Do not abandon Australia's writers and publishers
The Age
Thursday July 16, 2009
Cutting import barriers is no guarantee of cheaper books. THIS week the Productivity Commission released a report with recommendations that are as predictable as their chance of achieving their aim is dubious. The commission, long a standard bearer for free trade, called on the Federal Government to abandon the existing system of territorial copyright protection for Australian writers and publishers, a change it believes will result in lower book prices for consumers.The recommendation is in line with arguments presented to the commission by the Coalition for Cheaper Books, which represents major retail chains including Dymocks, Coles and Woolworths. But submissions by writers, publishers, printers and other booksellers - including the largest chain, Angus & Robertson - overwhelmingly opposed changing the existing law, which gives publishers 30 days to publish an Australian edition of a book that has been published overseas. If publishers do not exercise that option, booksellers can freely import the foreign edition.If the commission's proposal is accepted, the protection provided by this 30-day rule, known as parallel import restriction, would be phased out over three years, to "facilitate industry adjustment". The commission also wants a review of financial assistance for Australian writing and publishing, and a comprehensive review of the new system after five years.And, lest anyone be tempted to think that these prescriptions were guided only by a desire to unchain the invisible hand of the market, the commission's report argues that parallel import restrictions are "a poor means of promoting culturally significant Australian works" because "they do not differentiate between books of high and low cultural value".Just what would differentiate between books of high and low cultural value is not clear from the commission's deliberations. An unfettered market is hardly likely to do it. Tagging any work as of either high or low cultural value will always be to some extent a matter of contention, and will chiefly depend on the degree to which the work is accepted over time - which in turn implies that if there is to be protection, its recipient should be the publishing industry, so the industry can produce works whose status will ultimately be determined by the readers and critics of posterity.The question then becomes a matter of whether local publishing can flourish if protection is withdrawn. Critics of parallel import restriction argue that if writers are any good they will get published, whether in Australia or overseas, and that consumers should not be penalised by having to pay more for books so the local industry can keep churning out many mediocre works and too few brilliant ones. The argument rests on two assumptions, neither of which is persuasive.Will good writers always be assured of a publisher? Those with established names probably would be, and the livelihood of a Peter Carey or a Tim Winton is not likely to be threatened if the Government heeds the commission's report. But it is significant, surely, that both these writers, and many others of equivalent stature, argued for keeping parallel import restrictions because they remember what it is like not to be an established writer. It is part of a publisher's job to find new Careys, Wintons, Garners and Astleys, and the notion that publishers in London or New York would be as interested in the work of local writers as Australian publishers is simply implausible.As for the oft-repeated prediction that removing the restrictions will usher in a consumer paradise of cheaper books, the evidence is wanting. The arguments submitted to the commission rehearsed those used to justify deregulation of the music recording industry in the 1990s, when consumers were promised cheaper CDs. And CD prices did eventually fall, but mostly as the recording industry itself went into rapid decline because of the surge in downloading of music from the internet. The notion that removing import restrictions on CDs would slash prices remains, as former Hunters and Collectors frontman Mark Seymour has said, theoretical.The claim that removing parallel import restrictions will cut book prices is also theoretical. Comparisons of prices in Australian stores and those available from internet sites such as Amazon mean little, because these sites give discounts and are not subject to the GST. Fluctuating exchange rates make comparisons even more unreliable. Would the Government want to risk losing Australia's vibrant local publishing industry, with the literary culture it fosters, in return for the dubious promise of a theory?
© 2009 The Age