Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

On the question of facilitation, I would just like to note that the bill contains a facilitation element because many of the online locations that are intended to be the subject of an injunction operate in such a manner as to avoid directly infringing copyright. For example, they do not host infringing content, but provide links or other means for users to obtain the infringing material. These websites are facilitators, and the bill is designed to ensure that they cannot avoid an injunction by simply not hosting or directly infringing copyright. Facilitation is intended to be a broad and flexible concept, as distinct from existing legal doctrine such as authorisation liability. In particular, in relation to amendment (7) it is unnecessary to include flagrancy as part of the threshold test in subsection (1). The existing primary purpose test is already an intentionally high threshold test that will not include legitimate websites. We have included a number of examples in the revised explanatory memorandum to make this adequately clear. For example, the primary purpose test would prevent an injunction to disable access to an art gallery website operated outside of Australia that may contain an unauthorised photograph.