Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Griffith, we are lucky to live in a place that tells stories everywhere you turn. Along the Brisbane River, through the backstreets of West End, at the school crossings at Coorparoo and Camp Hill, at the weekend sports fields and in the cafes that hold a thousand conversations every day, our community is made up of people sharing knowledge, memory, culture and connection. Sometimes it's big and public, sometimes it's quiet and personal, but it is how we make sense of who we are and how we pass that on. And that brings me to copyright.

Deputy Speaker, 'You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag,' and, I confidently say, 'you wouldn't steal a television.' For many Australians, that old piracy ad from 2004 is still our most vivid introduction to copyright; it has become somewhat of a cultural joke, but the point behind it still matters.

Australians want to do the right thing. We want rules to be fair. We want to know what is allowed and what is not, and how to respect the people who make the work we all rely on: writers, musicians, educators, film-makers, photographers, publishers, artists and so many more. When the rules are clear and practical, people follow them—not just because they have to, but because we understand that copyright is one of the ways we recognise labour, reward creativity and keep Australian stories being made. That is the balance that this bill is working hard to strike.

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 makes two important improvements. First, it creates a sensible way to deal with 'orphan works'—material that is still in copyright but where no-one can identify or locate the owner. Second, it makes sure the laws apply consistently in classrooms, whether teaching is happening face to face, online or in a hybrid model, including when parents or community members are supporting students.

These reforms are not coming out of nowhere. They are the product of the copyright roundtables held across 2023, where stakeholders across the creative sector, education, libraries, archives and institutions came together to name the practical problems and work through sensible solutions. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the member for Isaacs for the diligent work he undertook during his time as Attorney-General and for the expertise and persistence he brought to progressing this reform.

If we step outside the formal language for a moment, the problem this bill is trying to solve is simple. We have valuable material in this country—photographs, recordings, documents, newsletters, teaching resources—that people want to share responsibly for the public good. But they cannot, because the law makes it too risky, even when the owner cannot be found. So the safest option is to do nothing, and that means history sits in boxes. It means culture sits on hard drives. It means material that could be educating students or enriching exhibitions stays locked away from the very communities that it belongs to.

In Griffith, in particular, that matters, because we are home to some of Queensland's most important collecting and archival institutions: the Queensland Museum, the Queensland Maritime Museum, the State Library of Queensland and the Queensland State Archives. In those places there are shelves and strongrooms that hold the texture of our state: maps, letters, photographs, government records, film reels and the kind of everyday documents that later become a record of who we were. And there are people in reading rooms: students, researchers and family historians carefully piecing together stories of country, community and public life.

When the law supports responsible access, staff can bring more of that material into the light, into exhibitions, into classrooms and into online collections, so it is used, learned from and valued rather than kept out of reach. That is what the orphan works scheme does. It creates a clear pathway for a library, an archive, a museum, a community organisation or an educator to use material when the owner cannot be found, provided they have done the right thing first. They must make a responsibly diligent search for the owner, they must keep a record of that search, and they must clearly note when they are relying on the scheme. This is not a free-for-all. It's not about ignoring copyright; it's about recognising that if someone has genuinely tried to do the right thing, they should not face the same legal risk as someone who never cared about the rules in the first place. Importantly, it remains fair to rights holders. If a copyright owner later comes forward, they can seek reasonable payment for that past use, and they can negotiate terms for ongoing use. If they cannot agree, a court can set the terms and an owner can seek to stop future use. In other words, the scheme unlocks public benefit while still respecting the people whose work sits behind these materials.

It also has another important effect. It can help reunite owners with works that have unintentionally become orphaned, which may open up new revenue streams and new audiences for their work. The government amendments also make something clear for education users. In some circumstances, a teacher or a school might choose to rely on the orphan works scheme rather than the education statutory licence for a particular use. That choice is available, but it does come with a responsibility. If they use the orphan works scheme, they have to meet the scheme's conditions, and, if an owner later comes forward, they cannot then fall back on the statutory licence for that same use. That is a fair balance: choice for education users and clear protection for rights holders.

The second main measure is about the reality of modern teaching. When I graduated with my teaching qualifications in 2008, I could not have imagined the changes we are now seeing in education. Many schools now teach in ways that move between classrooms and screens, particularly when students are unwell, when families are juggling work and care or when schools need flexibility. But the laws have not always kept up with that reality. This bill clarifies that the same copyright rules apply in a live class whether it is happening online or in person or is a mix of both.

It also makes clear that parents and carers can be involved and that other people can assist in teaching or supporting students, including members of the community, as long as the instruction is not for profit. That matters because when learning works best it is not only teachers carrying it alone. It's families. It's carers. It's community mentors. It's the people who step up to help a child keep going. And the bill is careful about its limits. This does not change licensing arrangements that support creators and publishers. It is still about live instruction. It does not cover streaming recordings for students to watch later. It does not extend to private tutoring. It does not turn school concerts into something unlicensed. It simply gives schools and educators the certainty to teach effectively in the world that we actually live in.

The bill also includes a small set of technical amendments—practical updates to keep the system running smoothly, including tribunal appointments, modernising notification processes, updating references to archives, and clarifying rules around Crown copyright so that ownership changes do not accidentally distort the length of the protection. These are the kinds of changes that do not make headlines, but they do make the law work better.

This bill is a good example of practical reform. It backs our creative and media sectors by keeping rights clear and enforceable. It supports education by making sure teaching can happen confidently, whether students are in the classroom or learning from home and whether parents or community members are helping. And it supports public access to culture and history by unlocking orphan works in a responsible way so that our communities can see more of their own stories and our institutions can share more of what they hold in trust for all of us, and, as I've said, that's particularly important in my community of Griffith. This is balanced, proportionate reform. It is grounded in consultation and will deliver real benefits in Griffith and right across Australia.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Matt Gregg (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about what I agree to be an incredibly important topic. We are, at the end of the day, talking about individual rights—the right of an individual to benefit from the product of their own labour, their original expression of an idea. Copyright has an important role, but there is just so much material that copyright technically covers now. We're producing images, expressing our thoughts and sharing our ideas at a pace unbelievable to those who were alive even only 30 years ago. The world we live in, in this space, has completely changed, and the laws have to adapt with them. We have images that are shared, cropped, shared again and moved between accounts. There is no way we can possibly source the original author. Sometimes, as we now see overseas, the original author wishes to express an idea—share an image that captures a moment in time—but it's not safe for them to share who they are because of the situation in which they find themselves. Nevertheless, they do so not to create a piece of intellectual property or to assert any kind of legal right but as part of communication and to share that idea—to share what's happening to their fellow human being. But copyright does cover all of those original expressions. Therefore, the scope of these laws is very, very real.

We've got to make sure that the individual property rights of those who come up with ideas are appropriately protected at the same time as we as a community are able to benefit from what are sometimes really important expressions of ideas. Those of us who learned history, whether at school or at university, will think back to specific moments in time like the Great Depression and the Vietnam War, and many of us will have the same images in our head that encapsulate those times. Important pieces of copyright material really aid and assist a full understanding of what's gone on in that period of time. But it's not always possible to find out who wrote it. This requires and clearly defines what constitutes reasonable efforts to find out who the owners are and seek their permission to use their original property, whether it's in a textbook or other endeavours. It's important that we balance those two rights together.

This bill really does get it right. There have been consultations going on since 2023. The idea of an orphan-work scheme has been floated since the 1990s, so this is nothing new. It really does not cross party lines in our country's politics or any other like country. This is simply updating what is a very complicated legal regime made only more complicated by the changes in technology that we've seen and the way we use that technology. There's also the free trade agreement with the United States, for example, which also means that copyright subsists for a very, very long time—70 years after the person has died. We are now living a very, very long time. Members of my family might have written something when they were 30, and they're still going 70 years later. These intellectual property rights can exist for a very long period. We've got to make sure that the regime that sits around it is very, very clear.

But we know that, even if we were to confine this to copyright material from the last two years, we're talking about millions and millions of images and ideas. It's not always possible to trace their origin. We're also in a world where, if it's not simple enough to use a genuine image, it's all too easy just to use AI to make a replica. And we don't really want to be doing that. We don't want textbooks full of AI images or impressions of what our source material should be. The trustworthiness and integrity of those materials, whether it's a school textbook or newspaper, sometimes does require the use of primary source material or reliable secondary source material. Sometimes only an image or an expression of an idea will do. It's all too easy to say, 'Well, if you don't know who the author is, just don't use the copyright material.' In some cases that's appropriate, but sometimes there is something so unique—a bit of vision that captures corrupt behaviour, or something that captures a very specific moment in time, which it is uniquely capable of encapsulating—that it is legitimate and reasonable to use it. We need to make sure that that opportunity is available in circumstances generally when there is not an assertive intention to exercise those copyright protections. But we also want to make sure the owners have those legal rights—and it is a suite of rights that come with owning copyright. In most cases the person who's come up with the idea owns the copyright, and it's up to them whether they give others permission to use it, to spread it around and to incorporate it in their own work. Some will say, 'Go ahead,' do it for free and feel quite privileged that that's happened; others will request a fee. It often depends on the kind of work involved. Is it a really cool hit song, or is it just a photo taken at an event, or is it just a tweet shared at a particular moment? All of these can be covered by copyright and are covered similarly by the legislative provisions, but, obviously, all have their very different contexts.

So this clearly defines what we ought to do—what we have to do—in order to enjoy the additional protections of this scheme, and that is to conduct reasonably diligent searches for the owner and then to seek to contact them to get their permission to use the rights. But sometimes that is impossible, either because time has passed or because it's just passed through so many hands, and even the best of searches can't yield a result. And sometimes the original author may have passed away or simply doesn't want to be found. These all happen. These are all real-life examples. We need to have a system that enables these important works to be utilised at the same time as having protections in place for the proper owners.

And sometimes, even if you do cover the author, it's not always possible to track the chain of ownership of an idea. Sometimes, if you come up with an idea, it might actually end up being the property of your employer, for example, because you might have done it in an employment context, and that company might have ceased existing—it might have gone into liquidation; it might have been sold. Sometimes it can be a nightmare to find the true owner of a copyrighted work. So this is a wonderful import of common sense into intellectual property law. It's a wonderful thing to be able to come into the House and say, 'This is uncontroversial. It makes sense. We're all just going to do it because it is the right thing to do and it just makes sense here and now.'

There are challenges, obviously, in terms of copyright. AI presents a new challenge that we haven't seen before, where small adaptations of existing works or recreations of existing works can sometimes be mistaken for the real thing. But I think that, if we want to maintain truth in the way we do media, we have to make sure that proper, original material is there and that we are diligently looking for the sources of those materials. So this will be good discipline, no matter what kind of work you do, because you'll be maintaining that discipline of finding out what the origin is, getting the story behind the work and making sure that you're putting things on air that do have integrity.

We've seen plenty of examples of news coverage that is pulled—AI videos and other things where things have been mistaken. There is no substitute for putting the work into finding out exactly where an image, a video or a clip has come from, because misinformation and disinformation are a very real problem in our society right now. To maintain trust, we need to make sure that we know what images we are using and that there are incentives in place to do the diligent thing and to properly source the material that we have. The orphan works scheme is an incredibly important addition to intellectual property law.

Another key aspect of this bill is the additional protections for educators. Even in the time I was teaching, the nature of classroom work changed significantly. I taught history for a long time. We were using images a lot. But as students became ill, it became normal practice to record our lessons and to share them. There were times when I had to edit what I'd delivered in the classroom to make sure that what I was transmitting by video and through our online learning spaces wasn't inadvertently breaching copyright, so I'd have to edit out bits of the presentations and the like. It meant that it diminished the experience that those other students were having, because they weren't able to see the full presentation.

This also made the job harder for teachers. I think anyone who's worked in our profession knows that we should be doing everything possible to make that job easier, not harder. So this is a reasonable and decent thing to do. It reflects the realities of modern education. Students who aren't in the classroom will often be learning from home and, more often than not, will need the support of a parent or carer in that environment. No-one's harmed by the fact that a parent sees an image that their kid sees while learning history or something. There is no mischief created by that scenario. This, again, is applying common sense that reflects the realities of modern life in a society where we are often not only teachers, there to entertain and to parent; we're also TV presenters a lot of the time. Not only are we teaching a classroom full of young people; we're also creating engaging audiovisual learning materials for those who aren't in the classroom at the time to learn from—and to do so in an enriching way. It is important that we give them every support, including this regime, so they are able to do that in an effective way.

There are technical amendments in this bill as well that go to public ownership of certain works—things created by the ABC and the like. Those do have different dates. We're making it clear that, if it is a piece of copyrighted material just purchased in the ordinary open marketplace, that doesn't change. If the origin is a work done for public purposes, then it is subject to that shorter time limit. That also reflects the public interest by making sure that, in the long term, we, the taxpayers, get to enjoy the benefits of those things that we have paid for and that, after a period of time, we then just collectively own that material and can use it as we see fit. Once copyright ceases to exist, it then becomes public domain and can be used however you wish. Fifty years is not a very long time. Some of my favourite shows are over 50 years old. Copyright is very important, but when it's gone, it's gone.

An honourable member: Get Smart!

Yes, exactly—Get Smart, and other things as well. The passage of time does cause difficulties in sourcing things. While many archivists have, in decades gone by, done a very, very thorough job in cataloguing their works, it is more and more difficult to be able to precisely source some historical images that have just been uploaded with mass uploads of old materials. Sometimes even the best endeavours just cannot find the origins of these things, and sometimes copyright works can be incorporated in other copyright works. There are various complications that can exist in that environment.

This is a very, very welcome piece of reform, and there are some amendments around this that clarify its role in the education space for when there is overlap between the statutory licence and this orphan works regime. It certainly removes any scope for doubt as to the intended application of this regime in the educational environment, which is an incredibly good thing. The reality is many of us are using copyright materials every day. I've seen many colleagues retweeting or reposting images. It's in good faith. It's not to make money, and no-one's losing anything. But that's the world we're in. It is all copyright. It is someone's original expression of an original idea. It is their property. Part of respecting that is a discipline that we all do need to get better at in an environment where things are just moving about so quickly.

We write all the time. We take photos all the time. It's not just the photographer at the local newspaper anymore; it's every single citizen in the community who's carrying a wonderful camera device which can take 4K images, in some cases. They're producing stuff that we all rely on. Those individuals also deserve those rights, just like the hardworking professionals that produce copyright work for a living. This is for everyone who wishes to express their idea in their own way. But, as I said, copyright, in most cases, is just an incidental legal outcome of communication now. We know there's a little less talking in person and going over to people's houses. There's more writing things and posting them online.

Copyright is here, there and everywhere in this era, for better or worse. We can all lament it. But, instead of being a grouchy old man who says that it was better in the old days, we just have to deal with the reality we've got. That is that copyright is everywhere, and, therefore, the legal protections need to reflect that we are talking about individual property rights, which are important in any free society, and we do need to respect those. This balances those. You can—even if you are unable to be found at that moment—within the limitation period go and assert those rights. You are able to recover reasonable compensation, which is absolutely appropriate.

We don't want disproportionate things. We don't want ambit claims for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for simply reposting someone's tweet. There is, again, room for common sense. I can trust our authorities to do that appropriately. But we are in an environment now where it is about time that we update these laws. The world is very different to what it was in 1968. The world has changed fundamentally. I commend this bill to the House. I'm so glad it's supported across the chamber, and I look forward to seeing this become law.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to 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.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. Like the member for Nicholls, I, too, was in a band in high school, but I'm confident that no-one would have been trying to breach our copyright! This bill operates to amend the Copyright Act 1968 to introduce an Australian orphan works scheme; to clarify the scope of section 28, relating to the performance and communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction; and to make other minor technical amendments. The two main measures in this bill arose from a series of ministerial copyright roundtables held in 2023 which brought together stakeholders from a range of sectors to identify and discuss copyright priorities and other emerging issues, and this was done with a view to developing practical and achievable copyright reform proposals for consideration by government.

On 4 December 2023, the then attorney-general, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC, chaired the fourth and final of the series of roundtables on copyright, where 44 participating organisations from a wide range of sectors with an interest in copyright attended. The purpose of this roundtable was for the then attorney-general to hear from participants on the outcomes of discussions that had been held to date and to discuss potential next steps on five reform issues that had been considered in detail throughout the year. Those related to a scheme for the use of orphan works, quotations from copyright material, the use of copyright material in remote learning environments, the implications of AI for copyright law and the definition of 'broadcast' for the purposes of copyright law. So the reforms we're now being offered by this bill are intended to implement what was agreed as part of the roundtable process in relation to orphan works and section 28.

We start with section 28, which covers the performance and communication of works or other subject matter in the course of educational instruction. This section provides that, where a literary, dramatic or musical work is performed in class or otherwise in the presence of an audience and is being performed by a teacher in the course of giving educational instruction not being instruction given for profit—which does not capture a teacher earning remuneration for his or her teaching work—or by a student in the course of receiving such instruction, then the performance shall, for the purpose of the act, be deemed not to be a performance in public 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, like a parent or guardian of a student who is receiving instruction at that place. It covers everyone involved in the educational chain.

The amendments that are being proposed put to rest any suggestion that this section does not apply equally to copyright material regardless of whether the educational instruction is conducted online or in the physical classroom. The amendments also make clear that parents and other persons can assist students in these lessons and that persons other than a teacher, like a member of the local community, a parent or a guardian, can provide educational instruction under that provision without affecting how the relevant use of the material is treated under the act. Any ambiguity as to whether section 28 applies to online or hybrid classroom settings is removed by the proposed amendments, which are not intended to impact existing licensing arrangements that facilitate the provision of support and contribution by the creative and media sector to education.

As to the mechanics required to facilitate this important measure, they are simple. In section 28, subsection 1 (a), the words 'in the presence of' will be substituted by the word 'to' in order to address the potential limitation of the current section 28, which could be read as requiring the physical presence of an audience and to ensure section 28 covers online or hybrid classes. This may mean that the audience to which a performance may be given in the course of educational instruction may include a wholly or partially virtual audience in which some or all audience members are not physically co-located with the teacher or other person or student giving the performance. Section 28 currently applies in a live class context only, and the proposed amendments made by this schedule are not intended to change that position. The amendments are simply intended to clarify that section 28 applies where the educational instruction is given via a videoconference or livestream, which is incredibly important given the prevalence of online learning that has arisen in our educational institutions since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other amendments to section 28 include a new section 28 subsection 9 to put beyond doubt that, for the purposes of that section, it does not matter whether the educational instruction which meets the other relevant requirements of that section is conducted in person or using technology that allows a person to take part in the educational instruction remotely or a combination of both. The underlying policy intention of this subclause is to put beyond doubt that section 28 covers online or hybrid class settings in the same way that it covers physical class settings, including where the teacher or other person giving instruction and some or all of the students are not physically co-located.

The bill also proposes a new section 28 subsection 10, which operates to clarify that, if a person is taking part in educational instruction using technology of the kind referred to in the previous subclause, for section 28 to apply, that participation must occur at the same or substantially the same time as the educational instruction is given. This means section 28 is intended to cover educational instruction given via a videoconference or live stream and is not intended to apply to a person taking part in educational instruction given via a delayed streaming of a previously recorded session. For clarity, the reference to 'the same or substantially the same time' is intended to capture instantaneous or near instantaneous participation in the educational instruction. It's necessary to include this reference to reflect that there might be a slight technical delay in the transmission of the lesson between technology of the kind referred to in the subsection.

Next—orphan works. Copyright generally requires someone to seek the permission of a copyright owner before using copyright material in a way that engages the copyright owner's rights under the act. This, plainly, cannot occur if the copyright owner cannot be identified or located. If the copyright owner cannot be identified or located in order to seek their permission to legally reutilise the work, the work is an orphan work. So the bill proposes a scheme that guides the use of these orphan works.

Where a reasonably diligent search has been undertaken for the copyright owner within a reasonable time before use of the material and a record of the search is maintained for a reasonable period, the copyright owner cannot be identified or located to obtain permission to reutilise the work and notice is given in a clear and prominent manner that the work is being used for the purposes of the orphan works scheme, then the orphan works scheme will apply. So this is a comprehensive reform that protects the right of the orphan works owner and protects the right of the person wishing to reutilise the work. It strikes the right balance.

The bill also contemplates the rare but possible scenario that the copyright owner of a work that is considered an orphan work for the purposes of the scheme does eventually come forward. Protections are provided for copyright owners under this scenario in that the scheme will allow them to seek reasonable payment for past use and for negotiations to occur in the event continued use is desired. If agreement can't be reached, then a court may set reasonable terms for continued use or provide injunctive relief.

The proposed orphan works scheme will provide prospective users with greater legal certainty and is intended to open up access to a larger collection of cultural, historical and educational works held by our cultural and educational institutions for the benefit of researchers, educators, students, family historians, creators and the wider Australian community. It will also provide copyright owners with the potential to earn new income from their works that may have unintentionally or unknowingly become orphaned—as they should ideally be identified through the requirement for a reasonably diligent search—and protections for them in the event that they are later identified or located. In this way, the scheme is intended to be balanced, proportionate and fair to users and rights holders and deliver benefits for all.

Importantly, the bill contains clarity about how it is to be determined that a reasonably diligent search has been undertaken given the background facts relevant to a work that may fall within the orphan work scheme will be different every time. The bill proposes that the competent court consider whether a reasonably diligent search was conducted for the owner of the copyright material.

Under this requirement, it is intended that the court would consider whether the search that was conducted was sufficiently diligent while having regard to the particular circumstances of use. Higher standards of search would, for example, be reasonably expected for types of material and uses that present a higher level of risk to the interests of rights holders, such as commercial uses, more vulnerable materials—including photographs and images—and culturally sensitive materials. Higher standards of search may also be required if the work is a foreign work and the copyright owner is likely to reside overseas.

The court is also required to consider whether the search was conducted within a reasonable period of time before the copyright material was used. The search should be conducted as close to the time of use as possible to make the most of available up-to-date technologies and the latest information as to the potential identity or location of the copyright owner. In this way, it's intended to lessen any risk that a copyright owner may become identifiable or locatable in the time between the search being conducted and the work being used.

The bill also contains assistance by providing a non-exhaustive list of matters the court may take into account in considering whether a search has been conducted in a reasonably diligent manner and within a reasonable period. These matters include the nature of the copyright material, with higher standards possibly applying to material that contains Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property, which reflects the government's commitment as outlined in Revive, to introduce standalone legislation to protect First Nations peoples knowledge and cultural experiences. The matters also include the nature, purpose and character of the infringing use, whether the owner or owners of the copyright are likely to be located in a foreign country, the actual or likely impact of the infringing use on the copyright owner or owners, any relevant industry guidelines and the way and timeframe over which the search was conducted. In essence, was it done quickly in an afternoon or was it done over an appropriate period of time using all reasonably available technological methods so there's clear guidance for those seeking to rely on this section of the act?

This bill quite rightly strengthens and modernises the Copyright Act. I commend the work of both the former attorney-general and the current Attorney-General, the Hon. Michelle Rowland, in bringing this before the parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a measured, practical and overdue reform to Australia's copyright framework. It modernises the Copyright Act 1968 to reflect how Australians learn, create, preserve culture and share knowledge in the 21st century. It does so without undermining the legitimate rights and interests of creators, authors and rights holders who rely on copyright protection for their livelihoods. At its core, this bill responds to a simple reality: the way Australians access information, participate in education and engage with cultural materials has changed profoundly, yet key elements of our copyright law have not kept pace. This bill closes that gap carefully and responsibly.

The bill does three principal things. First, it introduces Australia's first statutory orphan work scheme. Second, it clarifies that copyright exemptions for educational instruction apply consistently across physical, online and hybrid learning environments. Third, it makes a small number of technical and administrative amendments to improve the operation of the Copyright Act, including in relation to the Copyright Tribunal and the duration of Crown copyright. Each of these reforms has been developed following extensive consultation. They reflect years of policy work, including multiple ministerial roundtables convened in 2023 with stakeholders from the creative industries, the education sector, collecting institutions and rights holder organisations. The result is legislation that is balanced, proportionate and grounded in evidence. Copyright reform is rarely straightforward. It sits at the intersection of competing but legitimate interests: creators seeking fair reward for their work, educators and students seeking access to knowledge, cultural institutions seeking to preserve and share our collective memory and governments seeking to ensure the law keeps pace with technological and social change.

The ministerial copyright roundtables, held in 2023, represented a different approach. They brought together representatives from across the creative, cultural, educational and research sectors, as well as industry representatives, collecting institutions and other interested organisations. The objective was not to reopen the entirety of copyright law, but to identify discrete, achievable reforms where there was genuine alignment and evidence of need. By addressing orphan works and clarifying educational use without undermining core rights or licensing frameworks, this bill strengthens that legitimacy.

I'll turn to each of the key measures in this bill. I'll begin with schedule 1, which establishes an Australian orphan works scheme. As someone who was a longstanding supporter of the arts and a regular attendee of live music and performance and as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music, I am acutely aware of how central copyright is to the sustainability of Australia's creative industries. That is precisely why it is so important that reform in this area is careful, balanced and grounded in respect for creators. An orphan work is a copyright material for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located after reasonable efforts. These works are not rare. They are held in large number of libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and community organisations. They include historical photographs, personal letters, diaries, unpublished manuscripts, audio-visual recordings and other collectables that document our social, cultural and civic life.

Under current law, the inability to identify or locate a copyright owner often means these materials cannot be used at all, even for socially valuable purposes such as education, research, preservation or public exhibition. Institutions face legal uncertainty and risk, and the public is denied access to material that forms part of our shared heritage. The orphan works scheme in this bill addresses that problem directly. It does not abolish copyright. It does not create a blanket exception. Instead, it introduces a carefully calibrated limitation on remedies where a user has acted in good faith and met the strict statutory conditions.

Under the scheme, a person may rely on the limitation on remedies only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, kept a record of that search, could not identify or locate the owner at the time of use and provided clear and prominent notice of reliance on the scheme. If, and only if, those conditions are satisfied, the court is prevented from awarding damages, additional damages or an account of profits for the infringing use. However, the court may still issue reasonable payment to the copyright owner if they later come forward, reflecting what would have been a reasonable licence fee. Importantly, copyright owners retain the ability to assert their rights if they are later identified. They may negotiate terms for ongoing use or seek court ordered terms or injunctive relief in relation to future use. Moral rights are unaffected. Constitutional safeguards are preserved through an express just terms compensation provision. This is not a free-for-all. The burden of proof rests squarely on the user to demonstrate compliance with the scheme. Higher standards of diligence are expected for commercial uses, for sensitive or vulnerable materials and for works involving Indigenous cultural and intellectual property.

The scheme is deliberately designed to encourage caution, transparency and respect. For creators whose works have become orphaned unintentionally through lost records, defunct publishers or the passage of time, the scheme may in fact create new opportunities. Where a copyright owner later emerges, they are entitled to reasonable payment and may negotiate terms for ongoing use. In that sense, the scheme can reconnect creators with works that might otherwise remain unused and invisible.

What this reform does is provide legal certainty where uncertainty has prevailed for decades. It unlocks access to material of cultural, historical and educational value while preserving fairness for rights holders. For researchers, educators, students and community organisations, this reform matters. It allows institutions to preserve, digitise and share material that would otherwise remain inaccessible. It supports the diffusion of knowledge and culture, which is a core objective of copyright law itself.

I now turn to schedule 2, which addresses copyright and remote learning. Section 28 of the Copyright Act permits the performance or communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction without that use being treated as public performance or communication to the public. That exception has long been understood as applying in physical classrooms. However, the rapid expansion of online and hybrid learning, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has created uncertainty about how those rules apply to remote teaching and learning. This bill removes that uncertainty.

The amendments to section 28 make it explicit that the provision applies equally to educational instruction conducted in person, online or through a combination of both. It clarifies that parents and guardians who assist students with their lessons are taken to be participating in the instruction. It also confirms that educational instruction may be delivered by persons other than a teacher, such as community members or external presenters, without altering the copyright treatment of the material used. These clarifications do not expand the scope of the exception. They do not disturb existing licensing arrangements, which remain vital to supporting Australian creators and publishers. What they do is ensure that teachers, schools and families are not left guessing about compliance when delivering education in modern formats. This matters for equity. Online and hybrid learning models are not a luxury; they are a necessity for many students, including students in regional and remote areas, students with disabilities, students managing illness and students balancing education with caring responsibilities or work.

Educators are not copyright lawyers, yet they are expected to navigate complex legal obligations while delivering lessons supporting diverse learners and adapting to rapidly changing modes of instruction. Uncertainty in the law does not promote compliance; it promotes hesitation, inconsistency and, in some cases, unnecessary self-censorship. The clarification regarding parental and community involvement is equally important. Parents and carers often play a vital role in supporting students, particularly younger children and students with additional needs. Community members, including local professionals and service workers, frequently contribute to educational programs in ways that enrich learning and connect it to real-world experience. Copyright law should not inadvertently discourage that engagement.

I now turn to schedule 3, which contains a number of minor but important technical amendments. These include simplifying the process for appointing an acting president and registrar of the Copyright Tribunal, updating outdated references to Commonwealth and state archives, modernising notification requirements by replacing gazette publication with notifiable instruments and clarifying the scope of Crown copyright. In particular, the bill makes clear that the provision governing the duration of Crown copyright applies only to material made or first published by or under the control of the Commonwealth or a state. It does not apply to material later acquired by government from third parties. This clarification ensures that government acquisition does not inadvertently extend copyright duration and provides certainty to rights holders and users alike. While these amendments are technical in nature, they improve the clarity, coherence and administration of the act. Good law reform is not only about major policy shifts; it is also about ensuring that statutes operate efficiently and transparently.

Before concluding, I want to address an issue that has understandably attracted attention: the interaction between copyright reform and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. This bill does not create a general exemption for the use of copyright material in training AI systems, nor does the orphan works scheme provide a practical pathway for bulk use of works for that purpose. The scheme's requirements, particularly the obligation to conduct a reasonably diligent search and provide notice in relation to each use, are deliberately structured to prevent inappropriate reliance for large-scale automated uses. AI raises complex questions for creators, educators, industry and society, and those questions deserve a dedicated consideration. This bill does not pre-empt that debate; instead, it focuses on targeted, consensus based reforms that address clear and longstanding problems.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the broader human rights context of this legislation. The orphan works scheme and remote learning amendments positively engage the right to education, the right to participate in cultural life and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. They promote accessibility, inclusion and non-discrimination. Where the bill places limits on rights, those limits are reasonable, proportionate and necessary to achieve legitimate public objectives.

In conclusion, this bill strengthens Australia's copyright system by making it more responsive to contemporary realities while preserving the fundamental balance at its heart. It supports creators by maintaining strong rights and remedies; it supports creators and students by providing clarity and certainty; it supports cultural institutions by unlocking access to orphan materials; and it supports the Australian community by promoting the diffusion of knowledge, culture and learning. This is thoughtful reform. It is careful reform. It is reform whose time has come. I commend the bill to the House.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This bill implements two priority legislative reforms. Firstly, there's the establishment of an orphan-works scheme, which will facilitate publicly beneficial use of genuinely orphaned materials by reducing legal risks for good-faith users without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners. Secondly, the proposed amendments to section 28 of the Copyright Act will ensure copyright material is treated consistently regardless of whether it is used in a physical, online or hybrid classroom so long as the other conditions of that section are met. They will also promote collaborative learning involving parents and members of the community without impacting existing licensing arrangements. The bill will also strengthen and modernise the Copyright Act through various minor and technical amendments to simplify, update and clarify certain provisions.

I also acknowledge the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, expertly chaired by Senator Jana Stewart, for its inquiry into the bill over recent months. The government agrees with the committee's sole recommendation that the bill be passed. The bill will implement important reforms that update and clarify the Copyright Act, reducing legal risk and promoting modern, collaborative learning without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners, for the benefit of the Australian community. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.