Senator Ludwig asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 9 October 2003:

(1) How many times has the above mentioned group met since its establishment.

(2) Who are the members of the consultative group and what state are they from.

(3) What were the selection criteria for the consultative group.

(4) Where does the group meet.

(5) Are expenses or travelling allowance paid for meetings; if so, how much.

(6) Are any members of the group employed by a legal firm which is already in receipt of federal government contracts for copyright issues.

(7) What findings, reports or issues has the group developed for consideration.

(8) Can the minutes of the group's meetings be made available.

(9) Have any prosecutions resulted from the work of the group; if so, how many

Senator Ellison (Minister for Justice and Customs) —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1) Seven.

(2) Representatives of the following departments, agencies and organisations have attended all or most meetings of the Consultative Group:

Commonwealth Government:

Australian Federal Police (Chair)

Attorney-General's Department

Australian Customs Service

IP Australia

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

State Government:

Victoria Police

Copyright industry interests:

Anti-Counterfeiting Action Group

Australian Subscription Television & Radio Association

Interactive Entertainment Association

Business Software Alliance & Business Software Association of Australia

Music Industry Piracy Investigation

Sony Computer Entertainment Australia

Trade Mark Investigation Services

Australian Toy Association Ltd

Australian Film and Video Security Office

Representatives from the following bodies attended initial meetings of the Group:

Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence

National Crime Authority

Australian Institute of Criminology

New South Wales Police

Queensland Police

South Australian Police

(3) Membership of the Consultative Group is open to all relevant and interested government and industry bodies. In some cases a significant element or player in an industry that did not already have a representative was invited to attend.

(4) The Consultative Group does not meet in any particular place. Various members of the Group have hosted the meetings to date. Three meetings have been hosted in both Canberra and Sydney and one in Melbourne.

(5) Industry participation in the Consultative Group is at its own expense. Where there are travel expenses for Commonwealth officers to attend a meeting these are met by the respective Commonwealth department or agency in accordance with usual practice.

(6) I am not aware that any members of the Consultative Group are employed by a legal firm which is already in receipt of Federal Government contracts for copyright issues.

(7) The Consultative Group is providing a regular forum for information exchange between participants on matters of mutual interest, including recent intellectual property enforcement actions by police and Customs, and industry enforcement activities. The forum is also used to inform those present of relevant international developments including regional cooperation activities as well as domestic developments relevant for intellectual property enforcement.

The Consultative Group developed a Crime Management Strategy as a tool for guiding its work. In addition, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has prepared a comprehensive guide to trade mark prosecutions to assist investigators and prosecutors. The Group also maintains contact lists to assist cooperation between industry and police and Customs.

(8) The records of meeting prepared and circulated following meetings of the Consultative Group are prepared for the benefit of those who participated in the meeting. These records are not intended for circulation beyond the Consultative Group. To date the Consultative Group has benefited from the open and frank discussion of matters. Consultative Group Members may not participate as fully or openly at meetings if they thought that the record of the meeting could be circulated more widely or made public through a Parliamentary process. This would ultimately make the Consultative Group less effective than it may otherwise be.

(9) The Consultative Group does not meet for the purpose of furthering investigation of particular cases of IP enforcement. Information about individual cases is exchanged directly between industry investigators and law enforcement agencies. The operation of the Consultative Group facilitates direct contact and communication. However, the Group does examine recent enforcement action, including investigations, prosecutions and litigation, as a means of sharing information and views on ways of improving practical cooperation, and more generally, the effectiveness of criminal remedies. The existence of the Group has also enhanced the profile of intellectual property enforcement and this may have impacted the prosecution rate in both Commonwealth and State jurisdictions.