Collective Management and the Copyright Tribunals of New Zealand and Australia

Susy Frankel FRSNZ, Nikita Melashchenko · Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights · (17 March 2025) · chapter · source ↗︎

When someone plays music at a venue or copies a textbook chapter for a class, they need a licence from whoever owns the copyright. Collecting societies pool those rights and issue licences on behalf of rights holders — but New Zealand and Australia take very different approaches, with Australia using compulsory government licensing schemes and New Zealand relying on voluntary arrangements. This chapter maps those differences, examines how each country’s Copyright Tribunal resolves disputes over licence terms, and explores where competition law steps in to keep collecting societies in check.

Key points

• New Zealand and Australia both use collecting societies to manage copyright licensing, but the two systems work differently. Australia has government-mandated compulsory licensing schemes, particularly for educational institutions, which generate significantly more revenue for rights holders. New Zealand takes a hands-off approach, leaving licensing entirely to voluntary negotiation between copyright owners and users. Both countries share some collecting societies (like APRA for music), and have built unified licensing platforms to make it easier for businesses to get the rights they need in one place.

• Each country has a Copyright Tribunal that can step in when rights holders and users cannot agree on the price or terms of a licence. The Tribunals do not take sides. Their job is to set a fair rate that reflects the interests of both copyright owners and the public. However, the NZ Tribunal has narrower powers. It can adjust the terms of an existing licence but cannot create a new one from scratch. The Australian Tribunal has broader authority and has been more willing to intervene directly when a collecting society holds a monopoly over a particular type of content.

• Where the Tribunals leave off, competition law picks up. In Australia, the competition regulator (ACCC) has closely scrutinised collecting societies, requiring them to publish detailed information about how they set their rates. In New Zealand, that oversight has been lighter, meaning less public transparency.

• Looking ahead, the chapter notes that New Zealand’s flexible voluntary system may actually be better suited to emerging challenges, including licensing content to AI developers, than Australia’s more rigid statutory framework.