Info-active and info-passive: The new type of consumer classification

Social media platforms, that foster user generated content, have altered the ways consumers search for product related information. Conducting online searches, reading product reviews, and comparing products ratings, is becoming a more common information seeking pathway. This research demonstrates that info-active consumers are becoming less reliant on information provided by retailers or manufacturers, hence marketing generated online content may have a reduced impact on their purchasing behaviour. The results of this study indicate that beyond traditional methods of segmenting consumers, in the online context, new classifications such as info-active and info-passive would be beneficial in digital marketing. This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study is based on 43 in-depth interviews and an online survey with 500 consumers from 30 countries.

Trick or treaty?: The Australian debate over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The secretive 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – known in short by the catchy acronym ACTA – is a controversial trade pact designed to provide for stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights. The preamble to the treaty reads like pulp fiction – it raises moral panics about piracy, counterfeiting, organised crime, and border security. The agreement contains provisions on civil remedies and criminal offences; copyright law and trademark law; the regulation of the digital environment; and border measures. Memorably, Susan Sell called the international treaty a TRIPS Double-Plus Agreement, because its obligations far exceed those of the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement 1994, and TRIPS-Plus Agreements, such as the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004. ACTA lacks the language of other international intellectual property agreements, which emphasise the need to balance the protection of intellectual property owners with the wider public interest in access to medicines, human development, and transfer of knowledge and technology. In Australia, there was much controversy both about the form and the substance of ACTA. While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was a partisan supporter of the agreement, a wide range of stakeholders were openly critical. After holding hearings and taking note of the position of the European Parliament and the controversy in the United States, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament recommended the deferral of ratification of ACTA. This was striking as representatives of all the main parties agreed on the recommendation. The committee was concerned about the lack of transparency, due process, public participation, and substantive analysis of the treaty. There were also reservations about the ambiguity of the treaty text, and its potential implications for the digital economy, innovation and competition, plain packaging of tobacco products, and access to essential medicines. The treaty has provoked much soul-searching as to whether the Trick or Treaty reforms on the international treaty-making process in Australia have been compromised or undermined. Although ACTA stalled in the Australian Parliament, the debate over it is yet to conclude. There have been concerns in Australia and elsewhere that ACTA will be revived as a ‘zombie agreement’. Indeed, in March 2013, the Canadian government introduced a bill to ensure compliance with ACTA. Will it be also resurrected in Australia? Has it already been revived? There are three possibilities. First, the Australian government passed enhanced remedies with respect to piracy, counterfeiting and border measures in a separate piece of legislation – the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth). Second, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade remains supportive of ACTA. It is possible, after further analysis, that the next Australian Parliament – to be elected in September 2013 – will ratify the treaty. Third, Australia is involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The government has argued that ACTA should be a template for the Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United States Trade Representative would prefer a regime even stronger than ACTA. This chapter provides a portrait of the Australian debate over ACTA. It is the account of an interested participant in the policy proceedings. This chapter will first consider the deliberations and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on ACTA. Second, there was a concern that ACTA had failed to provide appropriate safeguards with respect to civil liberties, human rights, consumer protection and privacy laws. Third, there was a concern about the lack of balance in the treaty’s copyright measures; the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations and remedies. Fourth, there was a worry that the provisions on trademark law, intermediary liability and counterfeiting could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy and innovation in the digital economy. Fifth, there was significant debate about the impact of ACTA on pharmaceutical drugs, access to essential medicines and health-care. Sixth, there was concern over the lobbying by tobacco industries for ACTA – particularly given Australia’s leadership on tobacco control and the plain packaging of tobacco products. Seventh, there were concerns about the operation of border measures in ACTA. Eighth, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was concerned about the jurisdiction of the ACTA Committee, and the treaty’s protean nature. Finally, the chapter raises fundamental issues about the relationship between the executive and the Australian Parliament with respect to treaty-making. There is a need to reconsider the efficacy of the Trick or Treaty reforms passed by the Australian Parliament in the 1990s.

IT pricing: Copyright law, consumer rights, and competition policy. A submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications Inquiry into IT Pricing

For a hundred years, since Federation, Australian consumers have suffered the indignity and the tragedy of price discrimination. From the time of imperial publishing networks, Australia has been suffered from cultural colonialism. In respect of pricing of copyright works, Australian consumers have been gouged; ripped-off; and exploited. Digital technologies have not necessarily brought an end to such price discrimination. Australian consumers have been locked out by technological protection measures; subject to surveillance, privacy intrusions and security breaches; locked into walled gardens by digital rights management systems; and geo-blocked.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Accountability of insurers under s 54: Striking the balance between commerciality and consumer protection

Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) continues to occupy a prominent position in insurance-related litigation. This section which imposes a concept of causation, or prejudice to the insurer, to restrict an insurer’s reliance upon contractual terms to avoid liability for particular claims, is often before the courts. This note focuses upon the recent High Court of Australia decision in Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 33.

Australian journalism students’ professional views and news consumption: Results from a representative study

Journalism education’s role in shaping students’ professional views has been a topic of interest among scholars for the past decade in particular. Increasing numbers of studies are concerned with examining students’ backgrounds and views in order to identify what role exposure to the tertiary environment may play in socializing them into the industry. This study reports on the results of the largest survey of Australian journalism students undertaken to date, with a sample size of 1884 students. The study finds that time spent studying journalism appears to be related to changes in role perceptions and news consumption. Final-year students are significantly more likely to support journalism’s watchdog role and to reject consumer-oriented and ‘loyal’ roles. They also consume more news than first-year students. On the other hand, journalism education appears to have little impact on views of controversial practices, with only marginal differences between final- and first-year students.

Exploring changing culture and building capacity in research with consumers, carers and consumer companions

Background Australian policy mandates consumer and carer participation in mental health services at all levels including research. Inspired by a UK model - Service Users Group Advising on Research [SUGAR] - we conducted a scoping project in 2013 with a view to create a consumer and carer led research process that moves beyond stigma and tokenism, that values the unique knowledge of lived experience and leads to people being treated better when accessing services. This poster presents the initial findings. Aims The project’s purpose was to explore with consumers, consumer companions and carers at the Metro North Mental Health-RBWH their interest in and views about research partnerships with academic and clinical colleagues. Methods This poster overviews the initial findings from three audio-recorded focus groups conducted with a total of 14 consumers, carers and consumer companions at the Brisbane site. Analysis Our work was guided by framework analysis (Gale et al. 2013). It defines 5 steps for analysing narrative data: familiarising; development of categories; indexing; charting and interpretation. Eight main ideas were initially developed and were divided between the authors to further index. This process identified 37 related analytic ideas. The authors integrated these by combining, removing and redefining them by consensus though a mapping process. The final step is the return of the analysis to the participants for feedback and input into the interpretation of the focus group discussions. Results 1. Value & Respect: Feeling Valued & Respected, Tokenism, Stigma, Governance, Valuing prior knowledge / background 2. Pathways to Knowledge and Involvement in Research: ‘Where to begin’, Support, Unity & partnership, Communication, Co-ordination, Flexibility due to fluctuating capacity 3. Personal Context: Barriers regarding Commitments & the nature of mental illness, Wellbeing needs, Prior experience of research, Motivators, Attributes 4. What is research? Developing Knowledge, What to do research on, how and why? Conclusion and Discussion Initial analysis suggests that participants saw potential for ‘amazing things’ in mental health research such as reflecting their priorities and moving beyond stigma and tokenism. The main needs identified were education, mentoring, funding support and research processes that fitted consumers’ and carers’limitations and fluctuating capacities. They identified maintaining motivation and interest as an issue since research processes are often extended by ethics and funding applications. Participants felt that consumer and carer led research would value the unique knowledge that the lived experience of consumers and carers brings and lead to people being treated better when accessing services.

Making decisions about antibiotic use in the Australian primary healthcare sector

Background Australia has one of the highest rates of antibiotic use amongst OECD countries. Data from the Australian primary healthcare sector suggests unnecessary antibiotics were prescribed for self-resolving conditions. We need to better understand what drives general practitioners (GPs) to prescribe antibiotics, consumers to seek antibiotics, and pharmacists to fill repeat antibiotic prescriptions. It is also not clear how these individuals trade-off between the possible benefits that antibiotics may provide in the immediate/short term, against the longer term societal risk of antimicrobial resistance. This project investigates what factors drive decisions to use antibiotics for GPs, pharmacists and consumers, and how these individuals discount the future. Methods Factors will be gleaned from published literature and from semi-structured interviews, to inform the development of Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs). Three DCEs will be constructed – one for each group of interest – to allow investigation of which factors are more important in influencing (a) GPs to prescribe antibiotics, (b) consumers to seek antibiotics, and (c) pharmacists to fill legally valid but old or repeat prescriptions of antibiotics. Regression analysis will be conducted to understand the relative importance of these factors. A Time Trade Off exercise will be developed to investigate how these individuals discount the future. Results Findings from the DCEs will provide an insight into which factors are more important in driving decision making in antibiotic use for GPs, pharmacists and consumers. Findings from the Time Trade Off exercise will show what individuals are willing to trade for preserving the miracle of antibiotics. Conclusion Research findings will contribute to existing national programs to bring about a reduction in inappropriate use of antibiotic in Australia. Specifically, influencing how key messages and public health campaigns are crafted, and clinical education and empowerment of GPs and pharmacists to play a more responsive role as stewards of antibiotic use in the community.

Questionable antibiotic practices: Obtaining reliable estimates of consumer behaviours

Background: Significant recent attention has focussed on the role of antibiotic prescribing and usage with the aim of combating antibiotic resistance, a growing worldwide health concern. A significant gap in this literature concerns the consumption patterns and beliefs of consumers about antibiotics and their effects. We seek to remedy this gap by exploring a range of questionable antibiotic practices and obtaining reliable estimates of their prevalence as well as their normative status. Methods: We conducted an online survey of over 100 consumers. We used a new incentive compatible technique, the Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS), to elicit more truthful responding than standard self-report measures. We asked participants to indicate whether they engaged in a number of practices including whether they had: taken antibiotics when they are out of date and stored antibiotics at home for later use. We then sought estimates of the percentage of other patients (like them) who had engaged in each behaviour, as well as asking them among those patients who had, the percentage that would admit to having done so. We also asked about social acceptability and responsibility of the practices. Results: These results will show for each type of questionable practice how prevalent it is and whether consumers view it as both socially acceptable and socially responsible. We will gain the relative prevalence of each of these practices. Conclusion: These findings are of paramount importance in gaining a better understanding of consumers’ antibiotic consumption patterns. These will be vital for better targeting educational campaigns to lower inappropriate antibiotic consumption.