Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 relates to producer interests, the interests of the creative industries, that create content like music, video and software. It is important for our nation to provide appropriate support for producers because without them obviously there is no content. As much as it is appropriate to consider producer interests, as representatives we should also consider consumer interests. We should concern ourselves with dealing with the consumer interests when it comes to content that is available to people here in Australia.

It is fair to say that Australian consumers of digital products want fair and timely access to content. It has been described as being more of an issue about service than about price—in other words, the view is that if consumers had more convenient and timely access to digital content then the fact that they would also have to pay for it would not dissuade them from using that lawful way of obtaining content. That is not just my view. That concern has been around for some time in relation to how people can get access to digital content in this country in a fair and timely way.

Last year the research firm Essential Media Communications undertook research that indicated that 79 per cent of Australians are concerned about being charged significantly more than their US counterparts for digital products and 58 per cent were concerned that movies and TV shows were available for legal download in other countries but not in Australia. The Abbott government, though moving on this producer interests bill, has done in my view regrettably little to deal with the legitimate community concerns about the detriments that consumers face in Australia when compared with other nations. Price discrimination in relation to digital content continues to affect Australian households.

A very old friend of mine, Michelle Richards, recently wrote a paper on some of the motivations around piracy in Australia. I think she quite neatly summarised the issues of consumer access to content so I am going to quote her, which will come as a surprise to her. Unfortunately, I have not had time to mention this to her, so I hope she does not mind. She said:

Within the Australian television media landscape, a unique industrial, institutional and legislative framework shapes consumers' viewing habits. Australia's commercial media ownership is one of the highest concentrations in the world … and our isolated geographic location as an English-speaking country amongst Asian markets has meant that English and American media companies and local distributors were free to designate price according to demand without competition … This became commonly known under the term, 'The Australia Tax'—

a term that is commonly used to describe the level of price discrimination that we have in Australia. She went on to say:

There have been recent demands on the ACCC … to look into the unfair pricing practices of these streamers who charge up to 376% more for digital content when compared to overseas markets …

This issue of competition is changing here in Australia. We have seen the introduction of services like Stan, Presto and similar services from pay-TV providers. There is still an issue for Australian consumers in relation to access to digital content such as movies, television, music, software et cetera.

It is fair to say that people are concerned about what this bill and this government are doing to address those consumer concerns, not just the producer concerns. Those are legitimate questions to be asked of this government. That is not to say that we should not be looking at legislative and regulatory mechanisms to combat piracy—of course we should. On our side of the House we agree that action is needed to reduce current levels of online piracy in Australia. We understand the need to make sure that creative industries can remain in a situation where they have viable business models. If you are not fully recovering the revenue you ought to recover in respect of the content that you have developed then that is obviously of great concern to the businesses concerned. We are talking about an important and vibrant creative industry sector in Australia, which is something that people on both sides of this parliament have worked for many years to promote.

I am informed that our nation continues to have a high level of piracy by international standards. Of course that necessarily leads to economic damage and leads to adverse impacts for jobs in content production and creation here in Australia. Accordingly, we continue to say that more should be done for consumers and looking at the pricing issues in respect of the content, but we are prepared to support this bill, which we believe to be a modest and common-sense measure that is intended to disrupt foreign websites operating as havens for piracy and to discourage copyright infringement by Australian consumers. It is true that some websites seem to be set up for the direct egregious purpose of taking away intellectual property or breaching copyright and of harming producer interests. This bill is directed at foreign websites whose primary purpose is to infringe copyright or facilitate the infringement of copyright. It is an important yet balanced bill when it comes to trying to disrupt some of the piracy that is occurring in Australia at the moment.

I am sure other speakers in this debate have spoken about the number of times that, for example, the fourth season premiereof Game of Thrones was downloaded. There were nearly 200,000 separate downloads in Australia. The companies do try to fast-track broadcasts of their television shows that drive demand—they do try to innovate in that regard—but the fact is we continue to have a piracy issue. It appears to be really a product of the issues I have mentioned and also something that has grown up over a long period of time. There is not really the same sort of stigma, notwithstanding the best efforts of some of the creative industry sector, around piracy in Australia that there might be in other places. That is a cultural question as well.

In supporting this legislation I think it is really important that we—and each speaker on this side of the House will—be really clear about what is not affected by the passage of this legislation. In our view this bill does not provide for an Internet filter. It provides a judicial remedy on a case-by-case basis for conduct that flouts existing law. The requirements of the bill are strict and we can expect Federal Court judges to exercise the site-blocking power cautiously and with restraint.

As someone who has herself practised in the Federal Court and who is familiar with applications for injunctions brought in the Federal Court—though not under copyright legislation, I will admit—I will say that one of the great strengths of the Australian judicial system is the great degree of expertise and responsibility exercised by the many learned judges that we are so fortunate to have in the Federal Court of Australia. When we look at striking the balance between the interests of producers and consumers, it is wrong to cast that into some sort of dichotomy. They are not necessarily oppositional interests, because there is obviously a great deal of connection between the interests of a producer and the interests of a consumer. As I said at the very outset, as a consumer of digital content I have an interest in having producers in Australia who actually are able to have a viable business model for creating that content. But I think the Federal Court of Australia is very well placed to strike that balance and to take a measured and appropriate approach when it comes to applications for injunctions in respect of websites whose primary purpose is to flout copyright laws. So, with great respect to the learned judges of the Federal Court, of course our parliament can be very confident that they will exercise their powers with appropriate degrees of restraint and in a manner that is cautious and appropriately strikes the balance between the sometimes competing and sometimes aligned interests of the different parties.

We are conscious that there have been some concerns raised about whether this legislation may block virtual private networks—VPNs as they are referred to. We have worked very hard to seek to ensure that that is not the case. As you know, Deputy Speaker, Labor senators on the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee investigated this specific issue about VPNs and whether this legislation would affect VPNs' usage. Those Labor senators formed the view that the bill's terms would not extend to blocking VPN usage. To assist in ensuring that the legislation is construed that way, we have asked the government to amend the explanatory memorandum appropriately to clarify that that is not the intention of this legislation, and we anticipate that the government will take that action and will appropriately amend the explanatory memorandum. As I said at the outset, it is important, though, for government to think about what some of the drivers of anticompetitive behaviour, or perhaps just the absence of sufficient competition, might be in the market and to find ways to ensure that consumers benefit from the pricing benefits of having greater competition. It is a view that I suspect that everyone in this House would very likely share.

It is also important that the government pursue copyright reform more broadly. As you know, Deputy Speaker, Labor commissioned an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission into copyright law in the digital economy when we were in government. The ALRC provided the incoming Liberal government with its report in November 2013, but disappointingly, 18 months later, the government has still not responded to that report or taken any steps to progress the full suite of reforms proposed by the ALRC. Perhaps the Attorney-General has been a little bit distracted with trying to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, but I would suggest that a better use of the Attorney-General's time would be to consider what actions might be taken to improve and reform copyright law. As you know, there are a lot of views in this country—from producers, consumers and consumer advocacy groups alike—that there is quite a pressing and urgent need for modernisation in respect of copyright law.

This is an important bill. People might say, 'Well, who cares if people are downloading particular shows?' or, 'Is this really the most important issue?' but it is a very important issue not just for the creative industries, not just for the many, many jobs in those industries and not just for the great economic benefits that our country derives from having creative industries here at home but also because this is a broader question of access to arts and culture in our society. The fact is that it is so important that people from all social strata, whatever their background, have access to the rich cultural life that our digital economy is now affording to people and that digital content is now delivering into homes. There is so much choice out there. There is so much access to high and low culture through these digital forms, and it is really important that that not just be reserved for the people with the fastest broadband, the most money or the most technical proficiency. It is important that we deal with these issues of access to culture as a broad issue of concern to the entire Australian community.

I look forward to continued and ongoing discussion about all of the many facets of dealing with this question of access to online content. I mentioned software, movies and music. It was remiss of me not to mention gaming, which is of course a massive industry in itself. We do need to continue to engage. I know that change is fast, and I know that all of these issues are evolving very quickly and that governments of any persuasion can be a little slow to keep up with change, but the challenge for us, if we want to be a modern nation where people participate fully in the cultural life of the nation, is to find ways to improve the way that we grapple with copyright and all of the full suite of issues in respect of digital content.

As I say, we are supporting the bill. We believe it is modest and reasonable. We are fortified in our support by the fact that the Federal Court of Australia will be taking a responsible and cautious approach to dealing with applications under the legislation. We continue to believe that pricing remains an issue, as does access to service. I know that the market is improving, but there is still more to be done here in Australia. On that basis, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill. We, as I say, will always take a critical and moderate approach to supporting any interventions in this area, because it is quite a nuanced and faceted question, but this, we believe, is a moderate and appropriate approach to the issue of combating online piracy.

See this speech in context