David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the second reading amendment that was circulated in my name and which makes clear that there is much more work to be done when it comes to the section 28 issue in relation to the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 permits teachers to use copyright material in online lessons delivered via platforms such as Zoom;

(b) calls on the Government to ensure that copyright law delivers genuine clarity for educational institutions operating in a modern learning environment by progressing amendments to section 28 of the Copyright Act 1968 to allow lessons to be recorded for a limited period, with appropriate access controls and destruction requirements in place, so that students who cannot attend lessons due to illness, disability, or other reasons are able to catch up; and

(c) notes that ensuring educational institutions are able to operate in rapidly changing digital environments will be critical going forward".

When we've been speaking with stakeholders in this space—and I particularly want to reference the education providers—they point out that so much of what happens now in universities and in TAFEs is education that is provided online. Often there'll be a lecture recorded in real life. It is beamed out, sometimes, and put live online so that students can remotely access it while the lecture is being delivered. We understand that the proposed section 28 amendments would largely capture that and ensure that copyright isn't payable for copyrighted materials that are transmitted live.

But, of course, Acting Deputy President, as you would know, as would anyone who's spoken to students studying at universities and TAFE now would know, quite often what happens is, if students are unable to access the lecture in real life and unable to see it when it's being broadcast—they may be ill, they may have a clash in their timetables or they may have work—they rely upon a recording of it. They log in using their student ID; they access the recording of the video.

As I understand it, the government doesn't intend section 28 to provide protection for education institutions when students are accessing their educational materials from a recording. There is no mechanism in place currently to provide for payments for that because it hasn't traditionally been the provision of copyrighted material that copyright owners have previously sought to recover payments from education providers. Our second reading amendment on behalf of the Greens addresses that pretty fundamental problem in section 28.

I want to be clear on the part of the Greens. We believe that we should be removing all barriers we possibly can so that public education providers—our universities, our schools and our TAFES—can have as great a penetration as possible into the community and the community can have as great an access as possible to education resources. It should not be constrained by arcane provisions in copyright law. I don't know why it is that the Labor government doesn't also back in public education like the Greens, but it's for those reasons that I commend the second reading amendment as moved.

(Quorum formed)

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the result of consultation over two years to solve a problem that's existed around orphan works. Schedule 1 of the bill creates a statutory framework that enables lawful use of orphan works when the copyright owner cannot be identified or located despite a reasonably diligent approach. Schedule 2 makes clear that copyright exemptions for learning institutions teaching in person extend to lessons taught online. Schedule 3 makes minor technical changes and updates.

The orphan works scheme creates division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 to limit remedies for copyright infringement where the owner cannot be found despite a reasonably diligent approach. It would be good to have that further guidance on what 'reasonably diligent' means. I do expect there will be guidance from industry and media around that definition when the bill commences. Using internet search and websites like TinEye or asking AI if something is copyrighted is not hard to do; it's quite easy. The act already limits backdated claims to six years; where the use predates that, only the last six years can be claimed as copyright infringement.

The bill requires a copyright owner who has detected use of their material to give the offending use a notice to take down the material. If they do, a charge does not result. It's the copyright owner's discretion. Any charge they do claim must be reasonable—there's that word again. There's a real issue with copyright trolls, who buy up dormant copyrights, look to see who has used that writing, photo or art then send a copyright claim. I've seen many examples of copyright trolls making claims above $1,000 for insignificant use such as a photo on a website that attracts little to no traffic. This legislation does introduce words like 'reasonable' to describe the charge. That is new, and it should help in these cases, because it gives a small business a chance to negotiate the charge. It may stop claims being made for minor use when no quantifiable benefit has resulted. The legislation provides the courts with clear rules and guidance that will reduce the cost of litigation for both parties.

One Nation will watch how this legislation works in practice. If small businesses are not being properly protected for in-good-faith breaches, further measures may be necessary. The good news is that this bill will allow galleries, libraries, museums and education institutions greater freedom to use works they have on hand. With an estimated 70 per cent of some collections being orphaned, this is a significant step forward.

The bill does not address the major concern about copyright law, which is using copyright material to train AI. Under the Copyright Act 1968, teaching and AI on copyrighted works generally requires permission or a licence from the copyright owner. Reproducing producing substantial parts of copyrighted works in an AI's output, such as quoting long excerpts or reproducing poems or images is usually an infringement. The exception is a narrow fair-use exception for academic and news purposes. Where this becomes a problem is in areas of search where the old ten blue links in Google's page of search results have been replaced with an AI answer, which uses information from a copyrighted website, generally removing the need to visit the site. Many artificial intelligence sites—ChatGPT being a major offender—will use data from a copyrighted site to answer a user question and even make recommendations for which website to use based on the data from a different site. The issue of AI appropriating copyrighted works or copyrighted webpages is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future. One Nation will support this bill.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 is a good bill. I thank the government for bringing it forward, and all the public servants who worked on it and those in the minister's office.

I want to talk briefly about copyright at this critical point in history, where we're seeing AI companies and big tech hoovering up copyrighted works to train their models with what seems like no regard for copyright holders. This is the role of governments—to step in and say: 'We have a system of copyright, and it's served us well. We have it in recognition of people who create works—artists, authors, and others—in recognition that their work is theirs. They own it. Utilising that work should be a negotiation, and they should be paid for the use of that work after the negotiation.'

It seems there are only two instances in Australia where we infringe upon that right. One is with artists, when it comes to the cap on what commercial radio and the ABC have to pay artists. There's no negotiation there; we have a one per cent cap. The other is when it comes to AI—and I have very serious concerns about what artificial intelligence means for creatives, for copyright and more broadly for our economy. I just haven't seen anything from this government—or both the major parties in this country—that shows they are willing to stand up to big tech, particularly in the time of President Trump and his relationship with big tech, and what that means for our ability to stand up to big tech given our reliance on the US when it comes to AUKUS and other things.

There are many Australians both questioning AI and questioning why we aren't allowed to stand up for our own artists in this country, for creatives here in Australia. It is important that the Senate says, 'We will protect copyright of creatives.' It's not good enough that you are a multibillion dollar company that has a huge amount of clout; that doesn't matter. You've got to pay copyright holders to use their works. I think it will get caught up in the guillotine, but I foreshadow a second reading amendment that very simply states that—and I would urge Senate colleagues to back copyright holders in Australia and back that second reading amendment.

We need to stand up to AI companies. We need to stand up to big tech. We need to stand up to this surveillance capitalism that is not working for us. They are monetising our attention. They are making, when it comes to big tech, extraordinary profits and finding some pretty creative ways of not paying us here in Australia. My sense—and we canvassed this a little bit during question time—is that some expectations from the government are not going to cut it. We need a government that is willing to stand up to big tech, to stand up to the AI giants who are in this arms race to develop the best model, to develop artificial general intelligence, and what that may mean for our economy and for societies around the world. We haven't even got into the some of the potential job losses from artificial intelligence; I don't think we're even tracking them at the moment here in this country—no safeguards, let it rip. It really doesn't cut it more broadly with AI. When it comes to copyright, we need to reaffirm that we believe that copyright is a really important part of how we deal with people's creative works in this country.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026. This bill implements two priority legislative reforms. Firstly, there is 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 thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, expertly chaired by Senator Jana Stewart, for its inquiry into the bill over the recent months. The government agrees with the committee's sole recommendation that the bill be passed.

I do want to assist the chamber in some way, given the motion's time of an hour is upon us, and address some of the second reading amendments, if that's helpful. The government opposes the amendment put forward by the Greens. The government has been clear that the bill is intended to achieve outcomes that stakeholders agreed could be progressed with broad support. Stakeholders have broadly agreed that section 28 of the Copyright Act could be clarified to ensure that it applies in the same way to an online remote class as to in-person classes. The bill has been carefully drafted to achieve this intent.

Additional measures to extend section 28 to cover recording of lessons for later viewing do not have broad stakeholder support. Rights holders remain strongly opposed to such an extension, evidenced through a joint media release issued by several rights holders representatives on 20 March 2026. This is a complex area of law and a contested policy space; we accept that. It requires careful consideration and detailed analysis to balance the interests of all stakeholders and to avoid any unintended consequences.

This is what the bill, as currently before the Senate, achieves. It represents several years of work with key stakeholders to achieve pragmatic outcomes that benefit the education sector, while not impacting rights holders' legitimate interests, and it has broad stakeholder support. This is not the case for the amendment moved by the Greens, and, for this reason, the government opposes that amendment.

The government also opposes the second reading amendment foreshadowed by Senator David Pocock. The government has already been clear in strongly supporting Australian creators and media organisations. That is why the Attorney-General announced in October last year that the government is not considering a text and data mining exception. Under such a proposal, artificial intelligence developers would be able to use the works of Australian creatives for free, and without permission, to train AI systems. The government stands behind Australia's creative and media industry. The Australian government has consistently said that there are no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI. The bill will implement important reforms that update and clarify the Copyright Act, reducing legal risk and promoting modern, collaborative learning for the benefit of the Australian community, without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) reaffirms its support for creators and rightsholders and the fundamental principle that they should control, and be fairly paid for, the use of their works; and

(b) rejects any proposal to introduce text and data mining exceptions or any other provisions that would allow Big Tech to use copyrighted material without authorisation or payment".

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.