Copyright Amendment (Re-Enactment) Act 1993

The Copyright Amendment (Re-Enactment) Act 1993 is a Commonwealth Act that repealed the Copyright Amendment Act 1989 and re-enacted specified provisions of that earlier Act into the Copyright Act 1968. The Act received Royal Assent on 22 December 1993. However, the amendments it makes are taken to have commenced on earlier dates listed in the Schedule.

That means this law is mainly about legal continuity and historical validity. It is not usually the first law a business reads for everyday copyright compliance. Instead, it matters when you need to work out whether an older amendment, declaration, regulation, copying practice or review right was validly in place at a particular time.

The Act works by amending the Copyright Act 1968, called the Principal Act. It says the Principal Act is amended in the terms set out in specified sections of the 1989 amending Act and in the Schedule to that earlier Act. It also separately inserts a new Part VB, inserts new sections 153C and 153D, and inserts a new review provision, section 195B.

So this is not a complete standalone copyright code. It is a re-enactment mechanism. Its job is to carry specified amendments into the principal copyright legislation and preserve their legal effect despite the repeal of the 1989 amending Act.

Most ordinary trading businesses will not need to work directly from this Act very often. The organisations most likely to use it are those dealing with older copyright arrangements, institutional copying frameworks, declarations by the Attorney-General, customs-related copyright permissions, or long-running content assets and disputes.

Libraries, archives and institutions are particularly relevant because the Act amends section 203E of the Copyright Act in relation to inspection of records and declarations retained by libraries, archives or institutions. Importers and owners of goods may also be directly affected because the inserted review provision covers a decision of the Comptroller-General of Customs not to grant permission under subsection 135(6). Bodies and institutions seeking or holding declarations under subsection 10A(1), 135P(1) or 135ZZB(1) are also in scope because refusals and revocations are reviewable decisions under the inserted section 195B.

The main trigger for using this Act is not a routine compliance task. It is usually a historical or procedural question. For example, you may need it if you are checking whether a past act of copying was authorised, whether a declaration remained effective after the repeal of the 1989 amending Act, whether regulations continued to operate, or whether a refusal or revocation decision could be reviewed.

The Schedule dates are especially important. The Act commenced on Royal Assent, but the amendments it makes are taken to have commenced on earlier dates listed in the Schedule. Those dates include 1 October 1989, 29 January 1990, 1 July 1990, 2 July 1990 and 1 October 1990. If your issue sits around those dates, the legal answer may depend on the deemed commencement date rather than the 1993 assent date.

The Act inserts section 195B into the Copyright Act 1968. This section identifies specific reviewable decisions. They are: an Attorney-General decision refusing to make a declaration in respect of a body or institution under subsection 10A(1), 135P(1) or 135ZZB(1); an Attorney-General decision revoking a declaration made in respect of a body or institution under one of those subsections; and a decision of the Comptroller-General of Customs not to grant permission under subsection 135(6).

Section 195B also sets out notice requirements. If the Attorney-General makes a reviewable decision of the refusal or revocation kind, a written notice must be sent to the body or institution concerned. That notice must contain the terms of the decision, a statement that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review, and, except where subsection 28(4) of that Act applies, a statement that the body or institution may request a statement under section 28 of that Act.

If the Comptroller-General of Customs makes the reviewable decision, a notice must be sent to the owner or importer whose interests are affected. That notice must contain the terms of the decision, a statement that where no appeal under subsection 135(6) has been made to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce the owner or importer may, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review, and, except where subsection 28(4) applies, a statement that the owner or importer may request a statement under section 28 of that Act.

The Act also makes two practical points clear. First, failure to include the review-rights or reasons statements in the notice does not affect the validity of the decision itself. Second, the customs pathway is mutually exclusive. A person cannot seek AAT review of the customs decision if they have already appealed to the Minister under subsection 135(6), and if they apply to the AAT they are not entitled to appeal to the Minister against that same decision.

For businesses and institutions, section 195B is mainly about process and timing. If you receive a refusal, revocation or customs notice covered by the section, read the notice carefully and identify which decision-maker made it. Then confirm whether the matter goes directly to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or whether a ministerial appeal option affects that pathway.

For Attorney-General decisions covered by section 195B, the Act says an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. For customs decisions, AAT review is available only where no appeal under subsection 135(6) has been made to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. The Act also refers to the ability to request a statement under section 28 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, except where subsection 28(4) applies.

Because a defective notice does not invalidate the decision, businesses should not assume that missing wording gives them extra time or removes the need to act. If the decision affects imports, institutional status or a valuable copyright arrangement, it is sensible to confirm the review route quickly.

The Act re-enacts rules about the application and repeal of section 200A of the Copyright Act 1968. It says section 200A is taken to have ceased to apply, on 29 January 1990, to an eligible item that is a sound broadcast, a television broadcast, or a work, sound recording or cinematograph film included in a sound or television broadcast. It also says section 200A is taken to have been repealed on 1 July 1990.

The Act then includes savings provisions. Despite anything in the Act, the Copyright Act 1968 as in force immediately before 29 January 1990 continues to apply in relation to a copy of a television broadcast made in reliance on section 200A. It also says the Copyright Act 1968 as in force immediately before 1 July 1990 continues to apply in relation to a copy of a work or other subject-matter made in reliance on section 53A, 53B, 53C, 53D or 200A. In each case, that continued application lasts until the end of the period of 4 years beginning on the day the copy was made.

For businesses, this is mainly relevant when reviewing older copying conduct. If a dispute or audit concerns a copy made around 1990, the answer may depend on both the deemed commencement dates and the savings rule that preserved the earlier law for four years from the date of copying.

The Act preserves the effect of some declarations made by the Attorney-General before the commencement of section 11 under section 135P or 135ZZB of the Copyright Act as purportedly amended by the 1989 amending Act. Those declarations are taken to have been made under the Copyright Act as amended by this Act and to have taken effect on the day they purported to take effect.

The Act also deals with regulations. Where regulations were made before the commencement of section 12 under a provision of the Copyright Act as purportedly amended by the 1989 amending Act, and the provision as amended by this Act is in the same terms, those regulations are taken to have been made under the Copyright Act as amended by this Act and to have taken effect on the day they purported to take effect.

In practical terms, these provisions are continuity rules. They reduce the risk that a declaration or regulation would fail simply because the earlier amending Act was repealed and the relevant provisions were re-enacted through this 1993 Act instead.

Section 9 of the Act amends section 203E of the Copyright Act 1968 as set out in specified paragraphs of section 27 of the 1989 amending Act. The subject matter identified in the Act is inspection of records and declarations retained by libraries, archives or institutions.

The text available here confirms that these amendments were re-enacted, but it does not set out the detailed wording of the amended section 203E itself. The safe practical point is that libraries, archives and institutions with older record-keeping or declaration issues should check the current consolidated Copyright Act 1968 and any relevant historical version before relying on a short summary.

The Act received Royal Assent on 22 December 1993 and, subject to the Schedule, commenced on that day. But the amendments made by the Act are taken to have commenced on the dates set out in the Schedule. The Schedule links particular re-enacted provisions to commencement dates of 1 October 1989, 29 January 1990, 1 July 1990, 2 July 1990 and 1 October 1990.

This is the key practical feature of the Act. If you are tracing a historical copyright position, the legal effect may run from one of those earlier dates, not from December 1993. That can affect whether a copy was made under the right law, whether a review right existed, or whether a declaration or regulation is treated as having taken effect when it purported to do so.

Because this Act is mainly about re-enactment and historical continuity, it should usually be read together with the current Copyright Act 1968 and, where necessary, the historical position at the relevant date. Businesses should be careful not to treat this Act as a complete statement of current copyright obligations.

If your issue affects a dispute, import process, institutional entitlement, legacy licence or valuable content transaction, check the exact provision in the current consolidated Copyright Act 1968, confirm the relevant commencement date in the Schedule, and review whether any savings, declaration or regulation continuity rule applies.