Curran Clare: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am not aSmurfs fan I have to say—Monsters Inc. I reckon;Monsters Inc. There are a few of them on the other side of the House. Look there has to be a circuit-breaker on copyright and intellectual property in New Zealand on the laws and on the whole of the policy regime that surrounds that. There has to be a circuit-breaker for that. The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill is not that circuit-breaker. I have got a bit more to say on that but this bill is not that circuit-breaker. It is a temporary measure. Yes it is a bit vexed and yes as I think you might have gathered there is grudging support for it—grudging support for it—on this side of the House after a lot of thought and discussion. But there has to be a circuit-breaker on copyright and intellectual property in this country and there has to be a wider debate on what needs to happen next. This bill is the continuation of a temporary measure.There is a bit of a difference between the Opposition parties here tonight on which side we came down on. But ultimately one of the best things about the process that this bill has shown evidence of is that around the Commerce Committee in which it was debated there was pretty much unanimous support in terms of the actual issues that we are addressing. I think that if anything good has come out of this process it is that there is now an acknowledgment of the influence of the digital environment in the copyright area and of the fact that the movie industry has to change.We have got a time-limited bill in front of us. Labour has pretty much come down on the position as in fact our minority report states that the time period—when it should expire—should actually be earlier than what the bill says. But there is a time limit. There has been a very very clear message given to the industry that if it comes before the select committee again it is not going to get any truck because it has to change. That is the fact of the matter.Ultimately for our creative and internet industries we have to have a review of copyright laws. There was supposed to be a review of the gamut of copyright laws in this country this year but that side of the House the Government decided that that was not the direction it was going to go in. Ultimately it said that that was because of the process of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which is a shame. It is a shame for our country. The Government has abandoned that commitment to hold a review this year. We say that it should have undertaken a review and that what we will do when we are elected next year is immediately undertake such a review. It is so important that we try to address the wider issues that are involved in copyright and how people are accessing content in this country and around the world the impact that that has on our laws and why it is so important that we get this right.We consider—and our minority report said—that New Zealanders should be able to access media in the same time frame as others in different countries. I have to say that the argument used on that side of the House that one of the reasons for supporting this bill is around movies being watched in the school holidays is actually a spuriousargument in this day and age. There was very dubious evidence provided to the select committee on that particular matter.The main reason why Labour is supporting this bill grudgingly as I have said is the impact on smaller cinemas around the country and their transition to the digital exhibition technology. We take the view very strongly that those communities should not be disadvantaged. That is the significant reason why we have come down on the side of supporting this bill for this limited amount of time. We supported the shortening of the ban from 9 months to 5 months within that limited time frame until what we say should be the end of 2015 rather than towards the end of 2016 because we think that the technology involved in changing from the current system to digital exhibition technology should have occurred by then. It should have occurred by now but there are lots of communities in New Zealand—inHāwera as Jonathan Young has talked about tonight; I do not know aboutHāwera but I certainly know that Palmerston North is one—where they have struggled to make that transition. We think it is important that they have the ability to do that without being penalised. But ultimately that is the only reason why.We believe that if there is a push from the movie industry to come back to Parliament in 3 years’ time and say “Oh no no no we haven’t managed to make the transition. We need another extension.” they will get no truck. It is absolutely important that that is made very clear today. This is the last chance for the industry to make that transition and ultimately that is all this bill is meant to do.