Mr BOB BALDWIN (3:43 PM) —It is with a level of pleasure that I rise to speak about the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 . The reality is that the copyright law as it is now is acting well outside what it is intended to be. In other words, it stifles enterprise, rather than protecting intellectual property. Plainly and simply, copyright law should not be used to promulgate restrictive trade and anti-competitive practices in any form whatsoever, and that includes in principle packaging and labelling and the issue of video games, better known as pinball machines and arcade games.

We only have to look back at the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee of October 1997 on its consideration of the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 . It considered that copyright law should be used for the purposes of the protection of intellectual property, and not to create other and additional non-tariff barriers to imports. That was stated on page 64 of that report. It is quite interesting and that is why I support the importation of goods under copyright packaging and labelling amendments, with the controls being removed over the parallel importation.

Having been in the import industry in sporting goods for many years and having had some exclusive distribution lines, it was easy to jack up the prices, because you were the only player in that industry with that brand name, without any due concern for the market or for the price or for the consumer. It was totally within your own regime that you did it. Speaking as an importer, competition breeds healthy, active and supportive industry that is there for the long term.

These amendments to the Copyright Act will lead to cheaper prices for branded goods and greater availability of such goods. We live in a market area where quite often, if you are an east coast based supplier, delivery and service to the west coast becomes a second line issue. By opening up the industry to free market forces and competition, not piracy, we will have more suppliers able to distribute the product amongst a greater number of retailers, therefore satisfying the needs of the consumers.

It has been understood that an instant removal of these packaging and labelling laws under copyright would place some hardship on firms which have entered into arrangements, in good faith, with their suppliers based overseas. So with that, the government has decided in its wisdom to allow an 18-month period for the introduction of these so that people can restructure their businesses to be able to survive. I heard the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) say that there was no country in the world where parallel imports had reduced prices and made things more competitive.

Another industry is having to cope with restrictions on parallel imports. That industry is the amusement machine industry. To use an example of how copyright protection used as a restrictive trade barrier is affecting an industry, pre-1996, between 1991 and 1996, a group known as NAMOA, or the National Amusement Machine Operators Association, which is the sole national industry body, represented an industry composed of some 1,200 small businesses employing over 7,000 people. The turnover in that industry was $650 million a year. The people who are involved in this industry are in the main part those who operate amusement parlours, with things such as pinballs and video games—the systems that are found in shopping centres, hotels, clubs and just about everywhere we go. We all remember the movie Tommy with Roger Daltry, and its hit song Pinball Wizard. It is those sorts of machines we are talking about.

In 1996 there was a decision by the Federal Court in the case of Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd versus Sega Enterprises that they could use copyright as a restrictive instrument to stop the parallel imports of these machines. If we listened to the member for Canberra we would say, `That breeds a better industry.' The fact is that prior to 1996 the industry was stronger and a lot healthier and had a lot more players involved in it.

We have four major suppliers of games in this industry in what are known as `must have' games. (Extension of time granted) Sega of Japan is a principal supplier of `must have' games, followed by Namco of Japan, Midway of the USA and possibly Konami of Japan. These games were able to be sourced across a broad range of suppliers, whether it be in Japan or America. To give you an example, prior to the restrictions of parallel imports these games used to be able to be purchased for around $20,000 throughout Japan and the US. Today, because we have restrictive imports through two set suppliers, the cost of these amusement machines is now $40,000 per unit. Not only has the cost gone up, but also the cost to young people playing these games has gone up. The industry which had a turnover of some $650 million per year, employing 7,000 people, is dramatically falling down in its ability to stay competitive and financially viable.

After the 1991 proceedings, when parallel imports were allowed, Avel, which is a make-up of Village Nine Leisure and Leisure and Allied Industries, sought to have exclusive distribution outlets. These outlets were granted in the negotiations with Sega and other manufacturers. Now these people are the sole distributors of these games and are also amusement centre operators. So they have complete vertical integration. They squeeze out other operators so that they are no longer financially viable and able to compete in this industry.

So for the member for Canberra to say that parallel imports make an industry not cheaper, not more viable, is absolutely incorrect. The reality is that prior to this federal government decision all of the players in the industry survived. The copyright amendments will go through very shortly. Perhaps these can be looked at as the next set of issues to be addressed under copyright amendments so that people can get on with the business of being in business and employing young people. I will draw my comments to a close, having received a note from the whip. I support this bill.