Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Well, I tell you what, Minister, if the shoe fits you should wear it. The Liberal government that is supposed to support entrepreneurialism is doing everything it can to not support entrepreneurialism in this country, through the failures of this bill.

In terms of the earnings of these artists, this year all artists on the Redbubble platform will earn $30 million, growing at roughly 50 per cent a year. The contribution that they are making to both global and Australian artists is greater than any single Australian organisation, including the Australia Council. Redbubble directly employ 200 people in high-paying tech jobs of the future. About 100 of them are in Australia, as I said earlier, and about 600 employees are employed indirectly via the fulfillers of advanced manufacturing. Some 60 of these firms are right here in Australia, in Horsham in Brisbane. What happened? Redbubble had an artist who developed an image that incorporated a logo of another organisation—the Hells Angels.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Apparently they are your friends too, Minister, because you are aiding and abetting the Hells Angels in squeezing out an Australian firm from our local environment, because you did not provide safe-harbour reform. The Hells Angels complained to Redbubble about an image used on their site, and Redbubble took it down. That normally would be the end of the story. In the US context the Hells Angels would not have a leg to stand on. But, they shopped around and realised that with some of the toughest copyright laws right here, they could sue Redbubble—even though Redbubble as a platform, as a marketplace, took the action. They have about 10 people who scour that website to make sure that copyright breaches are dealt with and dealt with quickly—but it was taken down and they could not do that. Redbubble were banking on this bill that is being debated now, where the exposure draft said that this government would deal with safe harbour reform. It has not been fixed, and now they are being sued. So firms like Redbubble, Envato and 99designs are all under legal pressure because the cowards opposite were unable to find a way to ensure this survives.

The chief executive of Redbubble, Martin Hosking, was reported in the business section of The Australian today. This is a guy who should be championed by those opposite. He is contributing massively to the income of this country, providing jobs of the future, and helping in manufacturing. He should be championed. This guy is a legend. But his business is being squeezed offshore because those opposite cannot work out how to facilitate safe harbour reform in this country within the copyright context. Martin Hosking has threatened to pull his ASX listed company out of Australia—this is insane—because the country's copyright laws are not reformed. He says that without safe harbour protections they will have to leave. Martin Hosking says:

I want to be here, and I want a modern, innovative Australia. The government is asking for innovation from corporations, but the government has to show that same level of innovation.

That is what he said. Why should a firm like this be squeezed out of the country just because those opposite cannot find a way to provide for safe harbour reform? StartupAUS, which represents companies like this, has said:

We risk losing great businesses like these—Redbubble—and stifling the growth of others, if we don't develop a strong safe harbour framework such as they have in the US, Singapore, the UK and other EU countries.

If Australia wants to transition to become a digital economy, we must catch up with the rest of the world on how we treat online copyright content.

These firms want to protect copyright. Redbubble, 99designs, Envato—these firms believe in copyright. They want to protect it. They want to protect artists' incomes. They are doing more for artists' incomes than anyone else in this country. They should not be squeezed out because of cowardice on the other side, but they are being squeezed out. We want to see the protection of copyright, the protection of artists' incomes and the protection of companies like Redbubble.

Because those opposite have not had the guts to tackle this, we are apparently being told we are going for another review, so I want to read into Hansard how many reviews there have been on this issue over the years. In February we had the Productivity Commission inquiry into intellectual property arrangements, and there was a discussion about safe harbours there. In November last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties inquiry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership also dealt with safe harbour obligations. In December of last year we had another roundtable by the Productivity Commission into IP arrangements. In December 2015 there was an exposure draft into this bill that talked about safe harbours, and there was consultation about that then. In September 2014 there was the Attorney-General's department discussion paper on online copyright infringement, and safe harbours were talked about there. In November 2011 there was an Attorney-General's department consultation paper on revising the scope of the copyright safe harbour scheme. In 2009 there was another review: Commonwealth government 'Digital economy future directions: consultation paper', and the question was posed: should the existing copyright safe harbour scheme for carriage service providers be broadened?

See this speech in context