Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Whilst the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is largely a technical bill, it is, as the member for Griffith quite correctly points out, an important one. It's not going to grab headlines, but headlines are what it's all about because we live in a digital media age. We live in the information age.

When I was a newspaper journalist, indeed a newspaper editor for more than a decade, I was fortunate to have some of the experience imparted upon me by Bruce Burke. Bruce Burke is a very good defamation lawyer, particularly specialising in the media. He won the Australian Press Council Press Freedom Award in 2022 for his work. He was very good at the traditional print media, and the media landscape has changed vastly. I refer to the book, More or Less: Democracy and New Media, edited by Helen Sykes. Far be it from me to start quoting Labor members of parliament or former members of parliament, but I note that in the chapter titled 'Free Speech, Responsible Media, Law and Liberal Democracy', by former Attorney-General from 1993 to 1996, Michael Lavarch, he writes—and quite correctly too—about the role of media in a democracy. He notes: 'The media plays a central role in our lives, even more so now that we can access a range of media sources through the gadgets we all carry around. I do not just mean social media but also more traditional forms, such as television, radio and newspapers. We have an abundance of information and opinion at our fingertips, all jostling for our attention.' He says: 'In order for democracy to flourish, it is vital that the citizen has various sources of information and access to proper forums for open and fair debate. The media plays a critical role in stimulating debate about important issues, presenting facts and reporting news, uncovering corruption and misconduct, and providing a vehicle for diverse perspectives.' And he's very right. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject.

Further on in the book there is a chapter by no less than former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, a journalist of some note—and I think once a journalist always a journalist. He writes about what he calls 'at least two big questions':

Will enough readers pay enough money to view online news to offset the loss of advertising revenues from the printed medium? What is the best paywall model that will hit the sweet spot of subscription revenue and at the same time ensure there are enough readers to maintain advertising yields?

He says that the jury is out on both—and, indeed, it is. Our media is under pressure like never before. We need to help and support it, and encourage any moves of the government. I know that the government has done something in this regard, and I encourage that.

This bill is important because it puts some framework around copyright, and, while it's a complicated matter, it's a very important matter. I know that the—I won't say the coalition's position; I'll just say that the Liberals' and the Nationals' position is to support the legislation. I appreciate that it has gone before the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and inquiry thereof, but it is important and noteworthy. There are several schedules to the bill, which I'll refer to in a moment or two.

I also want to acknowledge the work that the previous coalition government did in relation to supporting publishers against the big meta companies. Yesterday's edition of the Daily Advertiser, which I once edited, was just 16 pages. I cannot recall in all my time as the editor of that publication it being so thin. Their advertising has fallen off the cliff. It is so hard for them to make a buck, but they're still investing in journalism; they're still investing in writing and photography and local news. Whilstever they're prepared to do that, we should protect them and help them by way of government advertising, but certainly with legislation that does protect their copyright—legislation that protects the work that they create and the work that the people they invest in create.

I know that former treasurer Josh Frydenberg—may he come back soon—in 2021 did a lot of good to strengthen the companies in Australia that do invest in Australian content and Australian journalism. At the time, he flexed his muscle and bent the arm of these big companies that, if you let them ride roughshod, will just take the content and plonk it in their own publications with no copyright paid. There's no dues paid or compensation paid for the work that has been created here in Australia—here in regional Australia.

We do need to protect the ACMs of the world, because what we don't want to see is a landscape where there are no printed editions being lobbed on front driveways and lawns. Yes, everybody has one of these—a mobile phone—and a lot of people use them for their news, and that's great, but there are still people, particularly in regional Australia, who love their little local newspaper—the Tumut and Adelong Times, the Temora Independentand they're really successful newspapers because they're doing the parish-pump stuff. That parish-pump stuff is copyrighted to those people producing it, and so it should be.

I had a conversation earlier this afternoon with Michelle Grattan, somebody who I've got the utmost respect for. She runs the Conversation. We all know the fine journalism work that she has done for decades, and long may that continue. The Conversation, which I recommend people read, has really investigated this copyright angle—particularly, as the member for Griffith pointed out, in this changing and emerging world of ChatGPT and the information age in which we live. In one article, author Wellett Potter, lecturer in law at University of New England, writes, 'If ChatGPT wrote it, who owns the copyright?'—it's a good question—'It depends on where you live, but in Australia it's complicated.' That's why we're here today. That's why we're discussing this.

It's a shame there's not more speakers on the bill. I note the member for Nicholls holding up the lines for the Nationals. We're in there; we're fighting the good fight for and on behalf of those people who understand and appreciate what copyright means in this changing world. The Conversation also had a very good article by Agata Mrva-Montoya: 'An AI startup has agreed to a $2.2 billion copyright settlement. But will Australian writers benefit?' It's a very good question, because all too often the courts are determining and deciding on matters pertaining to copyright, but are the penalties or the resolutions of these cases—the money—filtering down to the people who actually created the items or the photographs or the art pieces or whatever in the first place? The author wrote:

If the settlement is approved by the presiding judge, the company will pay authors about US$3,000 for each of the estimated 500,000 books included in the agreement. It will destroy illegally downloaded books and refrain from using pirated books to train chatbots in the future.

Another article in the Conversation, the author of which was Alice Grundy, a visiting fellow at the School of Literature, Language and Linguistics at ANU, was 'The Productivity Commission is floating AI copyright exemptions—with worrying implications for Australian authors and publishers'. That's why we do need to act. That's why we do need to be on top of this.

Whilst it is a complicated subject, I appreciate the member for Griffith mentioning the former attorney-general and his work in this regard, and I would very much encourage the new attorney-general, the member for Greenway, who is a former minister for communications, to have her department and her staff look at this because it is an important topic and we do need to protect Australian authors and Australian writers. We particularly need to do so to help Australian media companies that are investing in Australians and investing in Australian journalism. I'll stand up here and cheer them on every step of the way.

In this article by Ms Grundy, it's written:

This would make it legal to train artificial intelligence large language models, such as ChatGPT, on copyrighted Australian work. AI training would be added to the list of "fair dealing" exceptions already existing in the Copyright Act.

Why? The Productivity Commission estimates—

wait for this—

a potential A$116 billion over ten years flowing into the Australian economy, thanks to AI.

So it's upon us, and we have to act.

All too often, in areas such as this, governments of all political persuasions are too slow to act. I commend the bill and I commend what it brings. We do need to put, as the member for Griffith said, careful guardrails around it because it is too important. We have to get it right. We can't muck this up and get it wrong.

I'll go to the various schedules of the bill. Schedule 1 establishes an orphan-works scheme to facilitate the use of orphan works by limiting the remedies that are available for infringing uses of these works. It sounds all rather complicated, but 'orphan works' refer to copyrighted material where an owner is unknown or unlocatable. You can understand that, with people changing jobs and going here, there and everywhere in this day and age, it is sometimes difficult to find out who, in fact, actually wrote the piece in the first place, and sometimes articles in newspapers are unbylined. Sometimes pictures and other works do not carry the author's name—the taker's name, in the case of a photograph. Currently, anyone using unauthorised reproductions or adaptations of existing works may face significant financial consequences, even where genuine attempts have been made to identify the original creator.

You will get some people who think it's just their right and their privilege to cut and paste and to pinch anything to use as memes and all those sorts of things. But somebody has generated that image or that article in the first place, and there is a duty upon the person who's lifting it to at least try to find out who the original content author was. The legislation will require users to conduct a reasonably diligent search, and people should do that. They absolutely should.

Schedule 2 clarifies that a copyright exception related to the performance and communication of works in the course of giving educational instruction applies to online and hybrid educational environments. I have a daughter who's a teacher; in fact, she's an English teacher and a drama teacher. It is important for not only students accessing their education online but also younger students who may require assistance from a parent or other person, but it also comes back to teachers, and the onus is on teachers. I tell you what: when you are a teacher these days, you're not just a teacher; you're a parent, you're a caregiver, you're a parish priest, you're a sports coach, you're a therapist—you are everything. You have to make the meals for the kids! You wouldn't be a teacher for quids, quite frankly. We owe it to our teachers to do everything we can to help them in their absolutely fine work. And I'll tell you what: if you are a teacher, thank you. Thank you for the work you do for and on behalf of Australian families everywhere but for our future as well.

Independent and Catholic sectors are calling for broader reforms as part of this bill. I do hope that the government has put this out to discussion enough. Sometimes I do fear that the government doesn't do that and doesn't take on the stakeholders, but this is an important aspect of it. Those organisations, the independent and Catholic sectors, wanted to see a public interest fair-dealing exception so teachers can safely use digital and AI tools without risking copyright breaches. As I say, teachers are very good at what they do, but they can't be bush lawyers as well and try and take in everything. So fair's fair.

Schools have largely welcomed the change. They say it's only a first step—and they're right—as the law fails to meet the needs of modern schools, particularly as AI creeps into our schools, creeps into our computers, creeps into our lives. We need to be on top of that, absolutely.

Schedule 3 makes other minor and technical changes, including reallocating powers to appoint certain members of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia. We hope that these people are diligent and across everything. I'm sure they would be. But the bill, in what it is attempting to do, is an important piece of legislation. I commend the government for doing what they're doing in this important area, which is not everybody's cup of tea, but it is mine. Well done to the government for that.

See this speech in context