The Claim
“Claimed that virtual private networks (VPNs) would be exempt from their internet filter, then voted against an amendment to exempt VPNs from their internet filter.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim refers to the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015, introduced by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull in March 2015. The bill allowed rights holders to obtain court orders requiring ISPs to block access to overseas websites whose "primary purpose" was facilitating copyright infringement [1].
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull did make public statements indicating VPNs would not be targeted by the legislation. In parliamentary debate on June 16, 2015, Turnbull explicitly stated: "This bill does not apply to a site like this. It is not intended to apply to VPNs" [2]. He elaborated that VPNs "have a wide range of legitimate purposes, not least of which is the preservation of privacy" and that the bill only targets sites whose "primary purpose" is copyright infringement [2].
The bill passed the Senate on June 22, 2015, with Coalition and Labor voting together (37-13) to defeat amendments proposed by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam [3]. Ludlam's amendments included measures that would have "completely ruled out blocking VPN services" [4]. The Labor opposition proposed only one amendment (calling for fair use to be introduced into Australian Copyright Law) and otherwise supported the bill without VPN-specific protections [4].
The Senate committee report had earlier noted that "VPNs are unlikely to meet the 'primary purpose test'" but declined to recommend a specific exemption, instead suggesting the government "clarify the status of VPNs in the explanatory memorandum" [5].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
First, the bill's "primary purpose" test theoretically excluded VPNs because VPNs have multiple legitimate uses (privacy, security, business applications) rather than having copyright infringement as their primary purpose [2]. The government argued that this legal threshold provided de facto protection for VPNs without requiring a specific exemption.
Second, Labor supported the bill alongside the Coalition, with both parties voting down the Greens' VPN amendments [4]. The bipartisan nature of the vote is not acknowledged in the claim's framing.
Third, the bill included a mandatory review provision requiring assessment of its effectiveness after two years of operation [5], which provided a mechanism to address unintended consequences including any VPN blocking.
Fourth, the claim conflates "voting against a specific amendment" with "voting against VPN exemptions." The government maintained that the bill's existing structure already protected VPNs through the "primary purpose" test, making a specific exemption legally redundant rather than opposed in principle [2].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is Pirate Party Australia, a political party focused on copyright reform, privacy, and digital rights [6]. While Pirate Party Australia has expertise in digital rights issues and participated in parliamentary inquiries on this legislation [7], it is also an advocacy organization with a stated political position opposing copyright enforcement measures. Their assessment should be understood as coming from an organization whose core platform includes opposing exactly this type of legislation [6].
The claim appears to conflate a political party's criticism with an objective fact-check. The Pirate Party's characterization reflects their opposition to the legislation rather than an independent verification of the government's statements and voting record.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Labor supported the same bill and voted alongside the Coalition to defeat the Greens' VPN amendments [4]. Labor Senator Jacinta Collins stated that VPN services would not be targeted because of the amendment to the Explanatory Memorandum [4].
The bipartisan support for this legislation indicates that both major parties shared similar views on site-blocking as a copyright enforcement tool. Neither party supported the specific VPN exemptions proposed by the Greens, with both preferring the "primary purpose" test as the protection mechanism.
Balanced Perspective
The government's position was that VPNs were already protected by the bill's "primary purpose" requirement, which required copyright infringement to be the main purpose of a service rather than merely one possible use [2]. Turnbull explicitly stated: "Where someone is using a VPN to access, for example, Netflix from the United States to get content in respect of which Netflix does not have an Australian licence, this bill would not deal with that, because you could not say that Netflix in the United States has as its primary purpose the infringement, or facilitation of the infringement, of copyright" [2].
Critics, including the Pirate Party, EFF, and consumer groups like CHOICE, argued that the "primary purpose" test was dangerously vague and could theoretically be applied to VPNs by aggressive rights holders [8]. The EFF noted that "operators of Virtual Private Network (VPN) services, some of whom specifically market their services for their ability to access blocked or geoblocked content" could be at risk [8].
However, in practice, no VPN providers have been targeted under this legislation since its passage in 2015. The predicted widespread blocking of VPNs did not occur, suggesting the government's legal interpretation was accurate.
The vote against the Greens' amendment was bipartisan (Coalition and Labor together), not a unilateral Coalition decision [4]. Both major parties accepted the government's assurance that the "primary purpose" test was sufficient protection.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim has a factual basis but presents a misleading picture. Malcolm Turnbull did state that VPNs would not be affected by the legislation, and the Coalition (along with Labor) did vote against Greens amendments that would have explicitly exempted VPNs. However, the claim omits that: (1) the government argued VPNs were already protected by the "primary purpose" test, (2) Labor also voted against the VPN amendments, making this bipartisan rather than a Coalition-specific action, and (3) the government's assessment appears to have been accurate as VPNs have not been blocked under this legislation. The framing suggests hypocrisy where there was legitimate legal reasoning behind the position.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim has a factual basis but presents a misleading picture. Malcolm Turnbull did state that VPNs would not be affected by the legislation, and the Coalition (along with Labor) did vote against Greens amendments that would have explicitly exempted VPNs. However, the claim omits that: (1) the government argued VPNs were already protected by the "primary purpose" test, (2) Labor also voted against the VPN amendments, making this bipartisan rather than a Coalition-specific action, and (3) the government's assessment appears to have been accurate as VPNs have not been blocked under this legislation. The framing suggests hypocrisy where there was legitimate legal reasoning behind the position.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
legislation.gov.au
Federal Register of Legislation
-
2
torrentfreak.com
As Australia's site blocking Bill took a step closer to becoming law yesterday, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull made it extra clear that VPN use won't be a problem under the legislation. Ordering "the big boys" to sort out the VPN issue between themselves, Turnbull told rightsholders to leave consumers alone.
Torrentfreak -
3
smh.com.au
Watershed moment for film and TV industry as controverisal anti-piracy laws pass.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
4
zdnet.com
Labor has ensured the government's website-blocking Bill has passed both houses of the Australian parliament.
ZDNET -
5
smh.com.au
Legislation allowing rights holders to get overseas websites blocked that infringe copyright is a step closer to becoming law in Australia after a federal parliamentary committee scrutinising the associated bill gave it the green light.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
6
en.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia -
7PDF
18. org pirate party australia
Alrc Gov • PDF Document -
8
eff.org
The steamroller that is the copyright enforcement machine continues to trundle along around the world, flattening obstacles such as fair use, privacy and freedom of expression in its path. One of its latest stops has been in Australia, where that country’s copyright site-blocking laws, first...
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.