Senator ROBERT RAY (8:19 PM) —I think the first point to make about this particular debate tonight on the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 —and I have watched it very closely from my room—is that we have had some excellent contributions from this side of the chamber. I do not often extend that even to the Democrats, but I did listen to Senator Allison's speech and Senator Murray's speech—

Senator Jacinta Collins —No, no, no. Not that one.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sorry; I thought they elucidated the Democrats' position extremely well, so they have my congratulations. I also watched the speeches of my esteemed colleagues—Senator Bolkus, Senator Lundy, Senator Cooney, Senator Murphy and Senator Faulkner—and it did remind me, talking about copyright, of that great Sherlock Holmes episode that all hinged on the dog that did not bark, because that has occurred here tonight. We have not heard one contribution—not one contribution—from the government senators opposite. They are so uninterested in copyright they cannot even be bothered coming down to the chamber and defending their position. There is no National Party senator here.

Senator Carr —Where's the cocky's corner?

Senator ROBERT RAY —Two Liberals only are in the chamber, both on duty. There is no interest whatsoever in the copyright issues and the changes being proposed in this legislation. I can remember them, Senator Carr, having the cheek, when they were in opposition, to criticise the then government for not putting up enough speakers on bills.

Senator Carr —That's right. They're hypocrites.

Senator ROBERT RAY —They would put up 30 speakers on the appropriation bill, we would put up five and we were criticised. But what do we find now? We find this important bill before the Senate and they are still finishing dinner in the dining room. They are not interested in these crucial issues before the chamber.

It is true to say that plagiarism has been a great problem through the ages. It is not easy to detect plagiarism. There are, of course, blatant examples of plagiarism. Do you know what has stopped plagiarism in this country more than anything else? It has not been legislation; it has not been academics—

Senator Faulkner —It's been self-discipline.

Senator ROBERT RAY —It has not even been self-discipline. It has been someone called Stuart Littlemore. Stuart Littlemore, through his program Media Watch , over almost a decade continually exposed those who would plagiarise. The program always did it by voice-over and highlighter pen. It was always one of the most entertaining 15 minutes known when he went to the issue of plagiarism. I must say it was taken—

Senator George Campbell —And it was on the ABC.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, Senator Campbell, it was on the ABC. But, of course, complaints from the Bulletin magazine and changed editorial policy—probably at the prompting of certain people that I wipe my feet on day in and day out; I will not identify them—meant that the negotiations to restore the program under proper conditions were removed, and Mr Littlemore had to move on. But time and time again, he was able to expose people stealing the works of others. On some occasions that led to them being removed from their employment—the ultimate sanction, I would have said. It was the ultimate sanction against them; they lost their jobs. That is the blatant form of plagiarism that I am sure everyone in the chamber would oppose.

Then there is the second form of it, what we call the `poor footnoting' plagiarism, where people basically quote the ideas of others and do not properly attribute them. This is all the way through academia. It is all the way through books, through various journals and, occasionally, through newspapers—although I think we would all agree that it is not essential for newspapers to be full of footnotes; that would clog up the space. But provided acknowledgment is there in some part of the newspaper article that these ideas are representing someone else's, then we would not regard it as plagiarism. Poor footnoting over the years has been one of the great problems.

The greatest problem, of course, is taking the ideas of others, and blending and rewriting them to so disguise them that you cannot detect it.

Senator Hogg —Demidenko.

Senator ROBERT RAY —My colleague mentions the Demidenko issue but, in fact, that was detected and was dealt with by having vigilant people. But that was not the cause celebre—we have had the great cause celebre. The worst breach of copyright I have ever seen occurred in this parliament. Honourable senators will recall a speech delivered in May 1996 by the member for Cowan in the other place. The member for Cowan gave a 20-minute speech which, by his standards, appeared unusually lucid, cogent and convincing. It appeared to be a well-researched and informed speech—all characteristics which my colleagues do not normally associate with the member for Cowan. In particular, the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham), listening to the member for Cowan's remarks, was sure that he had heard or read them somewhere before. It became apparent, on further investigation, that the member for Cowan had in fact lifted the greater part of his speech from an article entitled `The age of social transformation' by the respected management guru Mr Peter F. Drucker.

The article by Mr Drucker had been published in the Atlantic Monthly in November 1994 and, I understand, had been supplied to members of a parliamentary committee of which the member for Cowan was a member. The member for Cowan delivered his speech in the House of Representatives without in any way acknowledging the fact that he was drawing extensively on the work of Mr Drucker. Indeed, the member did not just draw extensively on the works of Mr Drucker, he read great slabs of it into the Hansard as though it was his own work.

Senator George Campbell —The great pity is that he would not have understood any of it.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator, that is a bit unkind. I do not know whether he understood it or not. The real question here is: what protection exists for authors whose intellectual property is stolen in this way, given the existence of parliamentary privilege?

The truth is that privilege provided the member for Cowan with an absolute defence. His absolute protection accounts for his extraordinarily arrogant response when this issue was first raised in the House of Representatives by the member for Werriwa on 27 May 1996. He simply stated that he had written to Mr Drucker, advising him that he had raised the speech in parliament. There was no apology, no shame—nothing. There was just a letter to the author after the event—and after he had been busted—saying, `Here is a speech which I gave and which I have copied for you. Thought you might like a copy. Cheerio.' It is the worst example of plagiarism I have ever seen.

It was only later, when the true extent of his plagiarism had become apparent, that he was forced into a humiliating and grovelling apology in the House. He even begged the Speaker to have the speech expunged from the records of parliament. He wanted his shame removed after he had been caught. That was his great regret: not that he had plagiarised and stolen ideas from others or that he had pompously put forward ideas and constructs that he was intellectually incapable of understanding let alone developing, but because he was caught. Of course, we know it is not possible to have these things expunged from Hansard—well, if you are chairman of the Economics Committee you can give it a good try. But, if not, you usually cannot expunge these things from Hansard. It does say to us that acts of thievery by parliamentarians who are too lazy to conduct their own research will result in their being caught out and people will be punished—not by way of fines, because privilege covers that, but by way of humiliation.

That certainly had a very bad effect on the member for Cowan. It was only a little later that he became the great advocate for cat genocide in this country. It was only a few months later that he went out and wanted every moggy in Australia destroyed. It must have affected him, because that was his second apology within a few months.

I have a bit of advice for the member for Cowan. If he comes down into our street and takes on my cat, he is in big trouble. I know the minister at the table, Senator Alston, would appreciate that. He would know that my cat, Mick, is named after someone we both admired in the past. I see Senator Alston gesticulating, and he has got him in one through sign language. I am pleased to see the minister is paying attention. The member for Cowan would have a lot of trouble because my cat is so obsequious and such a groveller to everyone in the street who looks like a can-opener that he would not just have me to defend him when the member for Cowan came down—not the plagiarist anymore but the cat genocider. He would have no chance whatsoever.

Let me move on to a more serious aspect of copyright. It is one that my colleague Senator Carr might address later on because he has had more recent experience. There are constant breaches to copyright going on in Australia at the moment, that I understand and almost condone; that is, every school in Australia—

Senator Carr —You're not going to have a go at schools, are you?

Senator ROBERT RAY —No, I am not. Every school in Australia basically is forced to breach copyright. There is no way, given the resources applied to schools, that teachers do not photocopy things they should not photocopy. It is not that these people want to act in a criminal way, and it is not as though these people are inclined to illegality. Frankly, with the lack of textbooks and with the lack of resource material that many schools have been faced with, it is much easier to put the book on the photocopier, not pay any royalties, and run it off.

There are special provisions for schools; I understand that. But not a day goes by in schools where, in some form or other, copyright is not breached. It is not just a question of photocopying. Showing of videos has now become an essential tool in teaching, provided it is used correctly. There is no point in just going to school and showing the class a video; a whole range of techniques must be used to bring out the right responses in students to develop their analytical skills. But, certainly, showing a video to 20 or 30 people at a time breaches that very thing up front—that scrolled message about the conditions in which that video was produced and sold to individuals.

The third area where copyright is often breached is school plays and school musicals; copyright is applicable to any of those things. It is for this reason that I am particularly narked at the attitude of Andrew Lloyd Webber, who will not allow any school—irrespective of royalties, but they would be too high anyway—to put on any of his productions. This affects the very people who are going to be interested in drama and musicals and go on to be the people generating that interest, who will buy theatre tickets and who will pay his way. He puts nothing whatsoever back into drama, back into musicals, et cetera, through this attitude. What you have seen in Victoria—I do not know about the other states—

Senator Faulkner —He wrote Cats .

Senator ROBERT RAY —He actually did Cats . You are right.

Senator Carr —There is a symmetry.

Senator ROBERT RAY —There is some symmetry. But it is a pity, because a lot of schools now, through copyright—and this is one area they tend to obey it in because it is advertised everywhere—have had to reduce or eliminate plays and musicals from the repertoire and, as such, a lot of children are being deprived of what is really their right to a broad and widespread schooling, which a lot of us missed out on. When I went to school, we did not have school plays or musicals. You only did two things in your down time: you played football or you played cricket. That was it.

Senator Faulkner —Would you have got a part in a musical anyway?

Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Faulkner raises the question about how I did in music. In fourth form in music there were 157 students and 156 passed.

Senator Carr —Which school was that at?

Senator ROBERT RAY —This was Beaumaris High. I was the only one to fail. The test of passing and failing was that the music teacher asked you whether or not you enjoyed the course. If you said yes, you passed. I was the only contrary, obstinate person that, even at the age of 15—just to get in their face—said no, and I failed music in fourth form. I really might need an extension of time here. I am only halfway through the material.

Let me raise another problem with copyright that came to my attention five or six years ago. This is to do with the on-selling of video movies and the small business man. One of the problems of copyright is that the very threat of invoking sanctions by a large conglomerate can have a massive effect on a small business. A small video outlet was run by two brothers at the Chadstone shopping centre. They sold home movies; they did not rent them. They were importing their videos from the UK. You got a wider range of videos at that stage; they were very restrictive in their output.

The US producers and owners of these videos—even though copyright had been paid in England—prosecuted this particular company, and $60,000 was demanded of them. What was their choice? They could have contested it in the courts, but it would have cost them a couple of hundred thousand dollars. In the end, they had to give up their importing rights, and they had to pay the $60,000. Given the high rent there at the time, it meant their business suddenly went from a good business to a marginal business. So we have to understand when we are enforcing copyright that, if we give the powers to very powerful movie studios and distributors, we will see that power misused. I hope the provisions here are going to ameliorate that position rather than exploit it.

Senator Faulkner mentioned that one of the key elements of this particular proposal is the way it affects journalists, and that must always put a government of the day in a difficult position, because often they have to make a choice between the rights of journalists and the rights of proprietors. We know the attitude that this government takes to journalists. It was only a few weeks ago that this government managed to put out this list known as the `black list'. These were journalists who were regarded as too pro-Labor. This was sent around to all the ministerial offices. So a certain person was to be avoided because he had been a media adviser to Bob Hawke. Another person was to be avoided because he was a media secretary way back in the Whitlam government days. Another was to be avoided because he was an assistant private secretary to Mr Chris Hurford, and on it goes. One was even black-listed because he had been the biographer of a particular Labor figure. There is another here who apparently was a media adviser to the Aboriginal affairs minister in Western Australia; she was blackballed on this particular list, and on it goes.

It is a fair list. It actually lists press gallery journalists with coalition backgrounds: David Turnbull from Nine news who worked for Hewson and Reith. David Barnett—it is a big surprise that he is there! I wonder if they got that wrong—no they have not: David Barnett, freelance, Fraser media adviser. That is the nicest description of him I have heard for a long while.

Senator Faulkner —You certainly wouldn't mention the Howard biography, would you?

Senator ROBERT RAY —The Howard biography is now selling at $4 in Melbourne, and I tell you what Senator Faulkner: I am yet to buy it. I reckon it will go to a dollar—and then I will buy it.

Senator Murphy —You could get one free!

Senator ROBERT RAY —I am not sure I will get one free, but I reckon I will get it for a dollar before Christmas—and I will buy it because I am a great believer in political biography. Then there is Nick Hordern, Reith media adviser. They are the three who are listed there for balance.

So you always have to wonder about a government when it is drawing up legislation such as this. They have to be careful that they get the balance right with what are the justifiable rights of journalists without the government of the day obsequiously crawling to media proprietors—something that, of course, is not unique to this current minister, although he certainly has achieved perfection in this particular art form; it has occurred on other occasions. So how we resolve this will be an important consideration in the committee stage of this bill. I did want to make some comments about copyright as it applied in the Soviet Union and in China, but I might have to leave that for another time.