Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023: removing the cap on what radio pays artists

The short answer

Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023: removing the cap on what radio pays artists

The Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023 is a private senator's bill that would remove two longstanding statutory caps in the Copyright Act 1968: the cap limiting the Copyright Tribunal from ordering commercial radio broadcasters to pay more than 1 per cent of gross earnings for the use of sound recordings, and the cap limiting ABC radio's liability to 0.5 cents per head of the Australian population. Introduced by Senator David Pocock (Independent, ACT) on 3 August 2023, the bill was debated at second reading and referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which reported in June 2024. The bill lapsed at the end of Parliament on 21 July 2025, was restored on 23 July 2025, and remains before the Senate.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill changes: removing the two statutory caps

The bill makes two targeted amendments to the Copyright Act 1968. First, it removes the provision that prevents the Copyright Tribunal from determining an amount payable to copyright owners by commercial radio broadcasters that exceeds 1 per cent of the broadcaster's gross earnings.

This cap, which has existed since the Copyright Act was first enacted in 1968, limits how much commercial radio stations must pay for the use of sound recordings — that is, the actual recorded music they play. The cap has never been adjusted for inflation or changes in the radio industry in nearly six decades.

Second, the bill removes the provision that caps the ABC's liability for the use of sound recordings at 0.5 cents per head of the Australian population. This separate cap applies specifically to the national public broadcaster and functions similarly to limit what the ABC must pay for playing recorded music.

Together, these two amendments would allow the Copyright Tribunal to determine fair market rates for the use of sound recordings without being statutorily constrained by the caps. The Copyright Tribunal is an independent body that sets rates when copyright owners and users cannot agree through negotiation.

Evidence review

The policy problem: Australia as an outlier on radio royalties

Australia is unusual among developed countries in maintaining a statutory cap on what radio broadcasters must pay for the use of sound recordings. In most comparable jurisdictions — including the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and New Zealand — radio broadcasters pay negotiated or tribunal-determined rates that reflect the commercial value of the music they play.

The 1 per cent cap was set in 1968 and has never been updated. In the intervening decades, the radio industry has undergone dramatic change: consolidation of ownership, the rise of FM and digital radio, and competition from streaming services and podcasts. Yet the statutory cap remains as it was when the Act was passed.

Senator Pocock and supporters of the bill argue the cap amounts to a government-mandated subsidy for radio broadcasters at the expense of artists and record labels. They contend that radio stations benefit commercially from playing recorded music — which attracts listeners and advertising revenue — and should pay fair market rates for that benefit.

Commercial radio broadcasters argue that removing the cap would impose unsustainable costs on an industry already facing competition from streaming services and podcasts. They point to the public benefit of free-to-air radio, particularly in regional and rural areas where radio remains an essential service.

Evidence review

Who gains and who pays

Recording artists, session musicians, and record labels would be the primary beneficiaries if the caps are removed, as they would be able to seek higher payments for the use of their recordings. The Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA), which collects and distributes royalties for sound recordings, has long advocated for the removal of the caps.

The Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA), which collects royalties for songwriters and composers, operates under a separate framework and is not directly affected by these caps. The caps relate specifically to the sound recording copyright, not the composition copyright that APRA administers.

Commercial radio broadcasters — including major networks such as Southern Cross Austereo, Nine Radio, and ARN — would face the potential for increased costs, depending on what rates the Copyright Tribunal determines. These networks have argued that the caps are necessary for the viability of commercial radio, particularly in smaller markets.

The ABC, as a public broadcaster with fixed government funding, would also be affected. Any increase in music royalty costs would potentially require budget reallocation from other programming, including news, current affairs, and Australian content. The ABC's funding constraints make this a particularly sensitive issue.

Evidence review

What the committee inquiry found

The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on 10 August 2023. The committee took evidence from artists, record labels, collecting societies, commercial radio broadcasters, and the ABC over a nearly 11-month inquiry period.

The committee reported on 20 June 2024. Committee inquiries typically make recommendations about whether a bill should be passed, with or without amendments. The substance of the committee's findings, including any dissenting reports, would need to be read directly from the committee's published report.

The referral to committee itself indicates that the bill raised issues warranting detailed examination. The nearly 11-month inquiry period suggests that the committee took extensive evidence and considered the issues carefully.

The committee process gave stakeholders a formal opportunity to present evidence and argument, and the resulting report is an important contribution to the public record on the issue. Committee reports are public documents available on the Parliament of Australia website.

Evidence review

Where the bill stands

The bill was introduced on 3 August 2023 and the second reading was moved the same day. A second reading debate occurred on 9 August 2023, allowing senators to state their positions on the record.

The bill was then referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which reported in June 2024. Following the committee report, the bill returned to the Senate for further consideration.

Like all bills that had not passed, it lapsed when Parliament was prorogued on 21 July 2025. It was restored to the Senate Notice Paper on 23 July 2025, meaning it can resume its progress at the point where it left off.

As at 17 July 2026, the bill has been before the Senate for nearly three years. Its passage prospects depend on whether the government, the opposition, or a Senate majority is willing to bring it to a vote. The Senate's consideration of the committee report would be the next logical step in the legislative process.

Evidence review

Relationship to performers' rights and broader copyright reform debates

The bill sits within a broader Australian debate about the adequacy of copyright protections for performers and recording artists. Unlike songwriters and composers, who receive royalties when their compositions are played on radio through APRA, recording artists in Australia do not receive performance royalties for radio play of their recordings.

The PPCA collects royalties on behalf of record labels and registered artists, but the statutory caps limit how much can be collected. The caps apply to the Copyright Tribunal's powers, meaning they constrain the rate that can be set even if the Tribunal considers a higher rate to be fair.

The bill does not introduce a full performers' right to equitable remuneration for radio play, as exists in many European countries. In those jurisdictions, performers have a statutory right to receive payment when their recordings are broadcast, separate from the copyright held by the record label.

Any increase in payments resulting from the bill's passage would flow to recording rightsholders — primarily record labels — with artists' shares depending on their individual contractual arrangements with labels. This is an important distinction: removing the caps benefits copyright owners, but the flow-on to individual artists depends on the terms of their recording contracts.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer