29330 research outputs found
Sort by
Digital democracy: The tools transforming political engagement
No full textThis paper shares lessons from Nesta’s research into some of the pioneering innovations in digital democracy which are taking place across Europe and beyond.
Key findings
Digital democracy is a broad concept and not easy to define. The paper provides a granular approach to help encompass its various activities and methods (our ‘typology of digital democracy’).
Many initiatives exist simply as an app, or web page, driven by what the technology can do, rather than by what the need is.
Lessons from global case studies describe how digital tools are being used to engage communities in more meaningful political participation, and how they are improving the quality and legitimacy of decision-making.
Digital democracy is still young. Projects must embed better methods for evaluation of their goals if the field is to grow.
Thanks to digital technologies, today we can bank, read the news, study for a degree, and chat with friends across the world - all without leaving the comfort of our homes. But one area that seems to have remained impervious to these benefits is our model of democratic governance, which has remained largely unchanged since it was invented in the 20th century.
New experiments are showing how digital technologies can play a critical role in engaging new groups of people, empowering citizens and forging a new relationship between cities and local residents, and parliamentarians and citizens
What is fair?
No full textThe Deputy Chair of the Productivity Commission presented this speech on copyright and fair use to the Australian Digital Alliance Forum.
Introduction
Good morning. Thank you Professor Giblin and congratulations on the launch of yours and Professor Weatherall’s book – What If We Could Reimagine Copyright? An anthology of ten thoughtful essays that collectively make for a forward‑looking treatise on copyright. And my thanks to the Australian Digital Alliance for inviting me to speak today, and to the broader church of the Australian Digital Alliance membership. Many of whom contributed time and effort in making submissions to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into Australia’s intellectual property arrangements. Thank you.
With my words today I hope to do three things. First, share the lens through which the Commission reviewed and analysed Australia’s intellectual property settings, especially in matters of copyright. Second, do some much needed myth busting — to address claims made about copyright that on any objective examination are more fiction than fact. And third, and most importantly, convey what matters most in getting the policy settings right here.
At the get go of this Inquiry, we envisaged our task would be about how policy could grapple with the cocktail mix of technology, adaptability, creative endeavour, innovation and competition. And it did so to a large part. But at the end of the day — all roads led us to one simple truth; to ask and answer what is fair.
And when we use the term fair we’re not limiting this to fair use. Albeit copyright exception is the policy that matters most for getting the innovation and equity equation right. Because it’s not just about the creators vs the tech giants. And it’s not a zero sum game between rights holders and content users as some would have us believe.
It is about school kids, uni students, less tech savvy older people, less tech savvy younger people, documentary film makers, 55 year old redundant workers, universities and TAFEs trying to teach in a more accessible way, and the cost for anyone down under consuming the creative or innovative endeavour of others. For at the end of the day, out of kilter IP settings have and will continue to create a largely silent and growing class of ‘have-nots’.
So today I hope to connect the dots to the many everyday Australians that stand to benefit from the policy changes we have recommended to Government. For there is a compelling policy narrative to be had here — one of innovation and agility. But perhaps more importantly it is also one of equity that we can relate to everyday Australians. For when we relate the benefits of change to many Australians we know what is fair
The National Disability Insurance Scheme: a quick guide - March 2017 update
No full textIntroduction
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provides support to people with disability, their families and carers. It is jointly governed and funded by the Australian, and participating state and territory governments. The NDIS is being introduced across Australia from July 2016, except in Western Australia where a ‘nationally consistent’ but state operated NDIS will be introduced from July 2017.
The main component of the NDIS is individualised packages of support to eligible people with disability. When the NDIS is fully implemented, it is expected that around 460,000 Australians will receive individualised supports.
The NDIS also has a broader role in helping people with disability to:
access mainstream services, such as health, housing and education
access community services, such as sports clubs and libraries and
maintain informal supports, such as family and friends.
The NDIS is not means tested. Like many other Australian Government social policy programs—such as Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and income support payments—the NDIS is an uncapped (demand-driven) scheme
2016 Nielsen social media report
No full textThis report finds that social media is one of the biggest opportunities that companies across industries have to connect directly to consumers
Energy shock: no gas, no power, no future?
No full textThis report was based on survey responses from the CEOs of 285 private-sector businesses across Australia in October and November 2016.
It draws on multiple lines of evidence that confirm that energy prices are rising fast across the National Electricity Market and Eastern Australian gas market.
 
Reviewing principles of governance: branches of government at the global level
No full textThe essence of global studies is to present the challenges facing humanity in the modern age, and the implications these hold for political and legal thought. This article explores these implications from a new perspective, a new world view which assumes the existence of a global community – ‘we the peoples’ – whose common interests must be met by the international community of states collaborating together in qualitatively different ways. The thinking, therefore, extends to addressing the concept of global constitutionalism.
 
A penalty lifted off the economy
No full textNOTHING is more central to Labor’s view of what makes Australia such a great place to live in than our long tradition of having an independent umpire to stop employers exploiting workers. Former Liberal prime minister Sir Robert Menzies shared that view; like others in the centre-left and centre-right, he argued that it was a key to Australia’s relative harmony and social equality compared to Britain or the United States.
The independent umpire was one of the original demands of the union movement in the 1890s. Labor supported Alfred Deakin when he introduced it at federal level, and it soon led to the groundbreaking Harvester judgement, which set minimum pay rates at levels that would allow a worker to support a family.
In recent decades, Labor has been the greatest supporter of arbitration, with the Liberals much more ambivalent. True, one of the Keating government’s great reforms was to open up an alternative path through enterprise bargaining, but even those outcomes had to be run past the umpire.
When John Howard’s WorkChoices allowed employers to ignore the commission and effectively impose rates and conditions on workers, Labor was loud and fervent in its support for keeping the umpire. Bill Shorten has referred to it as one of the key reasons why workers are much better off in Australia than in the United States…
Read the full article via link
Phoenix activity: recommendations on detection, disruption and enforcement
No full textThe aim of this report is to minimise the significant damage that is being done to the Australian economy by harmful phoenix activity without unduly inhibiting legitimate business rescues and beneficial entrepreneurialism.
Summary
This is the third and final report of the project, Phoenix Activity: Regulating Fraudulent Use of the Corporate Form (‘Phoenix Project’), which is being undertaken by staff at Melbourne Law School and Monash Business School. The Phoenix Project is funded by the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project DP140102277). The Project seeks to enhance Australia’s economic stability by determining the best methods of addressing fraudulent use of the corporate form without unduly inhibiting its proper use.
Phoenix activity essentially involves one company taking over the business of another company that is wound up or abandoned where the controllers of both companies are the same people or their associates – Newco arising from the ashes of Oldco, having shed Oldco’s debts and other obligations. In practice, phoenix activity has many guises. Newco may be newly formed or may already be in existence; Oldco may or may not transfer assets to Newco, and if it does transfer assets, the price may or may not be arm’s length. Oldco’s controllers may have legitimate or improper motives
Visions for Australian tertiary education
No full textThe chapters in this volume offer provocative ideas for transforming Australian tertiary education. Each is grounded in current issues or trends but goes beyond present thinking to propose ways in which policy and practice might make major advances.
The Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education (MCSHE) last produced a volume of this kind in 2013, Tertiary Education Policy in Australia, under the editorship of Simon Marginson. In his introduction to that volume the absence of an extended vision for tertiary education was lamented. Further, there was no confidence that the upcoming elections would bring substantive change given that the Coalition, tipped to be returned to government, had been light on policy details for tertiary education. How true that has turned out to be three and a half years later. So once again we throw down the gauntlet.
We are very pleased that so many leading higher education researchers and thinkers, centered around the MCSHE and LH Martin Institute of the University of Melbourne, accepted our invitation to contribute. We are also grateful that the contributors so willingly accepted our request to challenge contemporary thinking, policies and practices. As with the previous volume, there is no party line. Some of the chapters propose solutions in one direction. Others suggest do just the opposite. This is reflective of the nature of our field. There are no silver bullets and tertiary education policy by its very nature is contested terrain. This we do not see as problematic. On the contrary, robust debate grounded in conceptual positions and understandings is what has been so sorely missing. Whilst we are policy realists as well as tertiary education scholars, we still hope that some feathers will be ruffled by the various views and options presented throughout this volume
Too hot to learn – why Australian schools need a national policy on coping with heatwaves
No full textMany parts of Australia have been experiencing a long-running heatwave, with temperatures soaring above 40 degrees in some areas. So what impact is this having on schools? And is it time for the government to roll out a national policy on heat protection?
Research shows that extreme heat can result in physical (cardiovascular and thermoregulation), cognitive (acquiring and retaining information) and emotional difficulties (motivation and negative feelings towards set tasks). And let’s not forget ruined school lunches!
Currently, the main policy in place to protect students from outdoor weather extremes is the Cancer Council’s SunSmart program.
Read the full article on The Conversation