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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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.
The Pirate Party's characterization reflects their opposition to the legislation rather than an independent verification of the government's statements and voting record.
Neither party supported the specific VPN exemptions proposed by the Greens, with both preferring the "primary purpose" test as the protection mechanism.
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].
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.
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.