Senator COONEY (5:50 PM) —I do have some words to say about the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 . I will start off by congratulating the government for amending section 135ZN of the Copyright Act. In that regard, I pay tribute to Anna Ward, the Executive Officer of Viscopy, who has worked for many years to have some justice done for visual artists, who have been shut out by the provisions of section 135ZN. The original intention of Viscopy, the Visual Arts Copyright Collection Agency, was to have section 135ZN repealed. But an amendment has been made which covers the concern that Anna Ward had. That is now to be put in place, as I understand it, and there is no dispute about that.

This bill is a proposed amendment to the Copyright Act 1968. It is to be followed by another series of amendments, as I understand it, over the coming years. The second reading speech says:

All in all, Madam President, this bill is a very substantial first instalment of the government's commitment to bringing about an up-to-date and workable Copyright Act.

I know that Mr Michael Duffy, the former member for Holt, did a lot of good work in this area when he was Attorney-General. I would like to pay tribute to the work he did. He was followed by Mr Michael Lavarch, who also took forward a lot of work in this area.

Earlier today some amendments were made to the intellectual property law by a bill that was discussed and passed earlier in the morning. That is what copyright is all about; it is about protecting certain sorts of property. Whether it be land or moveable property or intellectual property—that is, property that comes from the mind—property ought to be protected. Property matters should be seen in that context.

I would like to illustrate what I mean by that by reading another part of the second reading speech, which talks about copyright packaging and labelling of imported goods. It says:

In 1988 a report by the Copyright Law Review Committee recommended to the then government that copyright in packaging or labelling of imported goods should not be able to be used to control distribution of the goods.

It is now proposed that people who import goods—whether they be toys or chocolates or any other commodity—and who bring them in or package them here in such a way that brings that packaging or that particular article within the terms of the Copyright Act should no longer have the protection of the Copyright Act because there is a distinction to be made between intellectual property and property of other sorts. That distinction is very difficult to understand because, if somebody can so arrange their goods, so produce a beautiful package or so produce a way of presenting their goods or their services, and that way comes within the terms of the Copyright Act, why should it not get that protection?

We all say a Shakespearean play is a great work of art. No doubt, if he were writing these days, he would have the protection of the Copyright Act. But who is to say that a play that is produced today by someone who is unknown is not a great work? Is pottery not entitled to protection under the law that applies to intellectual property whereas a painting is? Is photography not to be protected by the law that applies to intellectual property when a painting is? Is classical music to be protected by that law but not jazz? If you see that the law protecting intellectual property is about protecting particular goods in particular circumstances, not a law that protects what might be called works of art as distinct from other sorts of works, then from that point of view it is proper that a particular type of good or a particular piece of pottery or a particular service be entitled to that protection.

It was the situation for a while that literature itself was not protected enough. It was in that context that Charles Dickens, whom we have all no doubt read, made statements during his speeches to his American audiences when he went there in the middle part of the last century. Perhaps I could quote from one of his speeches, which was delivered on 7 February 1842 at Hartford. It does explain very well—in better words than I can because he was, of course, one of the great English authors—what the idea of protecting intellectual property is all about. He said:

Gentlemen, as I have no secrets from you, in the spirit of confidence you have engendered between us, and as I have made a kind of compact with myself that I never will, while I remain in America, omit an opportunity of referring to a topic in which I and all others of my class on both sides of the water are equally interested—equally interested, there is no difference between us—I would beg leave to whisper in your ear two words, International Copyright.

Charles Dickens went on:

I use them in no sordid sense, believe me, and those that know me best, best know that. For myself, I would rather that my children coming after me, trudged in the mud, and knew by the general feeling of society that their father was beloved, and had been of some use, than I would have them ride in their carriages, and know by their banker's books that he was rich. But I do not see, I confess, why one should be obliged to make the choice, or why fame, besides playing that delightful reveille for which she is so justly celebrated, should not blow out of her trumpet a few notes of a different kind from those with which she has hitherto contented herself.

He went on to say:

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.

He went on to talk about the great characters that Sir Walter Scott had invented. What he was saying was simply this: that people are entitled to rewards for the efforts they put in. If those efforts are intellectual efforts—if they are from the sweat of the brow—then they should be rewarded. To make the distinction that is made here, that simply because the property that has been spoken about comes into a particular category—that is, it is not considered as artistic as it ought to be—it should be excluded from the protection that the Copyright Act gives to property, seems to me a simply absurd suggestion.

It is said, `Oh well, we will give protection to what is presently protected by the Copyright Act through some other legislative provisions,' and, of course, those legislative provisions have not been forthcoming. It seems to me a mean approach to shut out from the protection otherwise given by this act a person or a company that has developed a product with a meritorious label, meritorious packaging and a meritorious way of putting itself forward.

The other point I want to make in that regard is that when the protection is taken from such things, goods of an inferior quality or lower safety can be brought in. This is an argument that was put when this matter was heard by the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. If these goods are going to be taken out of the coverage of these provisions, then other provisions should be brought in before they are taken out of this one. My view is that safety provisions should be brought in in some other act before these goods are taken out of the protection of this one.

This bill goes to protecting other sorts of rights. The moral rights are now going to be considered apart from the present provisions. As I understand it, the government is taking away from the present debate much of the matters to do with moral rights and will consider that elsewhere. The philosophy behind this act—and perhaps more particularly one that we are going to discuss later under the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 —is that copyright and protections of design, patents and trademarks are matters simply of establishing regimes which conform to market forces. Of course, that is not correct. In that context, I will quote from Dickens in a different speech, this time at Boston, but on the same trip. He put it very well to the dinner where he was guest speaker:

But before I sit down, there is one topic on which I am desirous to lay particular stress. It has, or should have, a strong interest for us all, since to its literature every country must look for one great means of refining and improving its people, and one great source of national pride and honour.

As we consider not only this particular bill but the next bill, and when we were considering earlier this morning changes to other acts that affect intellectual property, we have to remember that what we are talking about is not simply the production of profits. Certainly we are talking about those things, because that is what these bills are intent on protecting, amongst other things, but we are also talking about matters that go to, again in the words of Dickens, `Refining and improving our people'—he said `its people'—`and one great source of national pride and honour.' That is what we are talking about here. We are talking not simply about matters that go to the sorts of things that economists might talk about but about matters that go to the national spirit of Australia and to its sense of identity.

I see that recognition is given to people who write articles—to journalists and to others, such as cartoonists, who produce material which is then copied. Those who copy the work of others should pay in so far as they make use of the intellectual property that they copy. This is another instance of how this law will develop and keep developing.

Clearly technology guides us in many areas, and it guides us in the area of intellectual property as well. I am looking at the Copyright Act 1968. It is a tome—and I use that word advisedly—that is destined to increase as new ways of translating intellectual property around the world develop. The problem that exists in the government's approach is that they are looking at it too much in terms of finances. (Time expired)