony Burke’s seat of Watson.

The community’s peak bodies, like the Lebanese Muslim Association and Australian National Imams Council, have also been vocal on the importance of democratic engagement, while Lebanese Muslim community leader Jamal Rifi has established a “Friends of Burke” political campaign.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/isissympathiser-cleric-wissam-haddads-antidemocracy-book-scheme/news-story/ed133a3309c7ddc2c838458895e61277