Recorded lessons remain excluded
The reform protects live online and hybrid teaching but not recordings for students who miss class, limiting its usefulness for catch-up learning.
This bill became law on Apr 1st, 2026.
Law, justice & rights
Libraries, museums and other users face fewer financial penalties when using material whose copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owner cannot be found.
The government said valuable cultural and educational material was often left unused because nobody could find its copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owner and using it carried legal risk. It also said digital learning had created uncertainty about live online classes and help from parents or community members. The two main reforms followed government-led copyrightLegal control over using creative work. roundtables in 2023. Andrew Wallace (Liberal National Party) told Parliament that evidence suggested up to 70 per cent of library collections may contain works whose owners cannot be found.
Australia’s CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. Act 1968 already protected creators and set rules for educational use, but it left people exposed when a copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owner could not be identified or located and created uncertainty for online and hybrid lessons, including help from parents or support people. After Ministerial CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. Roundtables in 2023 identified practical priorities, the bill introduced an orphan-works scheme and clarified teaching exceptions, alongside technical changes, before both Houses passed it on 31 March 2026 and Royal Assent turned it into an Act on 1 April.
David Shoebridge (Australian Greens) argued the bill should also cover recordings kept briefly for students who miss live lessons through illness, disability or other reasons. Andrew Wallace (Liberal National Party) said unclear tests for a careful owner search and reasonable payment could cause court disputes. He also raised concern that court-set payments for continuing use might weaken copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owners' bargaining power. David Pocock (Independent) argued the government had not done enough to stop large technology companies using creators' work to train artificial intelligence systems without permission or payment.
Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 01 Apr 2026
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
2 recorded amendment or procedural votes were found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Passage speed
147 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Libraries, museums and other users face fewer financial penalties when using material whose copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owner cannot be found.
People using these works must first make and record a careful search for the owner. They must also display a clear notice.
CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. owners who later appear can seek reasonable payment. A court can set future-use terms or order the user to stop.
Teachers and students can use copyrightLegal control over using creative work. material during live online, in-person or mixed classes under the same education rules.
Parents, carers and community members can help teach or support students without changing how those education rules apply.
Education providers can choose the orphan-works scheme for some copying instead of their usual paid copyrightLegal control over using creative work. arrangement.
CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. administrators get updated appointment, archive and public-notice rules. Government acquisition no longer changes how long copyrightLegal control over using creative work. lasts.
116AAB Purpose of this Division (1) The purpose of this Division is to limit the remedies that may be available for infringement of copyright where the copyright owner or owners could not be identified and located at the time of the infringing use. (2) Other than as provided in sections 116AAD and 116AAF, this Division does not limit the operation of any other provision of this Act. 116AAC Definitions In this Division: continuing use has the meaning given by subsection 116AAF(8). infringing use means use that constitutes an infringement of copyright in copyright material. use includes tCopyright Amendment Act 2026
116AAE Conditions (1) This section sets out the conditions for the purposes of subsection 116AAD(1). Condition—Reasonably diligent search (2) A reasonably diligent search for the owner or owners of copyright in the copyright material was conducted. Note: See further subsection (8). Condition—Timing of the search (3) The search was conducted within a reasonable period before the infringing use. Note: See further subsection (8). Condition—Record of search (4) A record of the search was maintained for a reasonable period. Note: See further subsection (10). Condition—Owner or owners notCopyright Amendment Act 2026
116AAF Agreements and court orders for continuing use When this section applies (1) This section applies if section 116AAD applies, or has previously applied, in an action for infringement of copyright in copyright material. Agreed terms (2) The defendant to the action and the owner or owners of the copyright may agree to terms for the continuing use of the copyright material by the defendant. Court orders (3) If agreement cannot be reached, the defendant or the owner or owners of the copyright may apply to the court for an order under subsection (4). (4) The court may make an order: (Copyright Amendment Act 2026
17 At the end of section 28 (8) Without limiting this section, a person is taken to be taking part in educational instruction for the purposes of this section if the person is assisting or otherwise supporting: (a) a teacher or other person giving the instruction; or (b) a student receiving the instruction. (9) This section applies to educational instruction conducted: (a) in person; or (b) using technology that allows a person to take part in all or part of the educational instruction without being physically present; or (c) using a combination of the methods mentioned in paragraphs (aCopyright Amendment Act 2026
17 At the end of section 28 (8) Without limiting this section, a person is taken to be taking part in educational instruction for the purposes of this section if the person is assisting or otherwise supporting: (a) a teacher or other person giving the instruction; or (b) a student receiving the instruction.Copyright Amendment Act 2026
1A Subsection 10(1) (definition of licensed copying or communicating) Omit “subsection 113Q(2)”, substitute “subsections 113Q(2) and (2A)”. 1B After subsection 113Q(2) Copying and communicating works when owner cannot be found (2A) However, copying or communicating mentioned in subsection 113P(1) or (2) is not licensed copying or communicating if it is covered by a notice under subsection 116AAE(6) given in relation to, or in connection with, the educational institution. Note: Under Division 2AAA of Part V, remedies available for infringement of copyright may be limited where the owner ofCopyright Amendment Act 2026
Copyright Act 1968 1 Section 142 Omit “Governor‑General”, substitute “Minister”. 2 At the end of section 142 Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see sections 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 3 Subsections 170(2) and (4) Omit “the Minister”, substitute “the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia”. 4 Subsection 170(5) Omit “The Minister”, substitute “The Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia”.Copyright Amendment Act 2026
Context
Australia’s CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. Act 1968 already protected creators and set rules for educational use, but it left people exposed when a copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owner could not be identified or located and created uncertainty for online and hybrid lessons, including help from parents or support people. After Ministerial CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. Roundtables in 2023 identified practical priorities, the bill introduced an orphan-works scheme and clarified teaching exceptions, alongside technical changes, before both Houses passed it on 31 March 2026 and Royal Assent turned it into an Act on 1 April.
Ministerial CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. Roundtables identify reform priorities
The roundtables brought stakeholders together to identify copyrightLegal control over using creative work. priorities and emerging issues, including the problems later addressed by this bill.
Australian Parliament House ↗Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduces the bill
Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduced the bill in the House of Representatives to create an orphan-works scheme and clarify copyrightLegal control over using creative work. rules for online and hybrid teaching.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both Houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary approval of the orphan-works and educational-use reforms.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent turns the bill into an Act
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, bringing the CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. Amendment Act into existence.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (06/11/2025): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (19/12/2025)
Report tabled 19 Dec 2025
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
David Shoebridge (Australian Greens) argued the bill should also cover recordings kept briefly for students who miss live lessons through illness, disability or other reasons. Andrew Wallace (Liberal National Party) said unclear tests for a careful owner search and reasonable payment could cause court disputes. He also raised concern that court-set payments for continuing use might weaken copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owners' bargaining power. David Pocock (Independent) argued the government had not done enough to stop large technology companies using creators' work to train artificial intelligence systems without permission or payment.
All four speakers supported the bill or did not oppose it. The government said recorded lessons lacked broad support from copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owners and needed more analysis. It also said it was not considering an exception that would let artificial intelligence developers train systems on creators' work for free and without permission.
Recorded lessons remain excluded
The reform protects live online and hybrid teaching but not recordings for students who miss class, limiting its usefulness for catch-up learning.
Orphan-works rules may need clearer guidance
Users and copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owners could face uncertainty over what counts as a diligent search and how reasonable payment should be calculated if an owner later appears.
AI use of creators’ work remains unresolved
The bill does not settle whether AI and major technology companies must negotiate and pay for copyrighted material, leaving creators exposed to a wider unresolved policy risk.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Government amendments restrict educational institutions’ licensed copying and communication when an orphan-works notice applies, and allow the Minister to set requirements for sharing those notices.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Senate
Defeated 16 to 26. Support came from Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals.
The proposal was defeated, so the Senate did not add this call for broader educational use protections to its second-reading motion; the bill itself was not changed by the vote.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 16 to 26. Support came from Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals.
The proposal was defeated, so the Senate did not add this position on AI training and creators' rights to its second-reading motion; the bill itself was not changed by the vote.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself. The bill passed both chambers on the voices.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Rowland supports the bill because it expands public access to orphaned copyrightLegal control over using creative work. material, clarifies copyrightLegal control over using creative work. rules for online and hybrid education, and preserves protections and licensing arrangements for creative and media rights holders.
Read in Hansard ↗Michael McCormack supports the bill because it strengthens Australia’s copyrightLegal control over using creative work. framework and protects creators, publishers and journalism as digital media and artificial intelligence evolve, while urging careful safeguards and broader reforms for schools.
Read in Hansard ↗David Pocock supports the bill, calling it a good measure, but urges stronger protection for Australian creators by requiring AI and big tech companies to negotiate and pay for copyrighted works.
Read in Hansard ↗Matt Gregg strongly supports the bill, saying it sensibly modernises copyrightLegal control over using creative work. law by permitting use of orphan works after diligent searches, improving protections for educators and balancing access with creators' property rights and compensation.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
7 speakers · 8 contributions · 7 support
“We don't want disproportionate things. We don't want ambit claims for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for simply reposting someone's tweet. There is, again, room for common sense. I can trust our authorities to do that appropriately. But we are in an environment now where it is about time that we update these laws. The world is very different to what it was in 1968. The world has changed fundamentally. I commend this bill to the House. I'm so glad it's supported across the chamber, and I look forward to seeing this become law.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, this bill strengthens Australia's copyright system by making it more responsive to contemporary realities while preserving the fundamental balance at its heart. It supports creators by maintaining strong rights and remedies; it supports creators and students by providing clarity and certainty; it supports cultural institutions by unlocking access to orphan materials; and it supports the Australian community by promoting the diffusion of knowledge, culture and learning. This is thoughtful reform. It is careful reform. It is reform whose time has come. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill quite rightly strengthens and modernises the Copyright Act. I commend the work of both the former attorney-general and the current Attorney-General, the Hon. Michelle Rowland, in bringing this before the parliament. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is a good example of practical reform. It backs our creative and media sectors by keeping rights clear and enforceable. It supports education by making sure teaching can happen confidently, whether students are in the classroom or learning from home and whether parents or community members are helping. And it supports public access to culture and history by unlocking orphan works in a responsible way so that our communities can see more of their own stories and our institutions can share more of what they hold in trust for all of us, and, as I've said, that's particularly important in my community of Griffith. This is balanced, proportionate reform. It is grounded in consultation and will deliver real benefits in Griffith and right across Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Copyright Amendment Bill incorporates two important reforms to facilitate the use of copyright materials for public benefit, while also continuing to provide support to those working in the creative and media industries who rely on copyright for their work.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michelle Rowland, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Rowland supports the bill because it expands public access to orphaned copyrightLegal control over using creative work. material, clarifies copyrightLegal control over using creative work. rules for online and hybrid education, and preserves protections and licensing arrangements for creative and media rights holders.
“The Copyright Amendment Bill incorporates two important reforms to facilitate the use of copyright materials for public benefit, while also continuing to provide support to those working in the creative and media industries who rely on copyright for their work.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Rowland supports passing the bill because it would reduce legal risks around orphan works, modernise copyrightLegal control over using creative work. rules for physical and online classrooms, and clarify the CopyrightLegal control over using creative work. Act without unfairly harming copyrightLegal control over using creative work. owners.
“I also acknowledge the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, expertly chaired by Senator Jana Stewart, for its inquiry into the bill over recent months. The government agrees with the committee's sole recommendation that the bill be passed. The bill will implement important reforms that update and clarify the Copyright Act, reducing legal risk and promoting modern, collaborative learning without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners, for the benefit of the Australian community. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 4 support
“This bill is important because it puts some framework around copyright, and, while it's a complicated matter, it's a very important matter. I know that the—I won't say the coalition's position; I'll just say that the Liberals' and the Nationals' position is to support the legislation. I appreciate that it has gone before the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and inquiry thereof, but it is important and noteworthy. There are several schedules to the bill, which I'll refer to in a moment or two.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Copyright laws must support Australian creators, protect the value of their work and encourage innovation and learning. This bill broadly achieves those aims. The bill is measured and responsible. We will not oppose the bill in the House, and we are very likely to support the bill in the Senate based on the findings of the Senate inquiry. We will continue to push for clarity around key terms, including 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', and we will continue to defend the rights of Australian creators against any attempt to open the door to unauthorised AI training. These reforms are practical, incremental and beneficial. They do not alter the fundamentals of copyright. They do not diminish creators' rights, and they deliver long-sought clarity for teachers, students and cultural institutions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I support the modern, practical copyright laws that balance the user access with creator protection. Those wonderful artists, musicians and people who are creating all sorts of things need our protection and need to continue what they're doing. But I think the change to the law, which I commend the government for, that allows educators to be able to use some of this material, and the orphan program, are positive steps. I just would urge the government to see if there's a workaround where we could get the educators to be able to record that, hold it for a very short period of time and only use it for the students that missed the class and can watch it within the week or something like that and get the benefit of that education. But otherwise I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“More broadly, this bill sits within a wider conversation about how copyright interacts with emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. These are complex and evolving issues. Whilst this legislation does take some steps forward—and that is why we are supporting it—it is unlikely to be the final word. For that reason, the coalition emphasises the importance of ongoing scrutiny and accountability. We will be closely monitoring the implementation of this legislation, and we want to ensure that: the orphan works scheme operates as intended, without disadvantage in the rights of holders; educational provisions are applied fairly and responsively; and creators and industries continue to receive strong protection under Australian law.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 mixed
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by David Shoebridge, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
David Shoebridge backs the bill's protection for live online lessons but says it fails to cover recorded lessons, and urges the government to extend section 28 so students who miss classes can access recordings.
“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.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
David Shoebridge says the Greens support the bill, welcoming its orphan works scheme while raising concerns about ensuring copyrightLegal control over using creative work. holders are paid and schools can readily access materials for online education.
“I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to indicate that we are supporting the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026, and I note that one of the key benefits of this legislation is that it provides for an orphan works scheme. But in the short time available to me I wish to read onto the record our concerns about the operation of the proposed section 28. There are competing interests at play in the debate over the proposed section 28: the interests of copyright holders, creatives and others to ensure that they are adequately remunerated for their creativity and their work as well as the interests, particularly in public education, to have clear and ready access to copyright materials for the purposes of teaching and particularly for the purposes of giving access to online education.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report tabled 19 Dec 2025
Referred to Committee (6 Nov 2025): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (19 Dec 2025)
APH bill page notes