Street Maryan: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Street Maryan: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11553] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments about the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill which is before us for its second reading. 
First of all the Minister of Customs in her introductory speech referred to a Supplementary Order Paper that would seek to repeal “this section of the Act”—referring to section 88. This issue is covered by clause 49 of the bill as it stands. I would like to make it absolutely clear that the Minister was completely right in foreshadowing the Supplementary Order Paper which will be presented at the appropriate moment—the Committee stage. It does not need to appear now which is why it does not appear now. I recall the Minister saying that a Supplementary Order Paper would seek to repeal this section of the Act and that is correct. At the appropriate moment that Supplementary Order Paper will be produced. 
I would like to make really clear to the House that the Supplementary Order Paper is necessary because the repeal of section 88 was put forward in the original bill but the majority view of the Commerce Committee—not a unanimous view—was that that section should be reinstated and should not be deleted from the statute. The Government’s intention was and remains to delete that section and let me explain why that is. I am happy to do so now in this stage of the proceedings and to do so again in the Committee stage—I am very happy to repeat it then for the members opposite in order to make it clear. Section 88 of the Copyright Act 1994 permits the reception and immediate retransmission of a free-to-air broadcast by a cable programme service in certain circumstances without infringing either the copyright in the broadcast or the copyright in any work contained in it. 
 As I have said a majority of the Commerce Committee favoured retention of the current section 88 although it was notable from the previous speaker’s contribution that there was no justification for that. No rationale for the retention of that section was given. I am happy to give some rationale for the deletion of that section in the absence of any cogent rationale to the contrary. The rationale is largely on the basis of submissions from TelstraClear and Sky television which considered that if the section was retained it would allow free-to-air broadcasts to be delivered in the most effective and convenient manner and at a higher quality. It would improve reception quality for consumers in isolated areas or urban areas with reception difficulties. Competition and choice for consumers would not be reduced because the current provision ensures that broadcasters enter into reasonable commercial arrangements for the supply of free-to-air channels and ensures that there is competition between broadcasters. Some of the select committee members also raised concerns that the repeal of section 88 would undermine the investment in cable networks that had already been made as a result of the provision and noted that Australia and Canada both have similar provisions. 
When the Supplementary Order Paper comes before the House at the appropriate moment it will seek to reinsert the repeal of section 88. I do not know whether there are too many double negatives for the Opposition members to get their heads round but the rationale for this— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Cheap shot! 
MARYAN STREET 
: But an easy one. The rationale for retaining the provision that was put forward by TelstraClear and the majority of the select committee is not compelling. Section 88 does not fulfil the objectives that it was originally put in place to achieve. Its original purpose was to encourage investment in telecommunications infrastructure and to improve reception quality. Since section 88 was enacted in 1994 a broader range of transmission technologies have been developed. 
TelstraClear has been the only significant cable service provider operating in New Zealand. It operates in Wellington Kapiti and Christchurch with approximately 40000 customers. But in today’s environment there is little likelihood of cable TV services being extended. Given the changing nature of technology the current provision as it stands has very little overall influence on technology investment. The lack of rationale for reinstatement of the section in question is completely eclipsed overshadowed and overtaken—and shown for what it is—by the rationale for the section’s deletion. 
I want to reply also to the comments made—again in a fairly glib manner—by the previous speaker about the issues requiring further review which are referred to at the end of the select committee’s report. He is absolutely right; they are there for everybody to read. There are four issues remaining for further review which the select committee agreed unanimously should be taken up as a matter of urgency. There are some compelling points at issue here. There are issues about off-air recordings of television programmes to educational establishments the rights of directors—I will come back to that issue at another time because it is one I feel quite strongly about—orphaned works and access to works for print-disabled persons which is also a matter of real importance. 
At every point submitters came with a particular issue—like the Screen Directors Guild talking about directors’ rights. That is nothing other than a genuine reflection of the process of having something come before a select committee. Where an issue has not been considered previously and where it affects a much wider range of people who might have something to say about it but had not thought it would be raised by a submitter it is legitimate to ask for a little more time in order that people who have an interest in the issue could consider it properly so that consultation might occur. If that looks like piecemeal legislation to the members opposite then I ask them to weigh that against the need for real consultation about issues of this sort that have an effect on wider populations than those who were simply privileged to hear an individual submission during the course of a select committee hearing. 
I absolutely refute the accusation that anything about this complicated and technical legislation has been piecemeal. The fact that it has flushed out an additional four issues for serious consideration—for consultation for proper debate and for proper consideration—simply means that there are issues that could not be adequately addressed by the process in train. It is legitimate that these issues are submitted to an additional process in order that there is a proper hearing of them. That is not piecemeal legislation. That is proper consideration of issues that have been brought before a select committee.