Archive | Freedom of speech RSS feed for this section

Human rights commission is a free speech deserter

By on June 17, 2013 in Freedom of speech

Former human rights commissioner Sev Ozdowski has criticised the Australian Human Rights Commission in The Australian today for going missing in action on human rights:

Australia’s first Human Rights Commission was created by the Fraser government, with its initial function arising from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The five pieces of legislation focusing on egalitarian rights were added later. Despite its origins, our commission is missing in action when important civil liberties are under threat. Consider the 2011 prosecution of Andrew Bolt under the Racial Discrimination Act over an article he wrote about access to grants reserved for Aboriginal Australians. Given the significance of the case, one would assume that the Human Rights Commission would be interested in how the court interpreted the legislation, and would wish to assist with specialist advice. The case certainly met the commission’s own amicus curiae guidelines, yet they made no representations to the court.

The Human Rights Commission was also quiet when former attorney-general Nicola Roxon wanted to outlaw, as discrimination, any actions or words which have made others feel offended, and proposed shifting the burden of proof in discrimination cases from the accuser to the accused. It required former Whitlam adviser and former NSW chief justice James Spigelman to remind the commission in his Human Rights Day oration that “the freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech”, and that “there is no right not to be offended”.

I agree. And that’s why I’ve called for the abolition of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Only 29% of Australians think political parties should be taxpayer funded

By on June 13, 2013 in Elections and voting, Freedom of speech

Recently we highlighted the dangerous proposal to give political parties more taxpayer dollars.

The proposal was abandoned once details become public and now we know why: only 29% of Australians support public funding of political parties.

The polling, conducted by Essential Vision, also shows that 47% of respondents – a plurality – think political parties should be entirely funded by voluntary donations. Among Coalition voters that figure was even higher at 53%.

Those most likely to support taxpayer funding of political parties are Greens voters (51%).

You can see the full results here.

ASIC unrepentant about censoring the internet

By on June 5, 2013 in Freedom of speech, Rule of law, Technology and online rights

In a Drum column a few weeks back I wrote about revelations that ASIC –  Australia’s corporate regulator – had taken it upon itself to censor the internet using a relatively obscure section of the Telecommunications Act, Section 313. As Renai LeMay at Delimiter puts it, this section:

is not usually used to block websites, and there appears to be no public oversight of the process which ASIC is using, no appeals mechanism, and no transparency to the public or interaction with the formal justice system.

LeMay’s post demonstrates that they’re not planning to apologise for this any time soon. Now that it’s out in the open, ASIC is aggressively defending its censorship powers – for example, in this speech here.

And we’ve since learned that ASIC hasn’t accidentally blocked 1,200 websites, no, it has accidentally blocked a quarter of a million sites.

Here’s Greens Senator Scott Ludlam’s questioning ASIC about their internet filtering in Senate Estimates committee earlier this week.

Late last year Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced that the government was finally abandoning its internet filter. This was widely applauded. But as the IPA’s Simon Breheny said at the time, the filter hadn’t really been abandoned at all. Instead, Conroy announced he was going to use Section 313 – exactly the section ASIC has been misusing – to achieve the same goal as the filter was intended to.

Queensland IR changes threatening free speech set to become law

By on June 4, 2013 in Freedom of speech

In Queensland, the state government’s Legal Affairs Committee yesterday recommended the parliament pass a law restricting the free speech of unions and employer organisations.

The Queensland Council of Unions (QCU) are claiming that the laws, in the form of the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013, will be passed by Queensland parliament this week.

The law would require that the state’s 34 unions and 32 employer organisations hold a formal ballot before spending over $10,000 on political campaigns.

The IPA’s Simon Breheny previously outlined the major concerns with the proposed laws:

The changes will have an unacceptable impact on freedom of speech – the bill makes it much more difficult for an organisation to participate in political debate. This is campaign finance reform by stealth. Including the changes in a package ostensibly designed to reform industrial relations is a devious political move.

Now it seems that the QCU will challenge the validity of the laws, should they pass, in the High Court. It even has allies for its High Court challenge in the form of the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry (QCCI), which represents 25,000 businesses.

According to the QCCI, the cost of balloting for its organisation alone would reach $150,000 per year.

The laws represent an unacceptable limit being imposed on the ability of organisations to be involved in the political process. We look forward to the laws being defeated by the High Court.

National betting ad ban another blow to free speech

By on May 27, 2013 in Freedom of speech

The Gillard government has confirmed what we have long suspected, announcing a national crackdown on what we get to see broadcast during sporting events. The Australian reports that all live betting odds, generic gambling advertising and sponsorship logos will be banned as part of Labor’s new guidelines.

This will also mean that broadcasters will have to submit new codes of compliance to be assessed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The prime minister said:

What’s motivating us is it’s the right thing to do…

I want kids to know their maths, but I don’t want them to learn their maths by watching live odds on sporting events.

Putting aside that this is just a political move to be seen getting tough on Tom Waterhouse in an election year and that it won’t actually do anything to address problem gambling, the real issue here is the freedom of speech implications for broadcasters.

As I wrote last week, freedom of speech also includes the freedom to broadcast. It is no surprise that this government has long believed it should have a role in regulating what people get to say, see and hear in the public domain. Banning what TV licencees get to broadcast is just yet another move to take this agenda another step further.

 

ASIC is completely out of control

By on May 22, 2013 in Freedom of speech, Liberal democracy, Technology and online rights

My ABC The Drum column this week is on the outrageous attempt by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to censor the internet:

It’s an almost perfect illustration of regulatory mission creep.

Legislative provisions designed to only deal with the most extreme crimes are eventually used to pursue lesser offences. Given that this involved full-blown censorship – and censorship without oversight or appeal – ASIC’s actions are incredibly reckless.

Censoring the internet is a gross abuse of its status as an independent regulator.

Perhaps we could forgive an abuse of power if it was a one-time thing. But it’s part of a pattern.

WATCH: Janet Albrechtsen applies to be a ‘Freedom Commissioner’

By on May 21, 2013 in Freedom of speech

Columnist for the Australian, Dr Janet Albrechtsen, speaks to Institute of Public Affairs members in Brisbane on the importance of freedom of speech. Watch her speech here:

Broadcasting is free speech too

By on May 21, 2013 in Freedom of speech

In the latest example of political hysteria, the South Australian government has proposed a change to gambling codes of practice to ban live betting odds from sporting match broadcasts. Premier Jay Weatherill indicated his hopes for the siren-to-siren ban to be implemented by the end of this year’s AFL season in September, saying:

It’s staggering how much match-day broadcast time is being devoted to sports betting and live odds.

Never mind that television licensees aren’t allowed any more than 16 minutes for advertising per hour, as stated in the ACMA code of practice. Unless betting companies can somehow afford to saturate 100% of the ad market, their screen time is even lesser yet.

But the issue here is not simply about betting odds. Freedom of speech also extends to what broadcasters and commentators are allowed to say. Many of us don’t like gambling and freely choose not to take part in it. But that shouldn’t give us the right to gag presenters from talking about things we may not like.