Senator CARR (8:39 PM) —This Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 is obviously very important, given the interest that is being expressed in it tonight. It is little wonder that the particular clauses in the bill should be given such attention. Senator Ray has just delivered a very erudite and humorous response to some of these questions which really goes to some basic considerations of the way in which the media are presented, the way in which information is conveyed in our society and the way in which creative property is in fact protected. I am afraid all too little of that is measured by this government's interest in these intellectual questions.

This bill seeks to introduce by 11 schedules comprehensive moral rights provisions for authors of copyright works and for directors and producers of films and to amend the law in relation to the ownership of copyright in the works of employed journalists to ensure that newspaper and magazine publishers have all electronic and residual rights in journalists' works and a right to restrain large-scale photocopying to protect circulation.

That particular clause is one that I would like to give consideration to. As Senator Ray has indicated, it is a serious problem in this country at the moment as a consequence of what is now a persistent neglect by governments at a state and federal level. Particularly with the election of Liberal governments in this country, we have seen a gradual retreat from the proper support for public education. Schoolteachers, who have a duty to provide the highest possible level of tuition to their students, are required to keep up to date with information and, as a consequence, are often placed in an invidious position where they in fact do break the law. I think this is happening all too often these days, where insufficient resources are provided for curriculum development in schools and, as a consequence, teachers are required to photocopy class sets of material simply because the books are not available.

It is a simple, straightforward economic fact of life within the education system today. I am afraid it is increasingly becoming so. What occurs is that there are serious reductions in funding for education, as we have seen by this government which in real terms has reduced support for public schools by about $89 million. That flows directly through to the states and, of course, the states in turn have followed a similar pattern. For instance, my state of Victoria has seen the closure of nearly 400 hundred schools now, the removal of thousands of teachers and a reduction in the education budget of perhaps in excess of 20 per cent. That has meant that there are larger class sizes and fewer teachers about to provide an educational service to students.

Invariably there are attempts made to shift what limited resources are available back to the school level, and that means that all too often it is the case that individual teachers have to take responsibility for the distribution of the very limited resources that are now provided, much less than ever has been the case in the past. They have to make very hard decisions about whether or not they buy a class set of books, or photocopy. As I have said, all too often these days the situation is that authors' work is being used in this manner, without the proper according and provision of financial support to them for the protection of their intellectual property rights.

Senator Faulkner —Was this an issue when you were a schoolteacher?

Senator CARR —It certainly was a very serious issue. In fact, with the introduction of the gestetner this became apparent—

Senator West —Are you that old?

Senator CARR —Yes, I do recall the gestetner.

Senator Robert Ray —He was around with the fordigraph.

Senator CARR —Senator Ray draws my attention to the old fordigraph. Well, of course, we have moved through these various forms of technology to where we are today, where there are, of course, advanced photocopiers, and individual teachers are faced with this dilemma. Libraries are required to provide single copies of most texts, but they simply cannot provide the resources these days to have complete class sets.

Senator Faulkner —That would be a particular problem in Victoria with Mr Kennett's cutbacks.

Senator CARR —That is a point I have made, Senator Faulkner. You are absolutely correct. But I will draw to the Senate's attention again that the closure of so many schools has meant that resources that were available are not necessarily being redistributed to other schools. What you are finding is that the increase in class sizes and declining teacher numbers within the school system has meant that there are limited—

Senator George Campbell —Remember when those teachers at Maribyrnong and Footscray told us about all the strife they were in when trying to get resources for the kids.

Senator CARR —That is exactly the case.

Senator Alston —Tell us why you can't get a job on the frontbench.

Senator CARR —I have, Senator Alston.

Senator Faulkner —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I draw your attention to the fact that Senator Alston was being disorderly by interjecting a moment ago.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson) —There is no point of order, Senator Faulkner, as you may be aware.

Senator Faulkner —On a further point of order: with respect, I think there is a point of order. It is disorderly for any senator to interject during a contribution being made by another senator. I do not want to canvass your ruling but, with respect, I would ask you to reflect on that and give it a little further consideration. I think it is disorderly for any senator to interject.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Faulkner, I have reflected on it. I did not hear Senator Alston interject, so there is no point of order. I call Senator Carr.

Senator CARR —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am pleased that your hearing is of such high order. I would like to reiterate that, particularly in Victoria—and Senator Alston has drawn my attention to the situation in that state, and he would be only too aware of today's headlines in regard to that state—

Senator Sherry interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Carr would you resume your seat. Senator Sherry, interjecting is disorderly, as I have just been reminded by Senator Faulkner. Could you please refrain from interjecting?

Senator Faulkner —On a further point of order—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes, I did hear Senator Sherry.

Senator Faulkner —I was going to say that it appears that interjecting is only disorderly when it is Senator Sherry who is the interjector.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On the point of order, Senator Faulkner, that is not the case. You may not have realised, but my attention was distracted just prior to you taking your earlier point of order so I did not hear Senator Alston, but I did hear Senator Sherry. I call Senator Carr.

Senator CARR —The question before us is the issue of copyright, as I was trying to explain before I was so rudely interrupted by Senator Alston. There are serious concerns about whether this government is providing adequate resources to the education system in this country to prevent the widespread abuse of copyright and whether or not there has been adequate protection for the authors' intellectual property rights within the educa tion system. I think more money should be provided to assist with the protection of intellectual property rights for authors in regard to our education system. Provision is made within this legislation for some electronic production and distribution of materials, but quite inadequate provision is provided in regard to printed materials, which is still the foundation stone of our education system in this country.

This bill also seeks to amend 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. It also seeks to give the courts discretion in awarding the remedy of conversion damages for copyright infringement. It 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. The bill 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. Senator Faulkner has drawn particular attention to those measures.

Senator Jacinta Collins —And Senator Bolkus.

Senator CARR —Senator Bolkus, Senator Lundy, Senator Murphy and Senator Ray have highlighted the concerns the Labor Party has with each of those measures. My concern is particularly with the amendment contained in schedule 3 of this bill. Schedule 3 of the bill, in regard to parallel imports and copyright and accessories, is an important issue.

Senator George Campbell —It is outrageous.

Senator CARR —This is a matter of grave concern to me. It is an attempt by this government to essentially let slide through this parliament, as Senator Campbell has highlighted, outrageous provisions which essentially will see the globalisation of copyright.

Senator George Campbell —All those T-shirts we printed.

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Carr resume your seat. Senator Campbell, it was made quite clear by Senator Faulkner, when he objected to interjections, that he wanted Senator Carr to be heard in silence, so I would ask you please to remain silent while Senator Carr finishes his speech. I call Senator Carr.

Senator CARR —Thank you once again, Mr Acting Deputy President, for your concern to ensure that I am heard in silence. The question of copyright is one that this parliament has had the constitutional obligation to consider for some time. It is a fundamental principle outlined in the original federation framework in terms of the question of copyright being a matter for the Australian parliament to consider.

Australia's international obligations in regard to copyright are ones that I think we have always taken very seriously within this parliament. While various measures have been taken over time to strengthen our performance in these matters, I do think a great deal more needs to be done. Various measures were attempted during the period of the Labor government and lapsed in the run up to the last election. This government is essentially seeking to reintroduce measures which were under consideration.

There are areas in regard to schedule 3 which do concern me, particularly in so far as they affect Australia's good international reputation. While generally we can say that Australia does have a good reputation in regard to its compliance with international agreements dealing with intellectual property rights, there are some gaps. There are some considerable gaps in regard to the question of moral rights in terms of copyright legislation. Australia has only limited protection from moral rights and, as a consequence, it has not been possible in this country to allow persons or an institution to buy, say, a work of art or to modify a display in a fashion which the artist would consider denigrates his or her reputation. In the notes that I have seen, various questions arise with regard to sculptured works, which we know was an example given to us on many occasions in the committee considerations of these issues. Australia, nonetheless, has to acknowledge that it has an important role to play in trying to act as a brake on the globalisation of intellectual property rights, which will be to the detriment of individual artists within this country. When considering schedule 3 of the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 —

Senator Jacinta Collins —Not enough consideration.

Senator CARR —There has not been adequate attention paid to these basic questions.

Senator Murphy interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order!

Senator CARR —Do you want me to sit down again?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes. I am concerned that you get the protection that Senator Faulkner thinks you require to finish the speech, Senator Carr. So I would ask members on my left to please not interject.

Senator CARR —Once again, Mr Acting Deputy President, your diligence is refreshing. You would be very interested to know that, frankly, this government has failed the fundamental test on this question. I am sure you would agree with me on that proposition.

We could ask the question: has the government sustained the need for the proposed changes to the Copyright Act through schedule 3? It certainly has not. Secondly, we would be entitled to ask: has the government consulted with Australian businesses and those affected parties in the preparation of this legislation? I notice that the Labor senators have unanimously replied `no' to that proposition. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you would agree that there has been inadequate consultation on these matters.

I look forward to Senator Campbell drawing our attention to the report. The government simply has not undertaken any analytical work on the implications of the proposed changes. It is seeking to justify the need for legislation on the basis of vague generalities and without any demonstration of the need for change in regard to the net benefit to the community.

There have been various vague assertions by this government since the copyright law reform report in 1988 that that was sufficient grounds for consideration on the consultation issue. I reject that. The government must acknowledge the fact that it has not directly engaged the business community, the artistic community, in this country. I do not believe that there has been sufficient consultation prior to the introduction of this legislation on this schedule.

The failure of the government to substantiate the need for proposed changes to the Copyright Act by way of a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of the changes to the business community with regard to investment in jobs and to consumers with regard to the effects on price and availability and, of course, the questions of service and safety must be tested. The government must be asked to actually demonstrate in clear terms—and I trust the minister will, in due course, demonstrate in clear terms—the net benefit and the data on which the government's judgments have been made. We have heard very little from the Liberal Party on these questions. They thought this would just slip through without any attention. I am afraid they are in for a bit of a surprise on that issue.

The community impact study undertaken by the international and independent firm Price Waterhouse does indicate to us that there are very serious implications of this bill and they ought to be clearly understood by this parliament.

Senator George Campbell —I have got the report here.

Senator CARR —Senator Campbell, no doubt, will be able to provide us with a detailed analysis of that report.

Senator George Campbell —Senator George Campbell.

Senator CARR —Senator George Campbell, that is. We have not heard from Senator Ian Campbell for some time. He is here! I am looking forward to his contribution on other matters.

Senator Murphy —On moral rights.

Senator CARR —There would be a very short debate from this government if it were on moral rights. On the question of parallel imports, the Price Waterhouse study demonstrates that there is a grave threat to over 9,000 jobs as a direct result of this government's actions. As to business turnover, there would be a reduction of some $3 billion in economic activity. The advertising expenditure may, in fact, be reduced by some $281 million. There is an increased risk for small and medium sized Australian companies in maintaining their current business and their capacity to develop future business opportunities.

In addition, other suggested legal options suggested by the government to protect businesses, such as the trademark and health and safety laws, just do not help. The practical experience of Australian companies in these laws will not assist these companies in the marketplace. It is completely misleading for the government to continue to claim that other laws are suitable alternatives because I think the case is very clear that they simply are not. I trust that Senator George Campbell will be able to go in some detail to those questions.

Senator Sherry —What about the National Party?

Senator CARR —We have not heard a word from the National Party on these issues. In fact, we hear very little from the National Party in this parliament on anything.

Senator George Campbell —They are out celebrating their new mobile phones.

Senator CARR —No doubt in due course we will get to discuss their latest weasel agreement with the government on the question of mobile phones, but on this issue, which is a very important question with regard to trademarks, we have not heard a word. In fact, we have heard nothing from anybody over there on the other side.

There are real concerns being expressed about the threat to consumers, particularly of substandard products or products not designed or modified in Australia, and Senator Campbell has drawn my attention to the issue of mobile phones. We heard tonight on the news about the prospect of people now being able to `enjoy' the benefit of three mobile phones at any one time, if they can afford them. I can tell you that, when they privatise Telstra, none of them will work because you can guarantee that the service levels will go through the floor.

Already, if we go, say, 50 kilometres from this great city, we do not have a mobile phone service, but they are going to propose to us that some new gadget at great expense will fix that. I say to you that, under a privatised Telstra, there will not be a service because they will not pay. You know the set up: no matter what the copyright arrangements, no matter what the brand name arrangements, you simply will not have a service available to you.

The whole issue of consumer protection is a very basic one and ought be given proper consideration. In the absence of other legal mechanisms to protect consumer safety, appropriate protections under the copyright laws cannot be removed—which, of course, is what this government is proposing—unless other workable mechanisms are in place.

Senator Bolkus interjecting—

Senator CARR —There is some authoritative information being provided to me by Senator Bolkus and others to highlight the deep concerns that the Labor Party has about the question of consumer protection and about the failure of this government to stand up on these issues.

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

Senator CARR —Senator Campbell, it has to be understood—

Senator George Campbell —George Campbell.

Senator CARR —Senator George Campbell—how important it is for the Senate—

The PRESIDENT —Senator Carr, you should be addressing your remarks to the chair not to one of your colleagues.

Senator CARR —I notice that Madam President has joined us for this discussion. It suggests to me there might be other matters that she would like to hear from us on, and no doubt she will hear from us at some length on these questions. But I think you, Madam President, would be only too well aware how important it is for the Senate not to ignore the safety of Australians. I trust that you would not support any proposition being brought to this Senate that would harm the safety of Australians.

I am afraid that is what this schedule does. That is a matter of great concern to me even if it is not a matter of great concern to the Liberal Party. It is a very unfortunate fact that the threat to Australian companies posed by these proposed changes to schedule 3 simply must be resisted by the Senate. I trust that any proposition advanced by the government will be defeated by this Senate, because I am sure this Senate will not ignore the safety of Australians. (Time expired)

Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question put.