Ryall Tony: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9394] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Although it is not strictly within the Standing Orders I apologise for the confusion caused on the last matter. I would observe that other members of the Opposition were of the same view as I was and indeed as was the Minister—she thought I had the call as well. As the Minister has pointed out it appears that we were confused with the Credit Contracts Act which was also split during the debate. We apologise for that confusion but it was widely held on all sides of the House. 
The National Party will strongly oppose the passing of this bill because we believe it is a hugely privileged piece of legislation that will favour only a few in the community. It will not work and what is more it breaches a promise the Government made. In her Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister promised that she would deliver to the arts community a 2-year prohibition on the parallel importing of CDs videos films books and software. Where is the Prime Minister’s promise of a 2-year import ban on software in this bill? Nowhere. Where is the Prime Minister’s promise of a 2-year ban on the importing of books in this bill? Nowhere. Where is the Prime Minister’s ban on the importing of CDs and videos for 2 years? Absolutely nowhere. We think the title of this bill should more appropriately be the “Copyright (Broken Promises by the Prime Minister) Bill” because it fails to do what the Prime Minister promised she would do. 
When she got the Greens’ support for this bill the Prime Minister said she would have a 2-year ban on the importing of books videos CDs and DVDs to protect the New Zealand arts community. That is what she promised the Greens when she said: “Help me get this bill passed.” Is there a ban on any of those things for 2 years? No so it is incorrect for the Prime Minister to try to tell this Committee that this is a Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill when what it is really about is her broken promises to the Greens. 
We know that what is in this bill will not work. This bill should more correctly be called the “Copyright (Put up the Price of DVDs and Videos) Bill” because that is the consequence of what this Government is trying to do. We know that the evidence from Australia is absolutely clear that parallel-importing bans do not assist in the development of the arts industry. It has been estimated by the Government’s own advisers that as a result of the parallel-importing ban in Australia consumers there pay $6 more than American consumers for musical recordings. That means that over $1 billion more is paid by Australian music listeners and video watchers than would have been the case had the ban not been in place. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Music is not covered. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is absolutely right. It is not covered because the Minister and Helen Clark have broken their promise to the Greens and to the arts community of New Zealand because they said they would have this ban. What is more in each part of this debate we intend to go through page after page of official documents that show time and time again the Government’s advisers saying that the Prime Minister’s promise was not practical and would not work. This is the “Copyright (Broken Promises by the Prime Minister) Bill” because yet again another promise made by the Government in the Speech from the Throne is not included in the bill. 
We will be talking about this issue later in other parts of the debate but there was the extraordinary circumstance of the former Minister of Commerce Paul Swain thinking that there should be a ban on the parallel importing of books everywhere except in libraries. How minute how detailed can Government interference get in respect of reading material?