Comments of Senator Cooney
Economics is an essential discipline and great respect is to be accorded
to those who practice it well. During the Committee's enquiry into the
Copyright Amendment Bill (No.2) 1997 a number of good economists advised
it be given passage. They said this would lead to Australia having cheaper
C.D.s and a healthier musical industry. The principles of economics ensured
this would happen were parallel importation allowed.
Witnesses who explained the workings of economic principles to the Committee
did so with great conviction. Great weight ought be attached to their
views about markets, competition, and efficiency.
Other witnesses told the Committee that parallel importation would lead
to Australia's musical life becoming much the poorer. This would markedly
prejudice the Nation's culture and its ability to identify its values
to itself and the World at large. These witnesses said that the making
of music in Australia earned the Country great renown and considerable
income; but it was a delicate phenomenon vulnerable to the powerful onslaught
parallel importation would bring.
These witnesses were ample and spoke with much authority. They included
artists, managers, publishers, record makers and small retailers, people
who were central to the health of Australian musical life. They told of
what they knew first hand.
The testimony of the witnesses who based their analysis on economic principles
must be balanced against that of those who relied on personal experience
for what they told the Committee. This needs be done because the economists
by and large were strongly in favour of the bill while the artists the
managers, the publishers, the record makers and the small retailers who
spoke to the committee were against it.
Committee hearings are not judicial enquiries: nor should they act as
such. But they do call and examine witnesses and great weight ought be
attached to the testimony they give. Economic theory is like legal principles.
Their worth must be tested against how well they provide an answer to
the true facts of a situation. First hand evidence of what actually happens
in the musical life of Australia and the likely impact of lawful parallel
importation on that is firmly against a change in the law. That evidence
should not be discounted because it does not accord with the tenets of
economists. The best law is that made on the basis of facts. These should
not be skewed to fit a set of beliefs.
In keeping with the direct evidence given in this Enquiry the Copyright
Amendment Bill (No2) 1997 ought be rejected.