Senator MURPHY (6:19 PM) —The Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 , if passed, will give effect to reforms of the Copyright Act 1968. This was, unfortunately, announced by the government in its election policy statements. The first explanatory memorandum of the bill states:

The Bill:

. introduces comprehensive moral rights provisions for authors of copyright works and directors and producers of films;

. amends the law in relation to ownership of copyright in the works of employed journalists to ensure that newspaper and magazine publishers have all electronic and residual rights in the journalists' works and a right to restrain large scale photocopying to protect circulation;

. amends the law to prevent the owner of copyright in packaging and labelling of goods not protected by copyright from using that copyright to stop anyone from importing the goods;

. will give the courts discretion in awarding the remedy of conversion damages for copyright infringement;

. introduces a sampling scheme for copying done by governments to determine the amount of equitable remuneration to be payable to a relevant collecting society, instead of the present individual notification and payment to copyright owners; and

. makes minor machinery, streamlining and tidying-up amendments to the provisions concerning: the Copyright Tribunal; border interception of infringing imports; and the statutory licences for copying by educational institutions and institutions assisting people with a disability.

I particularly want to talk about schedule 3 of the bill. Schedule 3 intends to remove the right of importers to use packaging and labelling as it relates to imported goods. The explanatory memorandum says:

Importers of goods that are not protected by copyright are presently able to use the importation provisions of the Copyright Act to control the importation of those goods through the copyright in the artistic and/or literary works on the packaging or labelling or through the copyright in accompanying materials such as instructional video and audio tapes.

It goes on to say:

There is no clear market information about the extent of this practice. It is believed to be quite widespread in some industries such as the liquor and toy industries. Other industries such as footwear and sunglasses also have reported instances of this practice.

It says further:

Removal of the ability to use copyright in this way would eliminate one of the means by which exclusive market access is able to be provided to certain distributors of such goods and would implement a recommendation of the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC).

In 1988, that committee recommended that there be such changes as are proposed. I do not know what research the government did with regard to this, I do not know whether there is some obsession with alcohol and toys, but there are many more industries that will be affected by schedule 3 of this bill. I will come to those in a moment. The original explanatory memorandum then goes into three alternatives. The impact analysis, which is in effect three paragraphs long, says:

The liquor and toy industries—

as I have said, I do not know whether there is some leaning towards liquor and toys—

have argued there will be an adverse impact on standards and unfair free rider activities regarding advertising. They suggest that, for example, advertising for Bailey's Irish Cream—

I know that is a good old conservative drink—

by the exclusive distributor will be utilised by competitors who import directly. They also suggest that competitors could import substandard models or products from currently non-utilised sources leading to greater potential for injury or death and product servicing costs. They say that their industries are price and service competitive so that no changes are necessary.

Then it says:

It is impossible to accept these industry submissions. Such products, and the circumstances of their sale, are independently regulated through a variety of other laws, for example, through food standards . . .

As I said at the outset, I do not know what research the government did in respect of this particular aspect of the bill, but it obviously was not much. I cannot understand why the Democrats, as Senator Allison said, are `reluctantly supporting' the government in this instance. The Democrats often come in here and lecture us in respect of their position as it relates to small business and the like and how much support they give small business. I usually find the Democrats take a fairly good line in their research effort—checking out the circumstances and the impacts that legislation can possibly have, on small business in particular—but I have to say they have failed on this occasion, otherwise they would not be `reluctantly supporting' this legislation.

The types of industries and businesses, particularly small business, for Senator Allison's benefit, that will be affected by this schedule of the bill are far greater than grog and toys. Submissions that I have received on the impact of this particular schedule have ranged far and wide from all sorts of industries—the sporting industry, the car industry and, of course, the alcohol and toy industries. It is across a whole range of industries. I cannot see where the government has done any research on the employment impacts of what it proposes here. One industry, the fishing industry, which I always hold dear to my heart, is very important in respect of this matter.

I have received a huge number of representations from various small businesses around the country that have built their business on the basis that they import a particular product, brand name product, into this country. They expend a lot of money in the promotion of that product either in the local paper or on the electronic advertising mechanisms available to them. That, of course, has a flow-on effect.

One of the points that is stated here in the impact analysis of the government with regard to the service, et cetera is a point that was raised by the people in the industry. Most consumers like to know that they can take goods back if something goes wrong with them, that they can take them back to a business that has been generally long and well established. They can feel secure in purchasing a product that, in turn, they can then take back if something goes wrong with it, if it gets damaged, in terms of warranty, et cetera. I think we all know that, even with the current use of the copyright law, there are many businesses in this country importing goods which become fly-by-nighters, and people who buy products from them then lose out.

What are we really doing this for? The government says, `Has there been a huge outcry from the public that we need to change the law to actually provide something of benefit to the public? Is it going to make these products cheaper in the main? Is anyone suggesting that?' I think not. I think those people who are price conscious with regard to a lot of products already have a mechanism available to them to purchase those products, import those products, cheaper if they so desire. Most people can do it through Internet shopping and do so.

But the fact remains that those people who may well have imported their product will take it back to the distributor or the retailer who is the primary seller of those particular products if something goes wrong with it. Schedule 3 of this bill, if passed, will remove that. Why would business people who are either retailing or distributing products want to remain in a situation of competing with every man and his dog who are importing products? Why would they want to do that?

Surely the government must understand that there will be a huge impact on employment in the small business sector with regard to servicing, et cetera. There will be a huge impact in advertising. As I say, the fishing industry is always dear to my heart, and I think of all the advertising of distributors that appears in magazines. I think about all the papers that are produced specifically and paid for with promotional dollars from distributors and retailers.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Senator MURPHY —As I was saying before the suspension of the sitting, it is very difficult to understand the government's approach to this matter purely on the basis of the research that they obviously have not done because of the impact that their proposals in this bill will have on so many small businesses in this country. I will quickly go to a couple of letters that I have received which outline some of the problems that will be experienced by people so far as the bill is concerned. This is a brief piece of correspondence that I received from Conquest Sports Pty Ltd:

There are too many negatives to list individually, but the most important impacts on my business would be:

a) Increase in subquality product without guarantee.

b) An overall downgrading of brands.

c) Reduction in principals investing in advertising, staff, etc.,

d) Confusion over responsibility for faulty footwear.

e) Increase in cheaper products in the short term at the expense of brand growth to the exclusive distributor (investor).

f) Increase in the black market economy.

All of those things are true. Another letter is from a person who employs 45 people, has a turnover of around $25 million per year and would obviously spend a significant amount of money in advertising both in printed form and in electronic form. You can go to a whole host of other people.

But more importantly so far as sport in general is concerned, what about sponsorship? It has been by the very fact that you have had exclusive brand names that sports people in particular have been able to obtain sponsorship. Of such importance is this matter that the Sydney Olympics Games Committee wrote around—indeed, wrote to the government as well—saying that they had a very serious concern with the proposals put for ward by the government. In part, their letter states:

It is a matter of public record that SOCOG licensed its intellectual property rights to Games' licensees and sponsors in order to raise revenue for, and preserve the financial integrity of, the Games. SOCOG is concerned that the Games' sponsors and licensees may be adversely affected by the proposed amendments.

Obviously the government did not pay too much attention to that. Let us look at Reebok, one of the brand names, to see the teams that they sponsor that governments do not. They provide sponsorship dollars to the following teams: the Australian Wallabies, the Australian Olympic team, Essendon Football Club, Western Suburbs Football Club, Manly Rugby League Club, Cronulla Rugby League Club, Randwick Rugby Union Club, the Sydney Kings basketball team, the Perth Wildcats and the Newcastle Falcons.

Reebok also sponsors the following individual athletes: Pat Rafter, Stuart Appelby, Emma George, John Eales, George Gregan, Tim Horan, Jason Little, Greg Welch, Geoff Toovey and Brad Bevan. Then they go into other events such as the Forster Ironman, the triathlon grand prix, Ford Australian open tennis championship and the Reebok three on three. Those are just the direct Reebok dollars. They also provide dollars indirectly through the stores that sell those products to a whole host of other sporting events at a local level.

Why would those people want to continue that sort of sponsorship when there is no benefit for them? As I said before, why is the government so adamant about taking this decision and pushing this legislation through when there is no real tangible benefit—certainly no social benefit except they might claim that things will become cheaper, but that just does not hold up.

I keep referring to this impact analysis because it clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the government's research. We are going to subject people to imported products coming in which, in some instances, may well be cheaper. But we will open up a market in a way that the public benefit will be adverse to what the intention of the legislation really is. I have dealt with the fly-by-nighters and the issue whereby people can purchase imported products. In the case of the hundreds of employees that work for distributors in the fishing industry, so many jobs will be lost as well as the millions of dollars that are spent on advertising. No argument has come from the government with regard to how that will be maintained—none whatsoever. We have not heard verbally—nor is it contained in the explanatory memorandum in any way, shape or form—how they see this expenditure, a significant employing expenditure, being maintained.

There was some concern, I have to say, from the government, because they decided that they had better move an amendment. So we get a supplementary explanatory memorandum that says that schedule 3 of the bill will not have effect until one year has expired after the bill receives royal assent. What is the purpose of that? What good does that do? It does not change anything. It does not take away any of the very valid arguments that were put up by the industries involved in the importation of many of these products. It does not take away any of the arguments that distributors have put up and the effect that this legislation will have on them.

It would seem that this minister somehow thought he needed to introduce legislation. He had to make change, not unlike he has been proposing with respect to CDs. He had to do it. He locked himself in. He has suffered a number of defeats in this place. The gloss has certainly worn off Senator Alston being the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. He has done nothing in respect of the arts. He has bashed up the ABC. So he is really down to the wire here. There are two pieces of legislation, and he wants a win. Hopefully, the Senate tonight or tomorrow or the day after—we will wait and see what Senator Ian Campbell has to say—will not give him that win because he does not deserve it, not with legislation like this. Frankly, he is not fit to be the minister, and you lot over there are not fit to be the government.