Adams Paul: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9398] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future the common-sense party that supports this legislation. The public out there listening can be a little bit more encouraged about this legislation—United Future will be backing it so it is good legislation. The protection of intellectual property is an issue of considerable importance throughout the global marketplace we now live in. The bill before us today is a step towards correcting the abuse of copyrights and the increase in piracy within the film industry and I am very surprised that ACT and National are not supporting it. The bill will have relevance both nationally and internationally. Technology and the sheer pace and extent of global trade are transforming our world almost faster than we can bear let alone keep up with. One thing that I have against the human rights perspective is that we work in a global village. We really need to come away from human rights and begin to deal with human requirements as our global village begins to emerge because that throws a whole different light on things. 
Let me explain the reasons why this bill deserves passage and is receiving United Future’s support. The first reason is that the bill changes the onus of proof which we have already heard some comment on. A defining aspect of this bill is the reversing of the onus of proving copyright infringement in relation to imported copyrighted goods. Under the existing law a copyright holder who takes action against an importer will need to prove to the court that the imported goods are not genuine. As a result it is the importers of pirated goods who at present hold the upper hand. At the moment the bad guys normally win and United Future does not agree with that principle. 
Because pirated goods are increasingly difficult to distinguish from genuine goods the process of ascertaining guilt is often tedious. For example a lot of goods made in Third World countries look identical to the genuine article. They have the same labels and so on and the ones that look identical are very difficult to distinguish. At the moment copyright owners must track the goods to their country of origin. Then they need to prove that the goods were actually made there. Then they need to prove that they were made without the permission of the rights holder in that country and therefore infringe copyright in that country. This bill will shift the responsibility on to the importer for whom it will be markedly easier to prove that the goods are indeed genuine. When this bill is passed it will be up to the importer to prove that the imported goods are genuine. 
This change of onus of proof for the importer is both fair and practical even though as we have heard it does move us away from the “innocent until proven guilty” scenario—which I personally agree with—but let me give the reasons for this. Given that the evidence importers will need to prove the legitimacy of the goods will be no more than an importer would reasonably be expected to maintain as a matter of good business practice this change in civil procedure is pragmatic and based firmly on reason. 
This bill offers benefits for importers and copyright owners alike. From the importers’ point of view this bill affords them protection. Built into the bill is the provision that the court will not require a person to disclose any information about his or her sources of supply if it appears to the court that it would be reasonable to do so. That ensures that copyright owners do not use infringement procedures to force parallel importers to reveal their trade sources. From the copyright owner’s point of view this bill also makes it easy for a copyright owner to prove that the importer knew that the goods were pirated copies—something the owner must establish to be entitled to a remedy. Under the bill the importer must know or reasonably ought to have known that the goods were pirated goods. That points to an elevated more objective test than presently applies. It is a vast improvement.