77. _org_ Box Hill Institute of TAFE

Full name: Box Hill Institute of TAFE

Question 1: 
Question 2: 
Question 3: 
Question 4: 
Question 5: 
Question 6: 
Question 7: 
Question 8: 
Question 9: 
Question 10: 
Question 11: 
Question 12: 
Question 13: 
Question 14: 
Question 15: 
Question 16: 
Question 17: 
Question 18: 
Question 19: 
Question 20: 
Question 21: 
Question 22: 
Question 23: 
Question 24: 
Question 25: 
Question 26: 
Question 27: 
Question 28: 
Question 29: 
Question 30: 
Question 31: 
Question 32: 
Question 33: 
Question 34: 
Question 35: 
Question 36: 
Question 37: 
Question 38: 
Question 39: 
Question 40: 
Question 41: 
Question 42: 
Question 43: 
Question 44: 
Question 45: 
Question 46: 
Question 47: 
Question 48: 
Question 49: 
Question 50: 
Question 51: 
Question 52: 
Question 53: 
Question 54: 
Question 55: 
Other comments: 
Introduction
Box Hill Institute of TAFE submits that to give effect to the Issue Paper’s Principle 1 (and other principles in the context of principle 1) vocational training must be seen as a prerequisite because without a skilled workforce the digital economy cannot develop. 
The challenge is for the current inquiry to identify the requirements for the development of a structurally sound digital economy. This must include a vocational training sector that can meet the needs of the sector. In turn if there are barriers to this these must be identified.
Background- the historical role of vocational training in copyright law reform
One of the barriers the ALRC faces is the traditional exclusion of educational institutions from the WIPO definition of   “copyright industries”.[i] This long standing methodological flaw has resulted in a failure to consider of the role of vocational training institutions as a core part of the traditional copyright sector.
It is our submission that this flaw should not be reproduced in the context of the current inquiry since whatever the (unknown) economic value of copyright material generated by educational institutions is, the central role of vocational training in producing an effective workforce puts vocational training at the centre of the inquiry’s scope, not at the periphery.
What the issues paper lacks, we submit, is a comprehensive functional analysis of the requirements of a digital economy.
We submit that economic and social factors will act as enablers or barriers to fostering the digital economy. An effective vocational and training sector represents a key potential enabler or barrier.
Vocational training and the relevant balance of interests-young people a consumer and digital economy workers
We submit that the relevant balance of interests in reform of copyright law is not the balance between individual copyright owners and copyright users, but between public interest (defined here as that which supports the structural outcomes of the system) and the right of copyright owners to profit at any point in time.
This approach is already in place-copyright has a time limit and always has. That same logic should apply to the digital economy because this logic accurately reflects the balance of interest between providing incentive and benefit to copyright generators while ensuring copyright does not produce barriers to economic development that benefits all.
Vocational training is a key issue not just in the paper’s Principle 1, but also Principles 4 and 5. Vocational training is at its core a system to encourage and facilitate economic participation. It’s importance to promotion of fair access to content (Principle 4) is clear-access is required for Australians who want to participate in the economy, including the digital economy, by developing required skills.
The impact of “technological” change (Principle 5), in the context of the development of the digital economy, is most clearly relevant to students of vocational course who are predominantly young person (16-25 years) and who are both consumers of products and services but are also using that technology within a training context.
We submit that to exclude both the private and vocational training needs of particularly the young cohort of students at vocational training institutions, by not placing vocational training at the core of any law reform impact analysis would demonstrate a failure to understand the relationship between social and economic changes among the population of young Australians. Young persons who are training in the skills required for future growth in the digital economy must be a central concern of this inquiry.
However the development of a sound digital economy is relevant to all age cohorts. Long term data shows participation in TAFE of 35-49 year olds is high.[ii] In the context of the social and economic value of the digital economy, this suggests the capacity of the vocational training sector to retrain older workers should be a key factor in the ALRC considerations.
Our submission on what the above means for implementing copyright law reform
We submit that the implications of the above to this inquiry is that it should include in its assessment the extent to which the current copyright law regime facilitates, or represents a barrier to, the vocational training system’s  capacity to produce a skilled workforce for the digital economy.
The key issues in such an assessment are:
This role may be limited by poor access to copyright materials and may be addressed by identifying the structural elements of growth in the digital economy-including a skilled workforce and developing solutions to any barriers
This point is particularly relevant to resolving permitted use of content in supporting current and future teaching practice-e.g. use of content on tablets, restricted access to some online platforms, and changes in how contents are used.
Recommendations

[i] “The Economic Contribution of Australia’s Copyright Industries 1996-7 to 2010-11”. Price Waterhouse 2012 at page 12
[ii] NCVER “Analysis of TAFE provision Support document” veronica volkoff kira clarke anne walstab centre for post-compulsory education and lifelong learning, university of melbourne 2008. Figure 3, page 7 shows participation of this cohort at greater than the levels of participation of 20-24 years in some states. 2004 data.