Friday, April 20, 2012

Investigation 2755-The Embedded Journalist Part 3

ACMA have provided a ruling about our complaint regarding Tony Eastley's lack of objectivity and conflict of interest in an interview last year with Climate Commissioner Lesley Hughes. Eastley was employed by the climate commission last year, to MC a meeting. He did not declare this at any stage in the interview.
ACMA were unable to rule on Tony Eastley's undeclared conflict of interest related to the interview stating: 

"The complainant submitted that Mr EastIey's previous engagement, on a one-off basis as a master of ceremony, was not declared during the interview and led to a conflict of interest. This matter does not raise any issues of compliance with the Code and relates to the ABC's Editorial Policies, therefore the matter is outside the  jurisdiction."

It is in error here as ABC's Editorial Policies are the source of its Code, and therefore ACMA should be able to scrutinise ABC's Editorial Policies. ABC statesThe ABC Editorial Policies set out the ABC's self-regulatory standards and how the Corporation enforces them. They are also the source for the ABC Code of Practice, which the ABC notifies to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

It also did not uphold our complaint of bias and lack of partiality in the interview, stating:

"The ACMA notes the complainant's concerns that alternate questions could have been pursued, such as mosquito borne diseases. However, it is the ACMA‘s view that the matters covered in the interview were appropriate given the duration of the report and the nature and type of program AM purports to be (ED: a mouth piece for associates of the host). Furthermore, the ACMA considers that neither the direction of the interview nor any comments made by the interviewer represented a bias or prejudice against the interviewee, and that the presenter conducted the interview with due impartiality."

The full report should be available soon from the ACMA website (HERE).

It seems ABC's journalist are free to work for external organisations and then interview members of these organisations without bothering to inform its audience, in complete contravention of its rules regarding conflict of interest. ACMA the toothless media regulator finds this is okay!

One wonders what ACMA's response would be if Eastley had been engaged as an MC, lets say by the Heartland Institute to MC one of its climate change conferences, and he then gave a soft interview of its President? According to ACMA this would be okay as well.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Update:Penguins thrive but ABC frets

Earlier this year ABC's Karen Barlow took up a berth on the Aurora Australis that might have been occupied by a rational scientist. She breathlessly reported on penguin problems in Antarctica.

KAREN BARLOW: There are dire predictions for some penguin species. Of the 17 types of penguins, some, like the African and Galapagos Penguins, are classed as threatened or vulnerable - and according to a climate model study by the private Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Emperor Penguins could be virtually extinct by the end of the century. Generally, penguin populations on the Antarctic Peninsula below South America are decreasing, while Adelie numbers in East Antarctica, below Australia, are on the rise. Over-fishing of the penguin's main diet, krill, is having an effect, but scientists say climate change is also a factor. 

Here's a recent headline from Science Daily (13 April, 2012):

Twice as Many Emperor Penguins as Thought in Antarctica, First-Ever Penguin Count from Space Shows

A new study using satellite mapping technology reveals there are twice as many emperor penguins in Antarctica than previously thought. 

Mt Everest melting! But who says it's so? Take 3

Lovely to see ABC contradict itself. Earlier this year we asked ABC to provide some evidence to back up claims of worsening climbing conditions on Mt Everest.
We asked them to substantiate the following points, taking into account alternate lines of evidence:
1.Climate change is altering the face of the Himalayas (New sat data shows Himalayan glaciers hardly melting at all)
2. Climate change is devastating farming communities in the Himalayas (A community farm in the Himalayan foothills is drawing people from all over)
3. Climate change is making Mount Everest increasingly treacherous to climb (13-year-old American climbs Everest, calls his mom).

ABC provided the weak reply (below) that ignored the main points. Now a story on ABC Science (Himalayan region bucks glacier melt trend: study) confirms that: "One of the world's biggest glacier regions has so far resisted global warming that has ravaged mountain ice elsewhere, according to scientists."
"But a French team, comparing 3D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres per year."
Oh the irony!

From ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs received March 26.
Thank you for your email of February 26 concerning the story “'Super Sherpa' says climate change may make Everest unclimbable”

The sentence you have referred to and queried was the opinion of mountaineers and was clearly referenced as such. It was backed up by a quote from Apa Sherpa. While he may not be an expert on climate change, he is clearly an expert on what is required to make Mt Everest climbable, which was the point of the story. His opinion was premised on an understanding that the glaciers on Mt Everest are shrinking. That opinion is based on reasonable evidence. It is the assessment of the United Nations Environment Program’s Glacier Monitoring Service   and The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. In relation to the Naturearticle you refer to, the ICIMD points out that the GRACE measurements used in that article do not allow for regional variations where climate change is resulting in shrinking glaciers in some areas due to rising temperatures (including the area in Nepal where Everest is located) but seems to be resulting in growing glaciers in some high altitude regions due to increased precipitation.

Yours sincerely
Audience & Consumer Affairs

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Investigation 2681

Dear Mr Hendrickx,

Thank you for your email in response to the outcome of Investigation 2681. There is no formal right to have the ACMA review its decision in this matter under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, but we can make some observations about your concerns.

You have queried why the ACMA did not consider the outcome of a 2007 UK  High Court decision concerning the accuracy of Al Gore’s film.

This aspect of the investigation concerned the statements made by the presenter of the ABC’s program,Background Briefing on commentary by Lord Monckton on a particular statement by Al Gore. The focus here was on the accuracy of the presenter’s statement, assessed against the ABC Code of Practice.

The ACMA consulted the scientific paper to which Al Gore and Lord Monckton’s statements referred.   As noted in the investigation report, the research findings could have led to either of the interpretations in dispute, but the material facts were presented in context.

Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was not the subject of the investigationand therefore the UK decision concerning Al Gore was not taken into the assessment of the material broadcast, against the ABC Code.

The ACMA considers that it took relevant considerations into account.

If you remain dissatisfied with the way in which the ACMA has handled this matter, you may make a complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman -


Broadcasting Investigations Section

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

ACMA: into the looking glass

Image from Wollongong Library-South Coast Road, NSW  circa 1880
(Reality at right)
The very lengthy response from ACMA in regard to our complaint about ABC's factual errors and weak reporting in its Background Briefing story on Lord Monckton brought back memories of a disagreement I had a few years back with a librarian over the orientation of a photo I had printed from a historical negative. The photo printed was a mirror image of reality; the print having been taken from the negative turned upside down, hence reversing the image. When I pointed out the mistake, showing a recent photo of the same location, which I was extremely familiar with, complete with exactly the same features, but reversed, there was a blank response and flat out denial of the evidence presented. No point in arguing with some people.
It appears this is also the case with ACMA's report, and with the ABC in regard to their broadcast. However....

Here again are a few of the substantive points:
1. Death of four Polar Bears. In the broadcast Lord Monckton pointed to errors made by Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" about the deaths of four polar bears in the Arctic. Monckton pointed to a paper (Monnett and Gleason 2006-see full ref below) about the deaths of four polar bears that indicating the bears drowned in a storm. Monckton described the deaths thus "They drowned because there was a big storm with high winds and high waves and they got swamped.” ABC claimed the deaths of the four Polar bears in the Arctic was due to them being "drowned because of there was less sea ice for them to rest on because of climate change." The paper on which this was based reported that the particular bears in question "drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions between 10 and 13 September 2004. No other deleterious environmental conditions were present that might have led to the deaths of those polar bears.” 
ACMA acting in "Quincy" mode claim the bears "died from exhaustion due to the extra exertion of swimming in turbulent seas for longer distances." (We note no autopsy was performed on the bears in question)
A UK judge who found 9 other errors in Al Gore's movie agreed with Monckton's view:
Justice Burton:  Mr Gore says: “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues.
In an interview (see page 35) to do with an investigation of potential scientific misconduct, the author of the very paper in question, Charles Monnett, puts the deaths down to: "Um, this paper is very narrow in that it only focuses on the swimming and drowning and what, and what we thought was related to it, in other words, a storm."
The paper in question was reviewed by "Um, Lisa Rotterman, my wife". (To quote Media Watch's Jonathan Holmes “so much for peer review”.)
We referred ACMA to this transcript but it appears it was never looked at. Somewhat surprising given the time for the investigation was over 6 months.

Monnett, C., and J. S. Gleason, 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 29, 681-687.

2. Sea Level Rise: ABC claimed Lord Monckton made erroneous claims about sea level. The facts show otherwise. ACMA didn't even bother to check the relevant section of the IPCC report "ACMA does not consider it necessary to consult the relevant IPCC literature in this instance". In six months it didn't think to check the facts. Again here's what Justice Burton had to say about the matter"This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."
Along with not looking at the IPCC report it seems ACMA's investigator didn't even bother to consider the only relevant judgement on the issue. The question of competence comes to mind.

3. On the question of bias. When alarmists such as Al Gore receive the same critical scrutiny from the ABC as sceptics I'll put aside the issue. Until then, sadly for public journalism, the balance it tipped is favour of ABC's alarmist groupthink position.

In its report, ACMA placed great emphasis on the opinion of an ordinary listener. Seems an ordinary UK Judge was able to see through Al Gore's spin in much the same way as Lord Monckton did. And what of you dear reader? Based on the above, and ACMA's report, what do you make of the evidence provided? 
Which reality do we live in?

ACMA finding on the Lord Monckton Roadshow

ACMA have (finally) sent us their report into our complaint about ABC's broadcast The Lord Monckton Roadshow. The full report should be available soon from the ACMA website (probably HERE). I'll update the link when it appears.
Report now from HERE.
Here's the summary:

In relation to the broadcast of Background Briefing - The Lord Monckton Roadshow on 17 July 2011, the ABC: 
~ did not breach Standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011; and 
did not breach Standards 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.

The first section of the report to page 8 (out of 22) dealing with Polar Bear issues is provided below, cut and pasted from the PDF-(there may be a few transcription errors). We note there is no mention or comment by ACMA whatsoever of the findings we raised of a 2007 UK High Court case brought by Stuart Dimmock against the accuracy of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, Justice Burton concluded, after examining the film and scientific literature, that Gore committed nine counts of scientific inaccuracy.
On Polar bears he concludes:
Justice Burton:  Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues.

Seems that we are all climate scientists now, judges, former politicians, journalists and arbitrators of the media included. Post modernism rules supreme. I'll endeavour to provide a more detailed commentary in the next few days.  I'm so looking forward to Background Briefing's broadcast of the "The Al Gore Roadshow" next time he pays a visit.

The complaint

On 8 September 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the  ACMA) received a complaint concerning the program, Background Briefing - The Lord Monckton Roadshow broadcast on 17 July 2011 on radio station 2RN - ABC Radio National.
The complainant alleged that the broadcast made inaccurate allegations relating to Lord Monckton and other climate change sceptics; and ‘lacked balance and objectivity’.
The complainant was not satisfied with the response received from the ABC and referred the matter to the ACMA for consideration.
The Complaint; the ABC's response; and the complainants referral to the ACMA, are set out at Attachment A.
The complaint has been investigated in accordance with standards 2.1 (factual accuracy), 2.2 (misleading factual content), 4.1 (impartial presentation of news and information) of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).

The program 

Background Briefing is a 1 hour current affairs program broadcast on Sundays at 8 am on ABC Radio National (2RN). The program is described on the station website as follows:

Radio National's agenda-setting current affairs radio documentary program. It varies from 
week to week in style and content, sometimes doing straight investigative journalism, 
sometimes exploring important ideas or social issues in on-the-road documentary style. 
You will  profiles of politicians, analysis of behind-the-scenes issues that shape 
society, and sometimes an exploration of an idea - or perhaps a murder. Many 
Background Briefing program makers are senior journalists, several of whom have won 
major awards. Many others come through the unit to make just one or two programs. 

The Lord Monckton Roadshow broadcast on 17 July reported on the Australian tour of well-known climate change sceptìc Lord Monckton between 4 and 22 July 2011, in the wake of the Australian Federal Government’s announcement of details of the proposed carbon tax. The broadcast was reported by ABC reporter Wendy Carlisle, and largely dealt with the debating tactics of Lord Monckton in delivering a series of talks on climate change issues including an address to an anti carbon tax rally.

The station website contains the following description:
The Scottish peer Lord Monckton has been raising hell against the carbon tax in barnstorming rallies and public meetings around the country. But just who is Lord Monckton and who are the forces behind him? Chief amongst them a mysterious group called the Galileo Movement and mining magnate and now media player Gina Rinehart. 
Reporter Wendy Carlisle.

The broadcast included the viewpoints from the following speakers:
Lord Christopher Monckton - British politician and climate change sceptic.
Mr Case Smit- Galileo Movement co-founder, introduced in the program as ‘the Noosa retiree who organised the first [Lord Monckton Australian] tour.
Professor Naomi Oreskes - introduced in the program as a ‘former exploration geologist with Western Mining Corporation'.
Mr Alan Jones [Archival]  2GB Radio talkback presenter.
Ms Joanne Nova - Australian science presenter, writer, speaker, and author of The Skeptic’s Handbook.
Mr Malcolm Roberts - Engineer- Introduces Lord Monckton at the rally.
Mr David Archibald - Australian based scientist and climate change sceptic.
Professor Timothy Ball [archival in interview with Alan Jones] - Climate scientist
Mr Wes Allen - introduced in the program as a ‘GP from the Tweed Shire’ and ‘climate change sceptic' referred to the ABC for interview by a representative of the Galileo movement.
Ms Wendy Carlisle - ABC Journalist.
Comments from the crowd at the anti carbon tax rally
A full transcript of the 50 minute broadcast can be found at: , extracts of which are referred to in the report where relevant.


The assessment is based on:
Audio recording of the broadcast of 17 July 2011 provided by the ABC;
Submissions provided by the ABC and the complainant;
Article entitled Observation of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea - Charles Monnett - Jeffrey S. Gleason - Provided to the ACMA by the Complainant on 6 l\/larch 2012; and
The publication /PCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - Chapter 5 page 409 (available at

Other sources consulted are identified where relevant.

‘Ordinary, reasonable’ listener test

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable' listener.  Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ reader (or listener or viewer) to be:
A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs“.

The ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any).

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether there has been a breach of the Code.

Issue 1: Accuracy 

Relevant provision
2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

ABC submission 

In addition to the correspondence between the ABC and the complainant, the ABC made further submissions received by the ACMA on 14 November 201  These are set out at Attachment B.


The ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.


In determining whether or not a statement or material complained of was compliant with the ABC’s obligations under Standards 2.1 and 2.2 ofthe Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the considerations set out at Attachment C.

The broadcast was about Lord Monckton’s tour of Australia in 2011 and the key focus of it (as described on the ABC website) was how ‘he is raising hell against the carbon tax in barnstorming rallies and public meetings around the country’.
The ABC in its submissions (refer Attachment B) described the program’s context to be ‘the debating style used by some opponents of the Federal Governments proposed carbon tax, in particular Lord Monckton’s style’. It added:
The substance [of the program] was not the science of climate change per se. Having regard to the criteria (listed in section 2.6 of the Procedures), the Managing Director took the view that neither this particular Background Briefing program nor complaints arising from it were occasions for detailed enquiry into the science of climate change.
Although the context of the program was the debating style of Lord Monckton, it contained a number of factual assertions about his and others’ approach to climate science and the carbon tax.
The complainant alleges that the following statements were incorrect:

Statement 1 

The first factual error alleged by the complainant was the statement:
The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm. 
The segment replayed a part of Lord Monckton’s speech at the rally during which he referred to a film made by Al Gore entitled ‘An inconvenient Truth’. Lord Monckton alleged that Al Gore, during that film, wrongly cited a particular scientific paper:
Well here are the polar bears we mentioned earlier, and Gore for once actually cites a scientific paper. He cites it wrong, of course, but he does cite it. And what he says is a scientific study shows for the first time they’re finding polar bears that have drowned swimming long distances to  the ice. And so here is the actual map from the paper.
Four dead polar bears,... And what have we got, in fact? Four dead polar bears. Did any of these polar bears, according to the paper he was quoting, die because they were trying to find the ice...’? No. They died because there was a big storm with high winds and high waves, and they got swamped.

The reporter then said:
The scientitic paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm. The paper suggests that the polar bears most likely drowned because there was less sea ice for them to seek refuge on because of climate change, and that the drowned polar bears could be statistically significant. The paper goes on to say ‘We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water periods continues’.

The complaint, as the ACMA understands it, is that Lord Monckton correctly cited that paper
In the ABC’s response to the complainant (refer Attachment A), it argued:
ln relation to the various references by Al Gore, Lord Monckton and Background Briefing to the issue of drowned polar bears, the Managing Director did not regard it as proportionate in the circumstances to go into the detail. Noting that specialist literature is open to varying interpretations by specialists and non­specia|ists, and that both in public presentations such as Lord Monckton’s and in journalism such as Background briefing - specialist literature must necessarily by tightly compressed, the Managing Director
concluded that the program did not breach the accuracy standard in the ABC Code of Practice.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood the relevant statement as a statement of fact - it was an inference of a factual nature, reasoned from observed facts. The language, tenor and tone used are unequivocal and conclusive.

Although climate change is a contentious subject, the clear message was that Lord Monckton isrepresented, or inaccurately cited, a published scientific finding.

The ACMA has assessed the statement against standard 2.1 of the Code, taking into account the relevant article.

The context of the article is clear from the Abstract which refers to the polar bears having ‘presumably’ rowned and speculates that mortalities were due to off-shore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years, given the energetic demand placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. It also suggests that drowning related deaths may increase if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or
longer open water periods continues.

Under the heading ‘Discussion’ the paper contains the following [Emphasis added by the  ACMA]
To our knowledge we report here the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while making apparent long-distance movements in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers but they have rarely been observed swimming far from ice or land.

The discussion continues with: Our observations suggest that polar bears swimming in open water near Kaktovik drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions other deleterious environmental conditions were present that might have led to the deaths of those polar bears.

It noted that ‘if data [the four deaths] are simply spatially extrapolated, bear deaths during a period of high winds in 2004 may have been significant’.
And then it stated:
High mortality in 2004 was more likely related to extreme and metabolically demanding conditions, such as high sea states associated with stormy weather. As previously discussed, there is some indication that such conditions may become more common in the future Open water conditions where ice is virtually absent in August and September are expected to increase if Arctic air temperatures continue to rise... and thus swimming polar bears would be more at risk of encountering unfavourable conditions (i.e. high sea states and increased winds). Presumably, in the future, more time and energy will be allocated to swimming due to increased distances among floes... 
Our count of dead polar bears related to the 2004 windstorm almost certainly represents an underestimate of the actual number of the polar bears affected. Swimming and floating polar bears are difficult to see from the survey’s standard 457 m altitude even under ideal conditions. Also, some bears that drowned may have sunk or drifted outside the study area. 

Other bears may have suffered sublethal effects and later succumbed due to exhaustion or inspiration of sea water as a result of swimming long distances in rough seas.

It concludes:
Minimizing and discouraging anthropogenic effects that encourage bears to remain or aggregate on shore as annual shorefast ice melts and pack ice recedes could ultimately reduce the risk of drowning. 

The content of the article was scientific in nature using detail and terms that would not easily be absorbed by a reader with no scientific background. Without adjudicating on the science and the conclusions of the study, in the  view, the relevant paper contained findings that could have led to either of the interpretations at dispute. The ABC itself submitted ‘specialist literature is open to varying interpretations by specialists
and non-specialists...’

The article does discuss the storms referred to by Lord l\/lonckton, which is consistent with some of his remarks but it does not suggest that the bears drowned because they ‘got swamped’, or were overwhelmed by storm water, as he inferred. Rather they died from exhaustion due to the extra exertion of swimming in turbulent seas and for longer distances.

However, consistent with Al Gore and the reporter’s statements, the article notes that such deaths will be likely to increase in the future due to the regression of ice.

ln light of this, and given the ABC was aware of the possibility of varying interpretations, it was not accurate to state, unequivocally, that the ‘paper did not say that the polar bears died because of a storm’. lt might have been more accurate for the reporter to have said that the paper did not say the polar bears died because they got swamped in a storm.

However, given that the article was, on the Whole, concerned with the likely increase of polar bear deaths because of the impact of receding ice caused by global Warming, the  ACMA is satisfied that the material facts were accurate and presented in context.

As outlined abovelv the context of the program is the debating style of Climate change sceptics, and the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood the message of the statement to be that Lord Monckton misrepresented, or inaccurately cited, a published scientific finding. Contextually, it would have been apparent to the ordinary, reasonable listener that part of the nature of Lord Monckton’s debating style was to use the ambiguity of the literature to his benefit so as to discredit Al Gore, and create doubt.

ln all the circumstances, the ACMA is not satisfied that the fact was material in this context or would have been materially misleading.
Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code in relation to this statement.

Monday, April 2, 2012

An ABC Poll

Dear Mr Scott,
I am conducting some independent research and could use your help. Could you please distribute the following poll among your staff. According to recent poll results current voting intentions are approximately 30% ALP, 50% Coalition, Greens 10% and the rest 10%. I am interested in seeing how closely ABC Staff reflect the community's wider voting pattern. If the results do not reflect the wider community, how does the ABC propose to meet its charter requirement that insists it "reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community"?
Update 17:15-List amended following comments
"Which of the following political parties do you intend to preference first in the next Federal Election:
1. NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party
2. Australian Labor Party
3. Liberal Party
4. National Party
5. Australian Democrats
6. Australian Greens
7. One Nation
8. Advance Australia Party
9. Australian Commonwealth Party
10. Australian Family Alliance
11, Australian Men's Party
12. Australian Millionaires Party - satire
13. Australian Reform Party
14. Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
15. Communist Party of Australia
16. Democratic Socialist Party
17. Hope Party
18. LeftLink
19. Liberal Democratic Party
20. Nuclear Disarmament Party
21. People Power
22. People Power - new political party formed
23. Science Technology And Research (STAR) Party
24.Shooters Party
25. Socialist Alliance
26. Socialist Equality Party
27. Socialist Party Australia
28. Sustainability Party of Australia
29. United People Power Inc.
30. Unity Victoria
31. Other/Don't vote
(List based on )