Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and the companion Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill. This is a good bill. It is good for Australian authors. It is good for Australian publishers. It is good for libraries. And, ultimately, it is good for readers, because if we want Australian stories on Australian shelves then the people who write, illustrate, translate, edit and publish those stories need to be able to keep doing the work. That should not be controversial, although in the arts even the obvious sometimes has to be legislated.

This bill is about a simple proposition: when Australian books are made freely available through public and educational libraries, the people who created and published those books should receive fair recognition—not charity, not a pat on the head, but recognition and payment for work. That is the principle at the heart of the public and educational lending rights. It is also a principle I strongly support. I am a supporter of the arts, not because the arts are decorative but because they are part of the infrastructure of a good society. They are how we tell our stories. They are how we record who we are. They are how kids find a world bigger than the one immediately in front of them. They are how communities like mine in Moore see themselves reflected back with honesty, humour, beauty and occasionally an alarming degree of accuracy.

Libraries sit right in the centre of that. In Moore, the City of Joondalup libraries at Joondalup, Duncraig, Whitford and Woodvale are much more than buildings with shelves. They are community infrastructure. They are places where kids discover books they did not know they needed. They are places where parents can take their children without needing to spend money. They are places where older Australians stay connected, informed and curious. They are places where someone can borrow a novel, learn a language, watch a documentary, join a program or simply sit somewhere quiet without being expected to buy a coffee every 20 minutes. That is a fairly radical proposition in the modern economy, and it is one worth defending. Libraries make culture available to everyone, regardless of income. That is one of the great democratic achievements of public life.

But there is another side to that equation. Free access for readers should not mean unpaid work for writers, and that is what lending rights recognise. When a book is available in a public library or an educational library, that availability has value. The community benefits from it, the readers benefit from it, students benefit from it, schools benefit from it, and the author should benefit from it as well.

The Public Lending Right Scheme has been part of the Australian cultural landscape since the Whitlam government approved it in 1974. That matters. It reflects a very Labor idea—that access to culture should be broad but that the people who make the culture should not be expected to survive on applause. Applause is lovely, but it does not pay the rent, it does not cover groceries, and it is notoriously difficult to use at tax time. The reality is that many Australian authors do not earn large incomes from writing. The minister has noted that the average income for an Australian writer in 2021 to 2022 was reportedly $16,100. That is not a sustainable income. It is not even close. Yet these are the people whose books sit in our libraries, whose stories are read in classrooms, whose work helps shape our national imagination. We should want more Australian writers writing Australian stories. We should want children in Gwelup, Padbury, Craigie and Heathridge to pick up books that speak in Australian voices. We should want emerging writers to look at the industry and think: 'There is a pathway here. It is difficult, but it is possible.' This bill helps with that. It will not solve every challenge in the literary sector, and no-one is pretending it will. But it gives practical, concrete measures that improve the system and give creators certainty.

In the 2024-25 financial year, more than 17,000 payments were made to eligible creators and publishers through these schemes, totalling more than $28 million. For some people, the payment may be modest. For many creators, it matters. It can be the difference between taking the time to write the next book and having to put the manuscript away. It can be the difference between staying in the industry and leaving it. It can be the difference between an Australian story being written and that story never existing at all. That is why this bill matters.

The bill brings the public lending right and educational lending right schemes together in a single contemporary legislative framework that is sensible. The public lending right has had a statutory basis for decades. The educational lending right has operated administratively since 2000. This bill brings them together under one roof that gives authors, publishers, schools, libraries and government a clearer and more modern framework. It also recognises that educational libraries matter. The books that students encounter at school can stay with them for life. Sometimes, it is the book a teacher puts in your hands at exactly the right moment. Sometimes, it is the novel you were supposed to read but only appreciated later. I am looking at The Great Gatsby right now! Sometimes it is the book you pretend not to like, because you're 14 and are therefore required by law to be unimpressed by everything. Those books matter. The people who create them matter too.

The second important reform that this bill recognises is the digital formats. That is essential. People still borrow physical books, and I hope they always will, but they also borrow ebooks and audiobooks. They borrow through platforms like Libby and Hoopla. They listen in the car, on the train, on a walk, while cooking dinner or while pretending to clean the garage. That is how people read now, and the law should reflect that. A lending rights scheme that did not properly deal with ebooks and audiobooks would be a scheme looking backwards. This bill looks forward. The government expanded the schemes to include digital content through the Revive national cultural policy. This bill locks that recognition into legislation. It is important because creators deserve certainty. If digital borrowing is part of the modern library system, then digital borrowing should be part of the modern lending rights system. That is not radical; it is just keeping up.

The bill also establishes a unified public and educational lending rights committee, with representation from authors, publishers, libraries and the Public Service. That is good design. The people affected by the scheme should have a role in advising on how it operates. It means the framework is not just imposed from above; it is informed by the people who understand the sector and the practical realities of writing, publishing and library lending.

The companion bill then deals with the necessary transitional rights. That is the sort of thing that rarely makes headlines, and fair enough—transitional provisions are generally not where the nation goes looking for glamour. But they matter. They ensure continuity. They protect existing claimants. They make sure the system moves from the old framework to the new without unnecessary disruption. In plain terms, the machinery needs to work, and this bill makes sure it does.

I also want to speak more broadly on why this matters to communities like mine. Moore is not just a place of roads, schools, hospitals, shops and sporting clubs, although all of those matter deeply. It is also a place of creativity. We have local writers, we have musicians, we have visual artists, we have choirs, orchestras, community arts groups, school productions, festivals, exhibitions and people making extraordinary work, often with very limited resources.

Earlier this year, I hosted Susan Templeman, the Special Envoy for the Arts, in Joondalup, and we brought together local arts organisations and community representatives, including people from the Peter Cowan Writers Centre, the Joondalup Symphony Orchestra   , the Mirabilis Collective, Creative Edge Art Collective, the Joondalup Community Arts Association and the City of Joondalup. The message in that room was clear: there is enormous talent in our community. There is ambition and there is generosity, but there are also real challenges in sustaining creative work. That is why I keep saying, 'Culture is infrastructure.' It is not an optional extra. It is not something that should get considered after everything else is done. It is part of what makes a place liveable, connected and confident.

Joondalup is increasingly recognised as Western Australia's second CBD, and, if we are serious about that, we need to think about the cultural infrastructure as part of the city we are building. That means venues, it means festivals, it means public art, it means live music, it means libraries, it means writing centres, and it means supporting the people who make the work. Laneway Festival coming to the Joondalup arena showed what is possible when major cultural events are brought north of the river. The Joondalup Festival continues to show the depth of local appetite for art and culture, and our libraries show it every week in a quieter but no less important way.

This is why this bill fits within a broader view of cultural policy. It says that Australian creative work has value. It says that public access and fair payment can sit together. It says that authors and publishers should not be left behind as reading habits change. It says the Commonwealth has a role in supporting the growth and development of Australian writing and publishing. And that is the right approach.

I also welcome that this bill is framed around Australian creators and Australian publishers. Australian stories matter. We live in a world where global content is everywhere, instantly available, constantly refreshed and algorithmically served. There is nothing wrong with enjoying work from around the world, but we should never become casual about the importance of our own stories. Australian children should grow up reading Australian voices. Australian communities should see themselves in Australian books. Australian writers should be able to build careers telling Australian stories, and Australian publishers should be supported in bringing those works to readers. This is not about cultural protectionism. It is cultural confidence, and the arts help us understand ourselves. They help us argue with ourselves. They help us remember. They help us imagine something better, and sometimes, very importantly, they give us a much-needed laugh at our own expense. A country that cannot do that is in trouble.

This bill is practical, modern and fair. It consolidates the schemes. It strengthens certainty. It recognises digital lending. It supports authors, illustrators, translators, editors and publishers. It backs libraries as democratic cultural institutions. It helps ensure Australian stories continue to be written, published, borrowed and read because behind every book borrowed from a library is someone who did the work, someone who sat down and wrote the sentences, someone who revised the manuscript, someone who illustrated the pages, someone who translated the words, someone who edited, published and produced the book and then the librarian who placed it where the reader could find it. That chain matters. This bill respects that chain. It supports the people who make the Australian literary culture possible, and it does so in a way that keeps libraries open, accessible and central to community life. That is exactly the balance we should be striking. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context