Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Imagine an Australia without books by Patrick White, Tim Winton or Kate Grenville. Imagine an Australia where the only place you can buy books is in supermarkets or discount stores. Imagine an Australia where the only books they stock are written by Americans, about Americans and for Americans. Far-fetched? I do not think so. This is the future I fear if a proposed recommendation by the Productivity Commission to remove parallel import restrictions on books is accepted. I believe changing the current rules will put our cultural heritage at risk in addition to thousands of jobs in the book publishing, printing and distribution industries. Territorial copyright allows authors to license their creative work in different countries. This means that most new Australian works are first published and printed in Australia and the import of any overseas printed editions is prohibited. To ensure that Australian consumers can access books by foreign authors promptly, they must be published within Australia within 30 days of their original publication or else local booksellers can import editions that have been printed overseas.

The Productivity Commission has recommended changes to a system that has worked well since its introduction by the Hawke Labor government in 1991 and has fostered the development of a highly efficient domestic book printing and publishing industry. Most other countries have similar laws of territorial copyright. Australia is the third-biggest English-language book market in the world but, if we change our copyright laws, none of our major competitors—the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada—would do the same. They will continue to protect their authors, their printing industries and their cultural heritage. That is most important—we are being asked to do away with our territorial copyright laws when our major competitors will not do the same.

We only have to look at the music industry to see the potential impact of changes to book import rules. In 1998 import restrictions on CDs were abolished with the hollow promise of cheaper CDs. Since then, thousands of jobs in the music industry have gone and many recording studios have closed. In the 1980s and mid-nineties Australia had a vibrant and creative music scene, with local acts achieving worldwide success. They were a vital part of promoting this country overseas. As senior industry executive Mr Michael Smellie recently pointed out, Australia has not had a major artist with worldwide status since Savage Garden in 1997. The reality is that any movement there may have been in the price of music CDs since 1998 has far more to do with changing technology, including online sales of digital music, than any changes to import legislation.

I have to confess to being a covert supporter of the free market, and we should never return to the days when millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money propped up inefficient enterprises whose directors drove around in black Porsches. But territorial copyright is not a taxpayer subsidy; it is legislation that enhances our creative culture and does not cost the taxpayer a single dollar. It is difficult for Australia to compete with lower wage countries in an increasingly globalised economy. Our future prosperity will depend on our innovation and our creativity. This is why the Rudd government is investing so heavily in education. But this investment will be wasted if we do not also create the right social conditions to foster creativity and innovation. Scientific and economic innovations do not exist in isolation; they are best developed as integral parts of a dynamic and creative culture in society. Creativity in the arts has a vital connection with innovation in industry and commerce. The problem for the economic rationalists at the Productivity Commission is that they cannot put this into their spreadsheets. I am tempted to accuse the commission of understanding the price of everything and the value of nothing, but that would be giving it too much credit.

The commission’s recommendations are predicated on the assertion that books are cheaper overseas than in Australia, yet it cannot produce conclusive evidence to back up this claim. It admits there are limitations to overseas price comparisons, and the Australian dollar exchange rate at the time has a major influence on any price differences. The commission is unable to say by how much book prices might fall if its recommendations are accepted and it cannot guarantee that any reductions will be passed on to consumers instead of increasing the profits of a small number of retailers who are lobbying for these changes. The recommendations by the Productivity Commission put at risk Australia’s book printing industry, its environment, its culture and its economic future. There is no credible case for changing the current rules on the importation of books and it is vital for the future prosperity of this nation that this recommendation is rejected.