Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a largely technical bill, the product of several years of consultation, roundtables and review work undertaken by the government in 2023. It's also been the subject of examination by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. While the coalition will not oppose the bill in the House and is likely to support it in the Senate based on the outcome of that inquiry, it is important that this parliament understand what this bill does, what it does not do and why its reforms matter.

Copyright is not an abstract legal concept. It is about protecting Australian creators, teachers, students, libraries, museums, small innovators and the cultural and economic value of the material that they both produce and preserve. It's about balance, clarity and fairness, and it's about making sure our laws keep pace with how Australians learn, teach, share and create today. Australia's Copyright Act 1968 is more than 50 years old. It has been amended often, but it has not always kept up with new technology, new learning environments or new cultural expectations.

This bill makes two sets of reforms. Firstly, it establishes a statutory orphan works scheme to allow responsible use of materials where rights holders cannot be found. It clarifies education exceptions for remote learning, ensuring teachers and students are protected when classes are delivered online or in hybrid form. Finally, it makes a series of technical and administrative amendments to modernise appointments, tribunal processes, archival definitions and notification methods. These reforms are incremental, but they're sensible and widely supported by a broad range of stakeholders. These amendments do not alter the fundamental rights of creators. They do not diminish the value of copyright, and they do not introduce the highly contentious text and data mining exception that many artists and creators feared.

Schedule 1 introduces a long-awaited statutory framework to deal with orphan works. Evidence suggests that as much as 70 per cent of library collections may include works where the copyright owner cannot be identified or located. Under the bill, a user is protected from infringement remedies in such a situation only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, if they have undertaken that search within a reasonable period before use and if they've maintained records of that search and provided clear and reasonably prominent notice that they are using the work under the orphan works scheme. If the owner later emerges, they are entitled to a reasonable payment or to negotiate terms for its continued use. If an agreement cannot be reached, a court may set terms or issue an injunction to prevent the ongoing use. These protections are set out in new division 2AAA of part V of the act, including sections 116AAD to 116AAF.

This scheme unlocks enormous cultural value for galleries, libraries, archives and educational institutions. For too long, these institutions have been unable to digitise, preserve or make available materials simply because a rights holder from 60 years ago cannot be traced. This bill provides a lawful path forward. At the same time, the scheme safeguards the rights of creators. A diligent search must occur, records must be kept, notice must be given and any payment demanded by the rights holder must be reasonable and fair. However, the Senate inquiry heard stakeholders' concerns about lack of clarity in defining terms such as 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', particularly in commercial settings. These questions are not insignificant, and clarity will be essential to avoid unnecessary litigation. The opposition will keep a keen eye on how these terms are considered in practice.

Schedule 2 clarifies one of the most important issues arising from the pandemic: the copyright status of remote education. Section 28 of the Copyright Act currently allows teachers to perform or communicate works in the presence of students. This language made sense in 1968; it makes very little sense in 2025. The amendments make it clear that the exception applies to educational instruction delivered in person, online, through hybrid teaching or through real-time digital platforms. These changes reflect the way modern classrooms operate. Teachers no longer stand in front of a blackboard with chalk. They teach via Zoom, Teams, interactive whiteboards, learning portals and live streams.

Importantly, the bill also ensures that parents, guardians and community members assisting instruction are protected under the exception, provided they are not doing so for commercial gain. This is especially relevant for children learning from home, for students with disabilities, and for regional and remote families. However, the exception is not intended to apply to delayed viewing of pre-recorded classes. Copyright holders strongly opposed extending the exemption to recorded or delayed instruction. This issue was explored further by the Senate inquiry and remains a pressing concern. In their additional comments, coalition senators noted the need to balance copyright holders' rights with the needs of regional, remote and special-needs educators. The opposition will continue to monitor whether the contemporaneous instruction requirement strikes the right balance between providing educational access and protecting creators' rights.

Schedule 3 is largely housekeeping, but it matters for the clarity of the law. The bill modernises appointment processes for the Copyright Tribunal, shifting some functions from the Governor-General to the minister or the Federal Court CEO. It updates the definition of 'archives' to align with current state and territory archival bodies. It replaces outdated references to the Gazette with modern notifiable instruments and clarifies the interaction between Crown copyright and part VII of the act. None of these measures are controversial. They streamline administration and they remove redundant provisions.

It is also important to be very clear about what this bill does not do. The orphan work scheme cannot be used to justify large-scale AI training on copyrighted material. The explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges that this would be impractical and inconsistent with the requirement for an individual, diligent search for each work used. The Attorney-General ruled out a text and data mining exception in October 2024. The coalition strongly supports that position and, in fact, has been calling for such since the beginning of 2024. I should give a shout-out to my predecessor, the former shadow attorney-general the member for Berowra, for his good work in that space. Australian creators must not have their work scraped, copied or monetised by AI companies without permission and fair payment. This bill does not alter that principle in any way.

Most stakeholders support the bill, but several have raised concerns that the reforms are too incremental. The education sector welcomes the remote-learning clarity but argues further reforms are needed. Independent and Catholic schools have called for broader fair-dealing exceptions and a modernised approach to digital content, technology and AI. The copyright and publishing sector largely supports the orphan work scheme but wants clearer guidance on diligence requirements so small institutions are not exposed to risk or inconsistency. These concerns are precisely why the opposition supported the Senate inquiry process.

The Senate inquiry, which reported on 19 December last year, allowed stakeholders to provide detailed evidence regarding these concerns. Ultimately, the committee recommended that the bill be passed as drafted, reflecting the position of most stakeholders. Coalition senators supported the bill, noting it aligns with longstanding coalition support for modern copyright laws that balance access with protection for creators. In its additional comments, the coalition noted it would continue to monitor stakeholder issues throughout the bill's implementation. This includes concerns that ongoing use in exchange for court-determined compensation could weaken deterrence or bargaining power if not carefully managed. It also noted the need for clearer guidance on reasonably diligent search and compliance burdens for businesses and, as mentioned, the issues around recorded lessons, particularly for regional, remote and special-needs education.

Copyright laws must support Australian creators, protect the value of their work and encourage innovation and learning. This bill broadly achieves those aims. The bill is measured and responsible. We will not oppose the bill in the House, and we are very likely to support the bill in the Senate based on the findings of the Senate inquiry. We will continue to push for clarity around key terms, including 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', and we will continue to defend the rights of Australian creators against any attempt to open the door to unauthorised AI training. These reforms are practical, incremental and beneficial. They do not alter the fundamentals of copyright. They do not diminish creators' rights, and they deliver long-sought clarity for teachers, students and cultural institutions.

This is an uncontroversial bill, but it is an important one. It modernises our law in sensible ways. It supports the responsible use of cultural materials. It clarifies educational practice for the digital age, and it updates long-outdated administrative processes. The coalition will continue to approach these reforms with commonsense and respect for the rights of creators, educators and institutions and will continue to ensure that copyright law remains fit for purpose in a world where technology is evolving faster than ever before. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context