Hughes Gareth: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13644. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. It gave me great pleasure to support Minister Foss’ Patents Bill but it also gives me great pleasure to oppose this bill because I think it is bad legislation. I think it is anti-innovation. I think it is anti-competition. I think it is an old-fashioned bill that looks at a single platform and is quite literally giving a single platform—cinemas—a statutory monopoly which is disadvantaging other platforms disadvantaging competition and keeping us in the past. That is why the Green Party is going to be opposing it.I think it is quite good that we are taking the debate on this two-page bill as one question because it could have been drawn out for quite a long time if this Committeeso desired. Being one question we can look at all the clauses in this two-page bill. All this bill does is reinstate the parallel importing ban of films—for 5 months down from 9 months—out to 2016.We have noted in previous stages of this bill our disappointment with the process. We received a letter from Minister Foss which we were discussing in our caucus and that afternoon the bill was put on the Table—introduced under urgency. It was not like we needed urgency for this bill. We have had 10 years’ warning that this date was coming—when the predecessor of this bill that enforced the existing parallel importation ban would expire. We had 10 years’ warning. There was no need for haste. The process was very poor but I would like to acknowledge the officials. I would like to acknowledge the Commerce Committee members—in particular Clare Curran and Jonathan Young the chair—and all the submitters. There was a small number of submitters but they made high-quality submissions.I take the position that there was no good reason expressed in the committee for why this sector this platform for distribution needed a statutory monopoly to protect itself for only 3 years. I heard no justification. In fact what we heard was that the sector had 10 years to prepare—10 years to prepare. If it cannot do it in 10 years why is it going to do it in 3 years? I am a supporter of cinemas I am a user of cinemas but I want to go to a cinema because it is a great experience and it offers a great service and maybe films on a big screen in 3-D. I do not want to have to go to a cinema because it is the only way I can use content.Disabled communities need different ways of using content. Giving them only the cinema experience limits their options. That is why it is going to drive piracy or as I call it copyright infringement. That is what we heard on the select committee. What this bill does is encourage online copyright infringement just as the music industry’s not providing legal content at an affordable price for so many years drove infringement by a whole generation of which I include me because I am 31 who learnt—not that I did it of course—to infringe copyright material because there was no legal way to get it online. What we are saying here is that under this bill this is the only way we are going to get content and the fact is that for many New Zealanders the only other way is to do it unlawfully.I believe this is akin to the butter-margarine debates we had in New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s where in order to protect New Zealand’s dairy industry and butter industry we gave it a statutory monopoly and actively discriminated against margarine—it was very difficult to get margarine—to protect our butter industry. What we are saying here is that in order to protect one content platform we are going to stop innovation. I hear the word “innovation” being bandied about in this Chamber all the time. Here was an opportunity to provide new digital content platforms to provide new businesses and to provide content. By limiting Kiwis’ ability to access content or in this case movies through having only platform cinemas we are stopping innovation from happening. It is good that the ban is going to happen for only 3 years and I hear the Labour Party’s example—in 3 years there will be a line in the sand. I love cinemas. I want to support them but I want to support good services and good quality not because they have a statutory monopoly.What we know is that this bill is a copyright change going through our Parliament. I find it deeply ironic that the much-anticipated copyright review which many Kiwis particularly businesses have been seeking again to promote innovation has been delayed ostensibly because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. I find it deeply ironic that we can debate and pass this bill around a parallel importing ban on copyrighted films but we cannot talk about copyright in a modern age. We cannot talk about some of our antiquated and frankly ridiculous provisions in our Copyright Actwhich was written in a pre-internet age. Likewise we cannot do what the Aussies have done and the Americans have done and look at some “fair use” exemptions. We need to have a genuine debate about copyright.Going down this path is the wrong way our Parliament should be looking. It is an old-fashioned approach that is using laws to tell Kiwis what they can use. When you tell people what they can use and what they can consume they are going to go down other paths. It is disappointing. It is sending Kiwis the wrong message. Let us promote innovation. Let us support new Kiwi businesses and new jobs. Let us support those great cinemas competing because they are providing a great environment. There are many of them in New Zealand and many Kiwis use them. That is why the Green Party is opposing this bill. We will be happy to work with any party or any member in this House to have sensible copyright reform. Kia ora.