A controversial proposal to repeal parallel importation restrictions (PIRs) on books sold in Australia has sparked criticism and opposition from the publishing community there, but has so far been met with silence by U.S. publishers. On July 14, the Australian Productivity Commission released its final report, recommending the elimination of the 30-day rule, a restriction that protects Australian territorial copyright by limiting the import of competing foreign editions. The report represents a stunning defeat for the Australian literary community—after months of lobbying and vocal opposition to the commission's draft report (PW, June 15), the final recommendations actually exceeded those initially proposed: from keeping, but limiting, the PIRs to eliminating them entirely.
Introduced in 1991, the 30-day rule states that if a book is published in an Australian edition within 30 days of foreign publication, Australian booksellers must sell the local rather than the foreign version. Such restrictions, supporters maintain, have been key to establishing vibrant territorial copyright for Australia, a successful independent bookselling industry and a healthy Australian publishing enterprise.
Those opposed to the PIRs, including large bookseller Dymock's and department store Coles-Woolworths, have argued that restrictions lead to higher book prices for Australians—an argument the Productivity Commission appears to have accepted. “In effect, PIRs impose a private, implicit tax on Australian consumers,” the commission concluded, adding that PIRs “place upward pressure on book prices,” while being “a poor means of promoting culturally significant Australian works.” The report recommended the Australian government end restrictions after a three-year notice period to “facilitate industry adjustment” and to re-evaluate the measure five years after implementation. The Australian government must still approve the commission's recommendations, and there is no timetable on when the government might act.
The report has drawn stark battle lines in Australia. Maree McCaskill, CEO of the Australian Publishers Association, warned that if the commission's recommendations were adopted, “jobs would be lost” in Australian printing and publishing, authors “would suffer income losses” and the number of independent bookshops and titles for sale in Australia would fall. On the other hand, Dymocks CEO Don Grover is not only pushing the government to adopt the recommendations but to remove the three-year notice period. “We don't believe the book industry can wait three years for these changes,” Grover told reporters in a statement, suggesting “Internet suppliers” would undercut prices and continue to grab market share.
U.S. publishers approached by PW have declined comment on the decision—perhaps understandably, as the recommendations must be something of a sensitive issue within some of the large international houses, where Australian territorial rights are accounted for within U.K. divisions that now face the prospect of an open Australian market and competition from their American counterparts. Asked about its potential implications for American publishing, consultant Alun Davies suggested “an increase of sales to Australia through Ingram, Amazon, Baker & Taylor and their Australian companies, and a decrease in rights sales to Australia, and in the value of advances from the U.K., as most of the time that's how American agents sold their Australian rights.”
