Senator COONEY (11:47 PM) —I have been listening to the contributions on the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 , including those made by Senator Lundy, Senator Brown, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Murphy. They have put forward the case why this bill should not be passed, because the evidence quite clearly is against the passing of this bill. If you look at the argument put against that made by the senators I have mentioned, you have to go to the second reading speech. The second reading speech, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that speech which underpins this bill—it sets out the logic, if you like; it sets out the reasons; it sets out the basis upon which the government is putting forward its case—and on the first page it states:

At present, the provisions of the Copyright Act can be used by the owners of copyright in sound recordings to stop anyone else importing copies of their sound recordings.

What is wrong with having an ability to stop somebody else from selling your goods? Is the government's proposition that the present law which stops people from selling cars belonging to other people should be repealed, that people should be able to sell the cars of others?

We are looking in this bill at people who write music, who discover music and who add music to our culture. They also expect to get a return from their efforts. They have to go and earn their money. Their money is not determined beforehand, as is the pay of everybody in the well of this chamber. Everybody here gets a regular pay from the resources of the Commonwealth, and that gives a bedding to those people who are in the well of this chamber. We do not feel the cold hand of doubt as to whether or not we are going to earn some money from the abilities that we may have.

This bill must be approached on the basis that we are people who are well paid, regularly paid and paid according to an act and that we do not have to worry about going out and earning our own living. The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) will remember those hard days when his ability, which was considerable, was the basis upon which he earned his fees, not a regular payment according to a program set down by a tribunal.

Senator Forshaw —He has had a hard day today.

Senator COONEY —He has had a very hard day.

Senator Alston —I made real money in those days.

Senator COONEY —I quoted Charles Dickens the other night, and I think it is proper that I quote him again tonight, because he points out the tragedy where people are not able to get a full return for the efforts they have put into their writing.

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Senator COONEY —Perhaps the Romans and the Greeks denied them this. This was the speech that Charles Dickens made—and I referred to this the other night—when a banquet was held in honour of the great man at Hartford on 7 February 1842 when copyright law was not as progressive as it is now and when people were not seeking to turn it back, as this bill attempts to do tonight. Charles Dickens had this to say when he was talking about Sir Walter Scott, who was a great writer:

It was well observed the other night by a beautiful speaker, whose words went to the heart of every man who heard him, that if there had existed any law in this respect, Scott might not have sunk beneath the mighty pressure on his brain, but might have lived to add new creatures of his fancy to the crowd which swarm about you in your summer walks and gather round your winter evening hearths.

That is what we are protecting here. Those people who will listen to music written by Australians, as they take their summer walks and gather round their winter hearths, and those people who have that mighty pressure imposed on their brains, as Charles Dickens would say, and who give us those pleasures should be properly rewarded.

The minister might well find on re-reading this second reading speech that this harsh statement should be put aside. The statement says, and I will repeat it:

At present, the provisions of the Copyright Act can be used by the owners of copyright in sound recordings to stop anyone else importing copies of their sound recordings.

It seems to me to be very reasonable that people should be able to earn money from their intellectual efforts. They do not have the comfort of being paid under a system which returns them a salary, no matter how and to what degree they use their brains. Intellectual property is perhaps the most need of protection in this day and age as new technology comes on board and it is only proper that we have every regard we can for it.

Further on in the second reading speech the government goes into its justification for this bill when it says:

Concerns have long been held that the importation provisions of the Copyright Act have been used to obtain higher prices for records and CDs than those prevailing in some other countries, notably the USA.

As has been said tonight by many speakers, nobody can resist and oppose a system that returns lower prices for anything, as long as all other relevant matters are taken into account. For example, in the Telstra bill that we discussed earlier in the day, this was said on page 14 of the second reading speech:

Telstra has a vital continuing strategic role in the national economy. Australia's long term national interest therefore demands that it not simply be sold off to the highest bidder but that it remains an Australian owned and Australian controlled corporation.

The government is saying there that there is more to be taken into account than simply matters of price and that matters such as the strategic interests of the national economy temper the enthusiasm we all have to get lower prices in. And it is the same here. Simply looking at price is not sufficient. The evidence quoted in the second reading speech is that concerns were raised by the Copyright Law Review Committee on which it reported in 1988. That is a decade ago.

In a matter as vital as this, you would expect more recent evidence than that, so you look for what this more recent evidence is. The second reading speech goes on to say that the Copyright Law Review Committee was followed by an inquiry into the prices of sound recordings by the then Prices Surveillance Authority in 1990—eight years ago. It says:

The PSA found that prices of sound recordings were unreasonably high in Australia and recommended either partial or full removal of copyright control over importation of legitimate copies, thereby introducing direct competition as a mechanism for reducing prices.

That is eight years ago. The second reading speech goes on to say that in the meantime the Labor government did not do anything and that that took up some time. And now we come to the present position. The government faces up to that and says it will do something about it, but it will not do anything without regard to possible changes in market behaviour since 1990, which is a reasonable point. There is no evidence produced, except the comment that:

In our election commitments we said we would consult the industry and the community on the most effective means of lowering prices for music CDs, and we have done so.

The result of that is it is not detailed, except in terms of conclusions without any evidence to support those conclusions.

What happened, amongst other things, is that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into this. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that is perhaps one of the most prestigious committees in this parliament. The majority came back with a report which says that this bill ought be passed. That is a reasonable proposition, if the evidence is there. But if you look at the conclusion and recommendations in chapter 5 of the majority report you will find a couple of comments that give some concern. For example, one is in paragraph 5.18 which says:

Nevertheless, the Committee—

that is, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—

sees the possible merit in an inquiry which establishes the economics and `work practices' of the industry more definitively and in more detail. Such an inquiry, by an organisation such as the Productivity Commission, would provide useful information in any discussion of the need for a music industry policy as advocated by some who provided evidence to the committee.

So here we have a report which says that we really need more evidence but which then, having said that, goes ahead and draws a conclusion. The majority report has this to say at paragraph 5.19:

The Committee received much evidence on the potential effect of the Bill on Australian composers.

I love my Australian music, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I take it that you do too.

Senator Hill —What's your favourite, Barney?

Senator COONEY —I have a lot of favourites, but I mention two of our national songs, the national anthem and Waltzing Matilda . They are songs that everybody in Australia would know. Haven't we got some pride in them?

Senator Hill —What about contemporary songs?

Senator COONEY —There are a lot of contemporary groups. On your next trip through Melbourne, I will take you up to my son's rooms. He has got lots and lots of these things. He is very proud of them. He does not mind paying a reasonable price. I will just read this again:

The committee received much evidence on the potential effect of the bill on Australian composers.

You have heard that evidence being related by speakers before me. It goes on:

With some exceptions, the majority of royalties received by Australian composers are derived from recordings of their work by Australian artists, usually the bands of which they are members. These recordings will usually not be internationally released. In only a small number of cases will Australian recordings be made overseas and then imported into Australia.

The point that was made by the people who gave evidence to the committee was that, unless you had a local music industry that was able to make CDs on which their music was recorded, they were not able to get time on the air, whether through radio or television, and then perhaps go on to be known as great artists around the world. That is the point that was made. Yet this conclusion by the majority does not address that point. It simply gets over it by going on to say in the next paragraph, 5.20:

Falls in royalty income as a result of lower-priced CDs are likely to be compensated through increased sales.

The difficulty with all this is that what is being looked at here is policy and a particular attitude to things, and that is fair enough. Paragraph 5.2 of the conclusions of the majority says this:

In principle and in practice, competitive markets yield the best possible prices for consumers.

Then it quotes the Australian Chamber of Commerce. Of course the Australian Chamber of Commerce is going to take a particular approach and of course there is a principle that people might want to follow. If you want to follow a particular economic theory, or a theory in anything, fair enough. But the test should be applied, and the test is the evidence. How does the principle face up in the light of the evidence?

The United States is a place from which music, art, films and matters of the soul generally pour in great abundance. It is very interesting to look at what they say. The chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Senator Eric Abetz, received a letter from Genta Hawkins Holmes, the US ambassador. She addressed it to `Senator the Right Honourable Eric Abetz, Chairman, Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee.' She made some comments and she said she would circulate a statement, which she did. She gave the committee a statement that has this to say about copyright holders:

In the view of the United States, elimination of the ability of the copyright holder to control parallel importation of their work is contrary to the basic structure of international copyright protection where protection within each country is granted by the country's laws and limited geographically to its borders.

She is saying, `Don't go down the path that this bill goes down.' The statement continues:

The United States maintains that price-distorting practices in the manufacturing, distribution and retail industries that are based on anti-competitive practices should be addressed through anti-competition laws rather than through the unrelated act of lowering the level of protection provided to the copyright holders.

That is from what is clearly the most successful country in the world, the country that dominates culture, and that is its approach. It says, `Don't go down the path of this bill.'

In the closing minutes of my address, I would like to say something about the people from the Attorney-General's Department who have worked hard on this for many years now. I see some of them here. They are deserving of great commendation for the work they have done. They have not had success in the sense of getting the bill on the statute books, and I hope they do not tonight. I know they are simply carrying out policy and they have done a lot of work, but in the end, in spite of all that good work and in spite of all the deeply felt and deeply held beliefs that the government has, the evidence in this matter is against this bill going through. If it did go through, it would be unfair on those people who have to face the uncertainty of earning their living. In a certain sense, we earn our living in a very easy way. Perhaps it is not so easy over the last couple of days, but at least it is regular. These people's income is not regular, and their intellectual property should be protected.

Sunday, 12 July 1998