Media Releases
MEDIA RELEASE 11 December 2006
FAIRTEL OFFERS CONSUMERS A FAIRGO
With pre-Christmas shopping now in full swing, don't purchase any telecommunications services without consulting FairTel. FairTel is the Communications Law Centre's consumer education campaign devised to protect consumers from unfair practices in the sale of telecommunications services. See Full Media Release >>>
MEDIA RELEASE 14 July 2006
GOVERNMENT’S MEDIA REFORM PACKAGE WILL INCREASE MEDIA CONCENTRATION
Yesterday, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, released the government’s media reform package. Dr Tim Dwyer, co-author of the Communication Law Centre’s report “Content, Consolidation and Clout: How will Regional Australia be affected by Changes to Media Ownership?”, is dismayed by the package.
“The current proposals will not improve diversity in the media, given that ownership of Australian media is already regarded as one of the most concentrated among comparable developed democratic countries,” says Dr Dwyer.
“The ‘minimum voices test’ will allow further consolidation of our traditional media. So, in a metropolitan market like Sydney or Melbourne, there could be a 50 per cent reduction in media players.”
“The proposed changes could encourage a merger between ... See Full Media Release >>>
MEDIA RELEASE 7 April 2006
REGIONAL AUSTRALIA LET DOWN BY LOCAL MEDIA, COONAN OWNERSHIP TEST LIKELY TO MAKE THINGS WORSE
New research released today by the Communications Law Centre shows that regional centres have very few sources of local news and in many locations residents are angry at the poor quality and lack of coverage of major events.
Many people felt strongly that the local newspaper should be a linchpin of local communities, but too often neglects that role. Some residents felt that their local paper would be incapable of exposing corruption in local politics. In Toowoomba, residents pointed to the need to supplement local media with state or national media and cited the poor coverage of Toowoomba’s proposed water recycling plant. “We actually know more about Sydney’s desalination plant,” commented one participant in the study.
The CLC conducted research in four regional locations in mid-2005 (Wollongong, Townsville, Launceston and Toowoomba). The report, titled Content, Consolidation and Clout: How will regional media be affected by media ownership changes?, was ... Full Media Release >>>. For further information about this research project including how to order a copy of the report see www.comslaw.org.au/ccc.
MEDIA RELEASE 16 March 2006
MEDIA OWNERSHIP LAWS RELAXED BUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL INCREASED
On Tuesday, the Federal Government issued Meeting the Digital Challenge, its discussion paper on media reform options. While the Communications Law Centre (CLC) welcomes media reform and sees merit in proposals like the expansion of multi-channelling services for the ABC and SBS, we have grave concerns about many of the ideas outlined in the paper.
Overall, the flavour of the discussion paper is one of growing new services, economies of scale, and meeting the challenges of new markets. But at what cost? The CLC believes that, media independence, local content and diversity will be the ultimate losers.
The CLC is particularly concerned about the proposals that ... Full Media Release >>>
MEDIA RELEASE 13 March 2006
NEW REPORT FINDS THAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Choosing a mobile phone or internet plans is confusing for everyone, but the problems are compounded if you have a disability that makes it difficult to understand contracts or be financially responsible for yourself.
The Communications Law Centre (CLC) at Victoria University has released Not So Special: Telecommunications Contracts, Disability and Unfair Practices, a report which examines disputes between telecommunications providers and people with “judgment-related” disabilities in Victoria. Judgment-related disabilities can include intellectual disabilities, brain injuries, mental illness and dementia.
The report suggest changes to law and policy that could help reduce disadvantage, including ...Full Media Release >>> For further information about this project and how to order a copy of the report see www.comslaw.org.au/NotSoSpecial.
MEDIA RELEASE 6 September 2005
UNIVERSAL V SHARMAN 2005 (P2P FILE SHARING & COPYRIGHT)
Court Accepts Role For Public Interest Amicus Intervention In Copyright Law Test Case
The Federal Court handed down its decision in the peer-to-peer file sharing case Universal v Sharman late yesterday afternoon. The case, which was brought by the major music labels against various parties involved with the Kazaa file sharing system, was determined on the basis of copyright infringement.
The court found that the conduct of some of the respondents amounted to an authorisation of copyright infringement and thereby contravened s.101 of the Australian Copyright Act. The conduct that was found to be problematic included...Full Media Release >>>
CLC Media Release 22 March 2005 “Court Agrees to Hear Community Organisations in P2P Case”
Amici submissions to the Federal Court
Summary of Amici submissions to the Federal Court
A copy of the decision is available at www.fedcourt.gov.au
MEDIA RELEASE 14 June 2005
INDUSTRY CODES versus LEGISLATION Mobile phone contracts are still UNFAIR for consumers
Speaking today at the Consumers' Telecommunications Network conference in Melbourne Elizabeth Beal, Director of the Communications Law Centre at Victoria University stated that: “The only way to achieve effective and reliable protection for
telecommunications consumers is by a multi-level approach to consumer protection. This must include legislation as well as industry codes".
The codes versus legislation debate today was part of a day long conference examining consumer safeguards in an industry which continues to be the focus of significant levels of consumer complaint. A significant feature of the discussion was the relatively recent amendments to the Fair Trading Act (VIC), which prohibit the use of unfair terms in contracts, making it the strongest legislation in the country.
The Victorian legislation has been recognised as important in "pushing along" the finalisation of the ACIF Consumer Contracts Code, recently registered with the ACA. The Victorian legislation, along with the Trade Practices Act (Cwlth) was used as a benchmark by the drafting committee with respect to setting minimum standards of consumer protection.
Following the introduction of the Part 2B amendments to the Fair Trading Act, the CLC conducted an audit of all mobile phone contracts in use in Victoria. It discovered widespread breaches of the legislation by both major and smaller providers in all of their contracts.
Common unfair terms in the contracts included unclear explanations in too small type, hidden costs, and excessive rights for the provider at the expense of the consumer.
"We found examples where the customer was expected to pay extra fees to unlock a phone, or for a text message regardless of whether it got to its destination, or to pay for any malfunction of the equipment", said Elizabeth Beal, Director of the Melbourne office of the Communications Law Centre.
"Other examples included the customer being required to provide proof that they owned their phone at any time if requested, or else they could have the service suspended. Many contracts also wrongly imply that the consumer has few legal rights and must automatically comply with the unfair terms as stated in the contract."
The CLC has worked for a many years in the area of telecommunications regulation in attempting to redress some of the inequities from a consumer perspective and supports the work of Consumer Affairs Victoria in tackling a long-standing problem of unfairness for consumers.
Contact
Elizabeth Beal, Director, Communications Law Centre at Victoria University
Tel 03 9919 1274
Download: Media Release 14 June 2005
MEDIA RELEASE 3 May 2004
When reasonable people can disagree
New research by the Communications Law Centre at the University of New South Wales casts doubt on the thinking behind the Federal Government's proposed new defamation laws.
Roy Baker, Project Director at the CLC, says the problem arises over the concept of 'reasonableness', which is central to some of the most controversial parts of the proposed new laws.
The research shows how a large proportion of Australians ' about one-third' cannot accept as 'reasonable' a point of view that is contrary to their own.
If the proposed new defamation laws were adopted, this could lead to some bizarre outcomes.
Under the new law, only 'reasonable' opinions would be protected.
Is it a 'reasonable' opinion to say, for example, that it is acceptable for a woman to have sex before marriage, or for a man to be homosexual?
These are issues on which the community holds differing views. Which views would and would not be protected by the law as 'reasonable'?
Roy Baker says the Federal Government's proposals are particularly worrying in view of the CLC's research findings.
'The Attorney-General wants to water down the existing defences to defamation. If you are sued for giving your opinion, he wants you to prove it's an opinion a reasonable person could hold. The difficulty comes in deciding what is reasonable. It's such a subjective question.'
The CLC asked 3,000 Australians whether they would think less of someone if, for example, they were gay or had an affair. People were then asked if they could think of as reasonable someone who has a different point of view on the issue.
'What our research suggests is that if the law protects only those opinions it considers reasonable, this will silence debate on many issues that matter to people', says Roy Baker. 'Take abortion, for instance. We found about one in five people unable to consider reasonable someone who disapproves of doctors who conduct lawful terminations.
'Imagine what that would mean for pro-lifers who criticise staff at an abortion clinic. If they had to prove to a court that their opinion is one a reasonable person could hold, a lot would hang on the personal views of the judge or jury. Where society is split on an issue, defamation trials would become a lottery.
'If you are sued for defamation, you generally have to prove your facts are true. But when it comes to expressing an opinion based on true facts, normally it is enough just to be honest about what you think.'
Professor Philip Bell, Head of the School of Media and Communications, UNSW, said: 'We believe the current law adequately protects reputation against strong opinions. Courts should not decide what opinions are reasonable. Free speech means letting people express their views.'
A copy of the CLC's submission (submitted today, 3 May) to the Commonwealth Attorney-General in response to his proposals for national defamation laws can be found below.
For further details contact Roy Baker, Project Director, National Defamation Research Project, (02) 9385 7379, rbaker@comslaw.org.au, or Professor Philip Bell, Head of the School of Media and Communications, UNSW, (02) 9385 6811 p.bell@unsw.edu.au.
MEDIA RELEASE 23 May 2002
What do "ordinary" Australians think is defamatory?
Is defamation law out of touch with present-day social values in Australia? Is it still damaging to someone's reputation to say they are homosexual, or sexually active before marriage, or that they have smoked marijuana?
The Communications Law Centre (CLC) at the University of New South Wales has launched an unprecedented project to ask Australians what they consider to be defamatory, how they interpret defamatory material and what they think defamation law should do.
The National Defamation Research Project is headed by Michael Chesterman, Emeritus Professor from UNSW's Faculty of Law and UNSW Professor Philip Bell, Head of the School of Media and Communications. It is funded by the Australian Research Council in partnership with John Fairfax Holdings, the Seven Network, the Australian Publishers Association, and law firm Cornwall Stodart.
Professor Chesterman said: "The defamation laws talk about "ordinary reasonable people", but who are they and what do they think? How successful are judges in keeping in touch with contemporary values? This defamation project is the first of its kind to put these questions to the public."
Professor Bell explained: "The project will also focus on how the media deals with defamation law. Their practices and concerns about the application of libel laws will be examined in the context of new and emerging communications technologies."
The CLC is an independent, non-profit, public interest organisation specialising in media and communications law and policy.
For further information contact Roy Baker at the CLC on +61 (0)2 9385 7379.
Media Release 21 March 2004
Media ownership: owners' interests outrank public interest
Following agreement today from Liberal and National Party MPs, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts is expected to introduce a Bill amending the Broadcasting Services Act into Federal Parliament this afternoon.
It is understood that the Bill will effectively repeal the cross-media rules.
Public interest advocates have questioned the assumption that ownership and influence in the media no longer matter. Dr Derek Wilding, Director of the Communications Law Centre, said, "This Bill would lead to further concentration of ownership in the Australian media. No one "not even the Government" disputes that."
"We already have Australia's most influential media in the hands of very few players. If these proposals are accepted by Parliament, people living in capital cities like Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth may see one powerful proprietor control a commercial television network or radio network and the only daily newspaper in that city and a national daily newspaper. The media rules would not stop that same proprietor having interests in a pay TV service and a telecommunications company. Diversity in the Australian media would be at an end".
It has been indicated that the Bill removes limits on ownership, as long as separate newsrooms are maintained. Commenting on the idea of separate newsrooms, Derek Wilding said, "No one outside the Government takes seriously the suggestion that a media conglomerate which controls major daily newspapers and commercial television or radio networks will foster a culture where corporate interests take second place to diversity of opinions and ideas. Our current rules do not impose restrictions on the rights of media organisations to report in certain ways on matters that affect their own interests. But we do seek to guard against distortions of fact and opinion by ensuring that there is some diversity in ownership of the media. The proposed scheme would dismantle those protections".
This new move in media policy also reflects the Government's view that online news sites offer new information and ideas. This is in spite of the fact that almost all online news is sourced from existing media organisations and that Australians overwhelmingly turn to online services of those traditional media organisations.
Derek Wilding said, "The online news argument is an inventive take on an old theme. In fact there is very little original news content online. Meanwhile, there are still large numbers of people who do not even have access to the internet".
"Australia's media policy should protect the interests of the Australian public - it should not be designed to further the interests of media proprietors".
For further comment call Derek Wilding on +61 (0)2 9385 7385.
Please call +61 (0)2 9385 7385 for a media comment on an communications law issue by a member of CLC staff.
Publications
Publications