Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15390] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I would like to find it in my generous nature to say something charitable about the process that the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill has followed through the House but I find it difficult to do so because the bill has had a very long legislative history. The bill was introduced on 4 December 2006 then went to the Commerce Committee on 12 December 2006. As a result of substantial issues that emerged in that process it has languished there. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: A good thing. It’s a much better bill. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: If I could make a charitable comment I would say against the background of intervention from the Minister that one of the good things that happened was that the select committee decided to take specialist advice from outside the ministry. So a foil was presented to the views of the senior staff from the ministry by two independent experts. Those independent experts were Earl Gray and Geoff McLay. 
It is also right to say that if we look through the legislation we will see that a large number of changes have been made. Nevertheless as I said the other night this legislation at the moment of its enactment is assuredly somewhat inappropriate. It is somewhat outdated. I expressed the hope on Tuesday night and I do so again that it might be possible to include in this type of legislation a review provision similar to what occurred within the Evidence Act—that there would be a review and that the legislation would be brought up to date. 
I would like to say something in a general way about copyright. Copyright is a property right that exists in original works. The changes made by the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill are changes to substantive legislation—the Copyright Act 1994. I am reminded of the seminal work that was done in identifying particular parts of the legislation that were worthy of change. I express a degree of sadness that not all his views were taken up to deal with some of the lacunae that have been identified. The Copyright Act 1994 gives copyright owners exclusive rights that allow them to control certain aspects of a work’s exploitation while at the same time providing limited exceptions to these rights for users of copyright material. It is in this way that the principal Act—the Copyright Act—seeks to provide incentives to ensure the creation production and distribution of new creative works in a manner that meets society’s needs. 
This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to take into account the impacts of new technology. In my view it does so imperfectly but that is what it seeks to do in those areas of digital music and film. It tries to seek a balance between what are often seen as the competing interests of creators owners and users of copyright work. It is part of a wider process of reform that was developed to ensure New Zealand’s intellectual property legislation is up to date and takes account of international developments in copyright. It incorporates many aspects of the two treaties—I understand that a member from New Zealand First is going to speak about them in just a few moments—negotiated by members of the World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO as it is called. The organisation’s Copyright Treaty and its Performances and Phonograms Treaty seek to update international copyright standards to take account of developments in digital technologies. In looking at some of the aspects—and I am not going to deal with the detail of this; I can scarcely do so in the time available—we see there are issues around reproduction; communication; Internet service liability; technological protection measures; permitted acts including format shifting; performers’ rights; and a very subtle issue that is not picked up well which is the impact of the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 
I close by making a final comment. I have been starkly critical of the Associate Minister of Commerce in connection with the process of this legislation. On Tuesday 1 April in the Committee stage of this bill we saw Supplementary Order Paper 193. That Government amendment document made major substantive changes. It is not appropriate and it will never be appropriate to propose major law changes on the very day that the Committee looks at legislation on a clause by clause basis. 
National supports this bill but it does so with significant reservation. I express the hope that the Government that will come into office no later than 15 November this year will make an immediate start on producing legislation of which all members of this House can be justly proud.