#ausvotes Mark Two : Twitter in the 2013 Australian Federal Election

In this paper, we explore the use of Twitter as a political tool in the 2013 Australian Federal Election. We employ a ‘big data’ approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. By tracking the accounts of politicians and parties, and the tweeting activity to and around these accounts, as well as conversations on particular hashtagged topics, we gain a comprehensive insight into the ways in which Twitter is employed in the campaigning strategies of different parties. We compare and contrast the use of Twitter by political actors with its adoption by citizens as a tool for political conversation and participation. Our study provides an important longitudinal counterpoint, and opportunity for comparison, to the use of Twitter in previous Australian federal and state elections. Furthermore, we offer innovative methodologies for data gathering and evaluation that can contribute to the comparative study of the political uses of Twitter across diverse national media and political systems.

Federal Court Rules 027 r 11 - Subpoena to give evidence

In Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Rural and General Insurance Let [2004] FCA 933, Gyles J considered what he described as "a novel question", namely, whether taking steps to prepare to give oral evidence when subpoenaed to attend for that purpose, including the obtaining of legal advice and assistance, could be recovered by the witness under O 27 r 11 of the Federal Court Rules

Brighter lights on Capital Hill? Speculations upon federal framing and policy analysis of Indigenous issues

Postwar Australian social policy has occurred within neoliberal, social-conservative and social democratic ideational frameworks. Recent perceptions vary from concern about high levels of public spending, through disquiet about cultural change, to fear that government inaction is ignoring community needs and creating fractious and unhealthy social conditions. this paper examines these alternate ideological influences as they could affect Indigenous Australians with a focus on the values and approaches that might lead logically to desirable outcomes. effective policy requires clarity and compatibility between government thinking and the social values of Indigenous people. At issue is how the objectives of policy for Indigenous citizens might be determined.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.

Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015

We argue that safeguards are necessary to ensure human rights are adequately protected. All systems of blocking access to online content necessarily raise difficult and problematic issues of infringement of freedom of speech and access to information. Given the importance of access to information across the breadth of modern life, great care must be taken to ensure that any measures designed to protect copyright by blocking access to online locations are proportionate. Any measures to block access to online content must be carefully tailored to avoid serious and disproportionate impact on human rights. This means first that the measures must be effective and adapted to achieve a legitimate purpose. The experience of foreign jurisdictions suggests that this legislation is unlikely to be effective. Unless and until there is clear evidence that the proposed scheme is likely to increase effective returns to Australian creators, this legislation should not be introduced. Second, the principle of proportionality requires ensuring that the proposed legislation does not unnecessarily burden legitimate speech or access to information. As currently worded, the draft legislation may result in online locations being blocked even though they would, if operated in Australia, not contravene Australian law. This is unacceptable, and if introduced, the law should be drafted so that it is clearly limited only to foreign locations where there is clear and compelling evidence that the location would authorise copyright infringement if it were in Australia. Third, proportionality requires that measures are reasonable and strike an appropriate balance between competing interests. This draft legislation provides few safeguards for the public interest or the interests of private actors who would access legitimate information. New safeguards should be introduced to ensure that the public interest is well represented at both the stage of the primary application and at any applications to rescind or vary injunctions. We recommend that: The legislation not be introduced unless and until there is compelling evidence that it will have a real and significant positive impact on the effective incomes of Australian creators. The ‘facilitates an infringement’ test in s 115A(1)(b) should be replaced with ‘authorises infringement’. The ‘primary purpose’ test in s 115A(1)(c) should be replaced with: “the online location has no substantial non-infringing uses”. An explicit role for public interest groups as amici curiae should be introduced. Costs of successful applications should be borne by applicants. Injunctions should be valid only for renewable two year terms. Section 115A(5) should be clarified, and cl (b) and (c) be removed. The effectiveness of the scheme should be evaluated in two years.

Incentivizing innovation: A review of the Brazilian federal innovation support programs

Innovation is the transformation of knowledge of any kind into new products or services in the market. Its importance as a production factor is widely acknowledged. In the age of the knowledge-based economy innovation became critical for any company or even country to compete globally. Many countries are encouraging innovation through various mechanisms, and one of the most widely used is the provision of special incentives for innovation. This paper investigates incentive systems for the growth of technology companies as a strategy to promote knowledge-based economic development. As for the case investigations the study focuses on an emerging economy, Brazil. The research is based upon the available literature, best practices, government policy and review of incentive systems. The findings provide insights from the case study in a country context and some lessons learned for other countries using incentive systems to boost the innovation capabilities of their technology companies.

A Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into gene patents

Inquiry into Gene Patents Submissions Received by the Committee during the 42nd Parliament

A Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth)

The film company, Roadshow, the pay television company Foxtel, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and News Limited — as well as copyright industries — have been clamouring for new copyright powers and remedies. In the summer break, the Coalition Government has responded to such entreaties from its industry supporters and donors, with a new package of copyright laws and policies. There has been significant debate over the proposals between the odd couple of Attorney-General George Brandis and the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull. There has been deep, philosophical differences between the two Ministers over the copyright agenda. The Attorney-General George Brandis has supported a model of copyright maximalism, with strong rights and remedies for the copyright empires in film, television, and publishing. He has shown little empathy for the information technology companies of the digital economy. The Attorney-General has been impatient to press ahead with a copyright regime. The Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, has been somewhat more circumspect,recognising that there is a need to ensure that copyright laws do not adversely impact upon competition in the digital economy. The final proposal is a somewhat awkward compromise between the discipline-and-punish regime preferred by Brandis, and the responsive regulation model favoured by Turnbull. In his new book, Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age, Cory Doctorow has some sage advice for copyright owners: Things that don’t make money: * Complaining about piracy. * Calling your customers thieves. * Treating your customers like thieves. In this context, the push by copyright owners and the Coalition Government to have a copyright crackdown may well be counter-productive to their interests. This submission considers a number of key elements of the Coalition Government’s Copyright Crackdown. Part 1 examines the proposals in respect of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth). Part 2 focuses upon the proposed Copyright Code. Part 3 considers the question of safe harbours for intermediaries. Part 4 examines the question of copyright exceptions – particularly looking at the proposal of the Australian Law Reform Commission for the introduction of a defence of fair use. Part 5 highlights the recommendations of the IT Pricing Inquiry and the Harper Competition Policy Review in respect of copyright law, consumer rights, and competition law.

Submission to Senate Economics References Committee, An Inquiry in to Affordable Housing

Developer paid fees or infrastructure charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new infrastructure. However, property developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers and the consequent effect on housing affordability. Hence there remains no data from which governments can base policy decision on, and the debate continues. This research examines the question of the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Australia. It employs hedonic regression methods to estimate the impact of infrastructure charges on house prices and vacant lot prices in Brisbane, Australia during 2005-2011, using a data set of 29,752 house sales, comprising 4,699 new house sales and 25,053 existing house sales and 13,739 lot sales. The regression results for the effect of infrastructure charges on house prices in Brisbane indicated that for every $1.00 of infrastructure charge levied on developers, all house prices increase by $3.69 or a 369% overpassing of these government levies onto home buyers. Thus, this one government levy could be responsible for $877 per month on home owner mortgage repayments in Brisbane, Queensland. This research is consistent with international findings, that support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers and are a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Understanding who really pays for urban infrastructure is critical to both the housing affordability and infrastructure funding debates in Australia and this research provides the first empirical data for policy makers to assess their policy objectives and outcomes against.

Submission to the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into affordable housing 20 August 2014: De-risking development of medium density housing to improve housing affordability and boost supply

This submission addresses the problem of housing price inflation, the chronic under-supply of new housing stock, and the resultant decline in housing affordability for low and middle income households. It specifically focusses on the supply of medium density housing (multi-unit development) in Melbourne, although we believe that the observations made about housing in supply in Melbourne are relevant in other urban centres and to other types of housing supply. In terms of medium density housing (MDH) our concern also extends to the poor quality and design. Why the market tends to deliver generic apartments of poor quality and design which are uncompetitive with lower density housing and amenity despite planning objectives, and how this apparently intractable problem can be overcome is the topic of this submission...

Social media in selected Australian federal and state election campaigns, 2010-15

Campaigning in Australian election campaigns at local, state, and federal levels is fundamentally affected by the fact that voting is compulsory in Australia, with citizens who are found to have failed to cast their vote subject to fines. This means that - contrary to the situation in most other nations – elections are decided not by which candidate or party has managed to encourage the largest number of nominal supporters to make the effort to cast their vote, but by some 10-20% of genuine ‘swinging voters’ who change their party preferences from one election to the next. Political campaigning is thus aimed less at existing party supporters (so-called ‘rusted on’ voters whose continued support for the party is essentially taken for granted) than at this genuinely undecided middle of the electorate. Over the past decades, this has resulted in a comparatively timid, vague campaigning style from both major party blocs (the progressive Australian Labor Party [ALP] and the conservative Coalition of the Liberal and National Parties [L/NP]). Election commitments that run the risk of being seen as too partisan and ideological are avoided as they could scare away swinging voters, and recent elections have been fought as much (or more) on the basis of party leaders’ perceived personas as they have on stated policies, even though Australia uses a parliamentary system in which the Prime Minister and state Premiers are elected by their party room rather than directly by voters. At the same time, this perceived lack of distinctiveness in policies between the major parties has also enabled the emergence of new, smaller parties which (under Australia’s Westminster-derived political system) have no hope of gaining a parliamentary majority but could, in a close election, come to hold the balance of power and thus exert disproportionate influence on a government which relies on their support.