Australian Parallel Importation Rules to Remain Unchanged
A bit of Australian internal politics, guys. You might want to just retweet this and move on if that’s not especially interesting to you. However, if you ever read an Australian book, read on.
Those who have campainged hard to ensure that parallel importation restrictions on books are not removed or amended, should be congratulated. They have done us all a great service. Today, a press release from Craig Emerson’s office announced: ‘The Government has decided not to change the Australian regulatory regime for books introduced by the previous Labor government.’
It goes on:
‘Australian book printing and publishing is under strong competitive pressure from international online booksellers such as Amazon and The Book Depository and the Government has formed the view that that this pressure is likely to intensify.
‘In addition, the technology of electronic books (e-books) like Kindle Books will continue to improve with further innovations and price reductions expected.
‘The Government has not accepted the Productivity Commission’s recommendation to remove the parallel importation restrictions on books.
‘The Productivity Commission report acknowledged that removing these restrictions would adversely affect Australian authors, publishers and culture. The Commission recommended extra budgetary funding of authors and publishers to compensate them for this loss.
‘The Government has decided not to commit to a new spending program for Australian authors and publishers.
‘Compromise proposals were considered, involving reductions in the length of the 30-day publication rule and the 90-day resupply rule.
‘In the circumstances of intense competition from online books and e-books, the Government judged that changing the regulations governing book imports is unlikely to have any material effect on the availability of books in Australia.
‘If books cannot be made available in a timely fashion and at a competitive price, customers will opt for online sales and e-books.
‘Introducing a price cap along the lines of the Canadian system would increase regulation with questionable effects on book prices.
‘The Australian book printing and publishing industries will need to respond to the increasing competition from imports without relying on additional government assistance.’
Please note that 3rd-from-last sentence, “If books cannot be made available, etc..” It was the book sellers of Australia (supermarkets and department stores included) who wanted to trash Australian publishing for the sake of larger profits by changing the PIR legislation. I think that sentence puts them firmly back in their box. However, it also points those of us who are concerned about Australian writing to where the next big battle will be fought.
Probably for the best, for now, until the Aussie publishing industry can stop sitting on their hands and find a way to make our books more viable in a global market.
I’ll drink to that, Ruzkin. We need Australian booksellers who are online and selling ebooks at good prices too. Otherwise all Australia’s bookbuying will shift overseas and then there will be no Aussie publishing industry (or book selling industry!) ay all. We can’t leave this kind of thing to supermarket chains, we need players like Fishpond.com.au and Boomerangbooks.com.au to step up to the mark.
What a shameful decision – protectionism at its worst. If Australian authors and publishers can’t compete in a global marketplace then we (customers) should not be propping them up. Sensationalist suggestions that there would be NO Australian literature left and Australian ‘culture’ would be lost are shameful and entirely misleading. The best would survive … the worst would not – nor should they. A victory for publishers and authors no doubt – but at a significant cost to consumers.
Hi Julie. I suppose what you’re saying is based on the following premises:
1. That the ‘global marketplace’ for books is a level playing field. Sadly it is not. America and the UK (and just about everywhere else!) have laws much like our own PIR legislation. So they could still protect their own publishers, while flooding Australia with cheap and remaindered editions of books. If Australian publishers don’t have the same protection, it is very difficult for them to compete. If they can’t compete, fewer Australian writers can be published (except overseas, where Australian idioms are censored or edited out of their work.)
2. That it is the quality of the work alone that determines what gets published in overseas markets. I don’t deny that quality counts, but other things matter just as much. Things like content. A book about Australians, written in Australian idioms and using Australian locations, is just not as attractive to an American reader as a book with American people, idioms and places. If American readers don’t like reading Australian stories, American publishers won’t publish them. The population of the USA is about fifteen times greater than that of Australia. Which authors will American publishers favour? It’s simple maths.
I don’t think people are saying there will be no Asutralian literature left and our culture would be lost, at least, I’m not. But it is already a struggle for new, Australian writers because of the tiny size of the publishing industry here. Nobbling Australian publishers by removing PIRs and making them less competitive would have shrunk the market even more. Not only would there have been fewer Australian ‘voices’ being published but they would be further drowned out by yet more overseas books being sold cheaply over here.
@Julie,
I thought the same as you, until I had a chat with Mr. Nix about the situation and had some points clarified.
The largest market for Aussie authors is Australia, simply because we enjoy reading books derived from our own culture. Aussie retailers want to sell Aussie books to Aussies, and that makes money for Aussie authors.
Now, whenever you buy an Aussie print of an Aussie-written book, the author gets around $1.50, maybe $2. That’s not much. But, every time someone in the US buys a book by an Aussie author, that author only gets arouns 30c. Overseas contract royalties are a pittance, and some countries don’t pay royalties at all for foreign titles – China, for example, would pay a flat $500 or so for the rights to an Aussie book, and that’d be the end of it.
Now, imagine we remove import restrictions on foreign titles. What would K-Mart and Target do? Buy Aussie books from Aussie publishers? Or would they stock their shelves with foreign reprints of Aussie titles and leave those same home-grown authors you love and cherish bankrupt?
We have a publishing industry?
Could have fooled me.
Where’s aussiebookstores.com.au? Huh?
Damn lazy-ass industry.
With all the market and opportunities we have, why is it that no-one is making the most of the new e-book market?
Well said, Merrilee!
Thanks for that clarification Graham. It is a numbers game, and it’s not rocket science to see that population imbalance has been disastrous for many macro- and micro-economies. Think clothing and footwear. Think farming. Think just about every African post-colonial political entity.
The US and UK both practise protectionism to a degree that makes the rest of us swoon, and not just in publishing. Tax incentives, tariffs, subsidies where it’s more financially viable to let fields lie fallow than to produce. Cheap clothes might be attractive to a consumer but if it means you lose your job to a sweat-shop or slave-run factory overseas, how is that good? Not that I’m saying publishers do that, but you get my point. Cheap isn’t always best in the long run.
In my ideal world, Australian authors get to ply their trade on a level playing field. If that means retaining protections that our so-called ‘competition’ are unlikely to remove any time soon, then so be it.
Yes, this should be a temporary solution. I agree that our publishing industry needs to step up and be the leading edge of new publishing solutions, not digging their heels in while sticking their heads in the sand (sorry, metaphor running away with me now).
Now that the government has created this window, a breathing space for the industry to decide if it wants to sink without trace, or lead the pack to the other end of the pool, let’s hope we see enthusiastic donning of Speedos and goggles. Even if some still need their floaties, we gotta start owning that pool!
Aaargh, Janette, I’m drowning in metaphors! I’ll tell you what, I’ll just go and stand over at the shallow end and you can get on with it.
But, of course, I agree with every soggy word.
I think this attack on the industry by the Coalition for Fatter Shareholders, came at an extremely bad time for us. It was a big distration that lasted a whole year. We’re probably about 2 years behing Europe and the States in the production and consumption of ebooks at the moment and I suspect the PIR issue has stifled a lot of investment in innovation that publishers might have been making but have not dared to with this hanging over them.
And what are we suggesting??? we keep the market closed because we are too stupid and lazy to compete!!!
maybe we are, fishpond is a new zealand bookseller after all.
Well, I thought we were suggesting we keep import restrictions going in order to give our publishers some chance to compete. You don’t have to be stupid or lazy to fail in a market where everyone else has trade barriers except you. But even if everyone were to drop their barriers at the same time, as Janette mentioned, the different sizes of the players involved means the odds will always be stacked against us. I would happily say open it all up in other industries, but publishing is different. Australia doesn’t have anything unique to protect when it comes to car manufacturing, or farming, or coal mining. Anyone else’s product is essentially equivalent. But Australian culture, Australian ways of speaking, Australian values, the Australian political system, Australian attitudes to life, are quite different to those of other countries – including America. By having our own writers, writing our own stories in our own way, we help avoid these aspect of our society from being eroded away. Without our own publishing industry, in the long run, we won’t have our own writers.
Books are not just commodities. They are not like computers or sheep. This is where the business people running Dymocks and K-Mart get it completely wrong. Books are little pieces of the soul of a society. They reflect, they interpret, they discuss and they influence the lives we lead. Putting such precious creations at risk in the name of free market ideology seems wildly reckless to me. And let’s face it, free market proponents should be hanging their heads in shame at the moment, not pressing for more risk and more deregulation.
Amen to ‘books are not commodities’
I laugh every time I hear the argument that says we should remove protection because we’re “afraid we can’t compete”. It’s an antiquated and simplistic notion, a hangover from the days of the economic rationalists. It might have worked in a village bartering economy trading eggs and chickens and goats, but has no place in the sophisticated business systems that surround us now.
Supermarket chains use their buying power to buy books at crazy cheap prices, then sell for less than retail, as loss-leaders to entice shoppers through the doors. Small booksellers without the commercial muscle pay more than for stock than the chains are charging for the retail price. I know of one seller who chose to buy her stock of a particular bestseller at Target since it was cheaper than she could get it from the publisher – and they got it a week before the publisher would let her have it! Does that mean she is too stupid or lazy to compete? Hardly. (Actually I think her solution is quite clever)
Publishers, like the ‘sellers’ of other purveyors of entertainment and information, make marketing decisions that entail extraordinary levels of risk. We can maybe see this more clearly demonstrated in the movie industry.
The marketing campaign for the movie “Independence Day” cost $30 million and started 6 weeks before the movie launched. It went on to become the highest grossing movie of 1996. It’s a fun flick, but hardly the most intelligent or innovative or exciting movie of that year.
Does that mean all the other movies that year couldn’t compete because the makers were too stupid or lazy? Hardly. It does imply that a massive marketing campaign influences people’s buying decisions in ways that have nothing to do with the inherent value of the thing being sold.
This is especially true for the selling of ideas. We all know the huge difference it can mean to a book whether or not the publisher invests in a big campaign with storefront displays, book signings and a spot on Oprah. Does that have anything to do with being clever or stupid; hardworking or lazy?
It becomes an absurd argument in this context.
Books of all kinds are an important part of our lives, from the big blockbusters sold at half price in the supermarket to the small-run exquisite volumes of poetry which far fewer people will buy and read. Just as I don’t want to be restricted to the one or two big brands of cereal or cookies, I don’t want to be restricted to one kind of reading.
Maybe one day we’ll have a system where publishers only sell the blockbusters, and everything else is direct selling by the author online to the buyer. It could work, but is it the only way? I love the feel and smell of a new book, but confess to having bought several e-books as well. As a buyer, I want diversity.
Does this mean the blockbusters should subsidise the books of poetry? Too right.
If I were the author of a blockbuster I would LOVE to think my success would allow my publisher to take a risk on poems or books by unknown authors or any other high-risk works. And you can quote me on that
Janette, competition is hardly an antiquated notion; it is the foundation of our economy. It’s tough for business but good for consumers and the economy in the way that protectionism never can be. Yes, authors might get more money if the PIR’s remain – good ones and bad ones – but the same is true of many industries that don’t receive similar protections from competition.
Ruzkin, I accept surviving on royalties is tough (I receive pittance for my books too, but fortunately that’s not why I write them) and that they may be less from foreign publishers – but there are other solutions – has anyone on this site actually read the PC report or the plethora of other reports recommending removal of PIRs or are you just completely sucked in by the self-interested protestations of authors and publishers who, like any other producer, would naturally prefer to be insulated from as much foreign competition as possible so as to maximise profits above competitive market levels?
Hi Julie, Yes, I read the PC report (and their other materials.) I was even quoted in it. I don’t think that you and I disagree on the value of free market competition. It drives innovation, it lowers costs, and is, generally, a good thing. We probably don’t agree on its universal applicability.
I think there are areas of our life where unfettered capitalism is a bad thing. I believe people should be protected from it in areas like public utilities. I don’t want my water supply, electricity supply, or telecoms in the hands of coprorations. I want them in the hands of a government I can vote for – or not vote for. I don’t want ‘ability to pay’ to be the criterion for whether people get medical care or education.
In the case of publishing, I want a legislative regime that will encourage the emergence and support of local talent. I don’t particularly want protection from imports, but if that is the only way to achieve it, then so be it. A far worse situation than keeping PIRs would be to support writers through tax-funded, government grants, as suggested in the PC report. Australian writers don’t deserve to be turned into charity cases.
Julie – yes. Read it, researched it, submitted to it. And I reserve the right to disagree with your position.
Graham you agreed Ruzkin on this point
ruzkin
November 10th, 2009 at 6:02 pm · Reply
Probably for the best, for now, until the Aussie publishing industry can stop sitting on their hands and find a way to make our books more viable in a global market.
and then suggested booksellers are to blame for the lack of an e-book market.
My comment about being too lazy to compete stems directly from this.
Booksellers would love to sell e-books, the PIR’s and publishers unwillingness to release them here stop them from doing that.
And Janette, any booksellers having to get their stock from Target is only stocking the bestsellers and any independent would go broke trying to do that. And hang on, if the publishers are giving such huge margin to target (even with the mistaken idea that they sell books at a loss) that it’s cheaper for a bookseller to buy it from them maybe it’s not really the bookseller
who needs to ‘step up to the mark’
What is stupid is publishers controlling the market and NOT providing service. Too slow, too expensive, too late.
The current system doesn’t work.
If we all have to sit around waiting for publishers to “find a way to make our books viable on the global market” we won’t have a local publsihing industry because there won’t be enough booksellers to sustain it.
What’s your solution to that?? because Target and woolies won’t step into the breach.
Graham – thanks for your diplomatic reply.
I agree there are some areas where “unfettered capitalism is a bad thing” including utilities, but to a lesser degree than you – I don’t mind them in the hands of corporations provided some conditions are attached (eg, supply to rural areas). I am also a fan of the public health system, supplemented by a private option.
But I don’t think it’s fair to compare books. First, it’s all books published in Australia that are protected – those by Australian authors (whether about Australian culture or not (eg, a book in competition policy in the EU written by an Australian is equally ‘protected’) and foreign authors.
If there is a need to encourage local talent (something open to question, but I will assume it is the case at the moment) then there are better ways to go about it – support local talent with grants etc that are appropriately targeted and interfere less with natural market forces (you suggest that this is a worse option because it turns Australian writers into charity cases – but that is precisely what the PIR’s do – they say you can’t survive on merits, so we’ll protect you …).
Why exactly should someone uninterested in Australian-authored books be forced to pay more for their foreign preferred options so support local talent? It no longer happens in film or music and Australian talent in those industries has survived.
Ultimately, the PIRs protect foreign interests as much as they do Australian interests and impose additional costs on those unable to seek out online alternatives (most commonly the uneducated or elderly). It’s not just about economics, but economics is a good starting point – and you won’t find any economists supporting the PIRs.
Janette, you can disagree all you like – I enjoy good debate – it’s just that most of what you say is entirely nonsensical (mass marketing leads to more sales – it’s not fair!) so it’s virtually impossible to engage in rational debate.
Hi Gobsmacked, You’re right, there are two separate issues being conflated here. One is the discussion about PIRs and whether we need them. The other is about whether our publishing industry is dynamic enough to compete effectively in the world even on a level playing field.
I think it’s fair to say that booksellers, as we currently know them, are doomed. The rise of electronic publication will eventually push print into niche markets. The mainstream will be ebooks (and whatever they evolve into). K-Mart and Woolworths probably won’t be selling ebooks when this happens and, the way things look now, neither will Dymocks or any of the other main players. We’ll get our books from international ebook aggregators (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, B&N, Sony) or direct from the publishers (who are, even now, setting up ebook-only imprints, and revamping their technical infrastructure to manage direct sales – overseas, anyway, not here) or direct from the author.
The supply chain from writers to readers at the moment passes through publishers and booksellers. There will always be a need for some of the services publishers provide (selection, editing, design, marketing) but I’m not sure there will be entities like present-day publishers providing them in the future.
I suppose what I’m saying is that whatever the foibles and ineptitudes of our present crop of booksellers and publishers, the tides of change are about to roll right over the lot of them and 20 years from now they will seem like an historical oddity, artefacts of a defunct technology.
Yet again a real pleasure being able to watch a lively debate – that’s the thing (one of the things) I like about this blog. Articulate people are able to enunciate differing points of view and hold a respectful discourse.
Reminds me of school lunchtimes.
terry
“Reminds me of school lunchtimes.”
You mean I’ve got to give the big kid my Mars Bar?