Martin Tracey: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13884. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to provide New Zealand First’s contribution on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. I found it incredibly interesting listening to the Labour Party contribution by the member Clare Curran and also to the Green Party contribution by Mr Gareth Hughes. Ms Curran’s contribution somehow suggested that these New Zealanders these cinema owners are ripping off New Zealanders that these New Zealanders who are running businesses with New Zealand employees are somehow ripping off New Zealand by asking for the continuation—a short continuation—of a delayed release protection. That is what they are asking for. That is all they are asking for.I find it fascinating that Mr Hughes calls this a statutory monopoly. A statutory monopoly is what he calls this. I have to remind Mr Hughes—and apparently he was on the Commerce Committee so I would have thought he would know—that the DVD companies that have the right to release these DVDs and therefore sell them also get protection. The pay-per-view channels cannot play any of these movies for a period of time after the cinema release. Pay television cannot play these films for 9 to 12 months after the DVD people have got them and free-to-air cannot play them for 12 to 24 months after the DVD people have got them. So it is not a statutory monopoly at all that these poor little rural cinemas employing good honest hard-working New Zealanders in particularly difficult financial times are seeking from their Government and from their Parliament; they are seeking a little bit more time to step up into the digital age. I do not think that is a statutory monopoly; I think that is New Zealanders asking from their elected representatives the protections that they should have and the consideration that their Government should give them when it talks about New Zealanders’ jobs. That is what I would say.These two members also appear to have forgotten the other part of the conversation which is actually about the ability for New Zealand films to be shown. There is a whole area of film production behind this conversation. There needs to be a window in which rural cinemas and New Zealand cinemas can show New Zealand - made films. If New Zealand - made films have to go straight to DVD without any of the coverage that they can get from being shown inside mainstream cinemas they will lose money and that industry will fold. Let us just have a talk about how much money that industry brings in shall we? A 2012 report by New Zealand’s leading financial services firm PricewaterhouseCoopersEconomic contribution of the New Zealand film and television industryindicates that the industry generated more than $3.23 billion in revenue in 2011.I do not want to take too long because this bill is going to pass—it needs to pass—but some common sense needed to be put into the conversation quite frankly. When the Labour Party starts using the word “choice” you need to worry New Zealand because that word has traditionally belonged to the right. What we have got now is Ms Curran standing up and we have got the Green Party standing up and talking about how New Zealanders should have choice—New Zealanders should have choice. Damn the sales. Damn the New Zealanders being employed. This is about choice. I think New Zealand needs to think very carefully in 2014 about which party it really needs to put into power in this House—the party that truly stands up for New Zealanders and the one that puts New Zealanders first in every piece of legislation. New Zealand First will vote for this legislation.