Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. By its nature, it's a rather uncontroversial bill. As the member for Deakin said, it's supported across the chamber. It makes a lot of technical changes. These reforms are the result of several years of consultation, roundtables and review work commissioned by the government in 2023. I just want to say that I and a lot of us are strong supporters of copyright. Creators—whether they're artists, musicians, writers or photographers—should be paid for the reproduction or use of their works and should be acknowledged for those things.

Copyright has become very topical in the last 10 to 15 years. My own artistic endeavour is music, and when I was a wannabe rock star, back in the day, I was in a band called The Hunted and I co-wrote a song called 'The Ballad of the Aimless Artist'. I always want to make sure that the ideas that I put forward are protected in some way. It's interesting to see the way the music industry has evolved, particularly with a number of claims. One famous one was by the American guitarist Joe Satriani, who had a piece of music called 'If I Could Fly'. The melody is remarkably similar to Coldplay's 'Viva La Vida', and, when that was challenged, it was settled out of court. Of course, there's also the famous Australian example of the Men at Work song 'Down Under' and 'Kookaburra' about the Kookaburra who sits in an old gum tree.

It's become something that courts and, indeed, legislatures across the world and in our own country have had to grapple with. What is an original idea? When has someone else used it, even if they didn't mean to breach the copyright? If the idea existed and then someone else gains from it, there does need to be some clarification and restitution for that artistic idea.

I've also had a keen interest in looking at this bill through a regional lens, particularly as there are a lot of implications for distance learning. The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 amends the Copyright Act 1968. Have a think. That's a long time ago for a law to be updated. The bill introduces an Australian orphan works scheme, and I support this. It clarifies the scope of section 28 of the Copyright Act, relating to the performance and communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction. This is an important change for regional, rural and remote education, from early childhood through to tertiary, as I'll explain.

An orphan work is basically copyright material for which the owner cannot be identified or located to seek their permission to legally reutilise it. Permission is ordinarily sought from the copyright owner before using copyright material in a way that engages the rights of the owner of that material under the act. But, if the copyright owner is not known or cannot be located after reasonable effort, the orphan works scheme would facilitate the use of these works as long as reasonable efforts have been made and notice is given in a clear and prominent manner that the work is being used for the purpose of the orphan works scheme. The intended outcome of this is a very good outcome, particularly in the realm of education. It means that a larger collection of cultural, historical and educational works held by our cultural and educational institutions will be available for the benefit of researchers, educators, students, family historians, creators and the wider Australian community.

The bill also amends section 28 of the act. Section 28 offers an exemption where a literary, dramatic or musical work is performed in a class for the purpose of education. It's not deemed a public performance, which would enliven the copyright, if the audience is limited to persons who are taking part in the instruction or are otherwise directly connected with the place where the instruction is given. The bill modernises the act to take account of the modern methods of learning, and that's really important. Music should be something that people can make a living out of, and that's getting harder and harder with the proliferation of music-streaming programs. It's been made harder after COVID, which had a really significant effect on the live music scene. But, having said that, I note that music is a really important part of education, and we want to make sure it's there for young people to use, to be inspired and to learn not only about music but about the art of creation and the release of endorphins and, as a former prime minister said, the chemical reaction that happens in a brain when they hear a certain piece of music, I'm referring, of course, to Mr Keating, who was a big fan of the works of Mahler and Debussy and other classical works from that period.

This also clarifies the education exemptions that apply to instruction delivered in person, in online or hybrid classes, or via real-time digital technologies. It reflects the modern and connected world we live in and, importantly, acknowledges the reality of delivering remote learning and distance education. Remote learning has been happening in Australia for a long time. I think back to the School of the Air and what that meant to so many remote families, with the way that children could get an education through the School of the Air. That's obviously become more of a reality in the age of the internet and the web. It's enabled better educational facilities and facilitation for people who live in those rural and remote areas. An example of that is my own experience where I was able to complete an MBA at the Shepparton campus of La Trobe University. A lot of the time, there were five of us with a facilitator in the front room of the La Trobe University Shepparton campus at night, receiving the lecture that was coming from Melbourne. That was broadcast to us, and we were able to get, in real time, the lecture that the students at the business school in Collins Street, Melbourne were getting. That will be further enhanced by this legislation, because there won't be the copyright problems that existed with broadcasting some of that material.

There have been some sticking points. I've been informed ahead of this debate that a clarification will be made to ensure that the remote learning exception works even when the technical equipment being used to deliver a remote lesson is being operated by someone other than the teacher, such as an IT support person. That's just common sense. The bill as drafted had an unintended consequence: that teachers could not use the orphan works scheme for works and broadcasts. But I'm assured that that will be addressed.

That brings me to one last sticking point, and I hope that there's a way through this and that common sense can prevail. The exemption applies to live instruction but not on-demand or catch-up learning. So, for remote educators, that's going to be difficult and limiting, because they'll give a lecture—they'll use this material—to students and broadcast it live, in real time. But there will be students, of course, who can't get to that lecture or can't get to that class—they may be sick; they may need to catch up—and, if they can't watch a recording of that, it's going to limit the teacher's or the educator's ability to deal with that situation. I think it's just one little piece that the government could look at to try and see if there's a commonsense solution to that, moving forward, so that, without breaching copyright or keeping something indefinitely recorded, there is a way that, within a certain period of time, there could be a catch-up lesson used without breaching those copyright requirements. A sensible approach would be to allow for that on-demand or catch-up—as long as it meets the dominant purpose test in section 28, and that is educational instruction.

So I support the modern, practical copyright laws that balance the user access with creator protection. Those wonderful artists, musicians and people who are creating all sorts of things need our protection and need to continue what they're doing. But I think the change to the law, which I commend the government for, that allows educators to be able to use some of this material, and the orphan program, are positive steps. I just would urge the government to see if there's a workaround where we could get the educators to be able to record that, hold it for a very short period of time and only use it for the students that missed the class and can watch it within the week or something like that and get the benefit of that education. But otherwise I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context