Division
Scott Ludlam I move Australian Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7710: (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph 115A(1)(b), substitute: (b) the online location flagrantly infringes the copyright; and Peter Whish-Wilson The committee is considering the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 7710, moved by Senator Ludlam, be agreed to. Jacinta Collins When we concluded just before question time, Senator Fierravanti-Wells had just concluded the government's position. I will now move to our position on Greens amendment (2). I might suggest to Senator Ludlam that he move amendments (2), (3), (7) and (8) together, as they all deal with the issues he raised, as indeed does amendment (2), which removes facilitation of copyright infringement as a criterion for issuing an injunction, and the issue of imposing flagrancy as a criterion. With respect to the first point, Labor understands the concerns raised by some in this debate about the breadth of the term 'facilitate' in this bill. However, it is important to note the context in which the word appears. The bill only covers websites which have the primary purpose of infringing copyright or facilitating copyright infringement. Clearly, all manner of websites might unwittingly and unintentionally facilitate the infringement of copyright in one way or another, but that is not the test. The question is whether it is the primary purpose of a website to do so. As a result, Labor is satisfied that it is appropriate for facilitation to remain in the bill, and we will not support this amendment. With regard to the second point, with respect to flagrancy, as I have said, the 'primary purpose' test in this bill imposes a deliberately high burden on rights holders making their case to the Federal Court. This amendment would add to the test a requirement that a site flagrantly infringed copyright. Flagrancy is a concept known to Australian copyright law, and it
Senate, 2015-06-22. negative: ayes 14, noes 26.
Question
Scott Ludlam I move Australian Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7710: (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph 115A(1)(b), substitute: (b) the online location flagrantly infringes the copyright; and Peter Whish-Wilson The committee is considering the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 7710, moved by Senator Ludlam, be agreed to. Jacinta Collins When we concluded just before question time, Senator Fierravanti-Wells had just concluded the government's position. I will now move to our position on Greens amendment (2). I might suggest to Senator Ludlam that he move amendments (2), (3), (7) and (8) together, as they all deal with the issues he raised, as indeed does amendment (2), which removes facilitation of copyright infringement as a criterion for issuing an injunction, and the issue of imposing flagrancy as a criterion. With respect to the first point, Labor understands the concerns raised by some in this debate about the breadth of the term 'facilitate' in this bill. However, it is important to note the context in which the word appears. The bill only covers websites which have the primary purpose of infringing copyright or facilitating copyright infringement. Clearly, all manner of websites might unwittingly and unintentionally facilitate the infringement of copyright in one way or another, but that is not the test. The question is whether it is the primary purpose of a website to do so. As a result, Labor is satisfied that it is appropriate for facilitation to remain in the bill, and we will not support this amendment. With regard to the second point, with respect to flagrancy, as I have said, the 'primary purpose' test in this bill imposes a deliberately high burden on rights holders making their case to the Federal Court. This amendment would add to the test a requirement that a site flagrantly infringed copyright. Flagrancy is a concept known to Australian copyright law, and it
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.