Lees-Galloway Iain: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13888. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): A full call—excellent very good. The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill is one of those challenging issues. I know there would have been a lot of conversation at the Commerce Committee. You have got really good arguments both for and against implementing this amendment bill to carry on with the ban on parallel importing of films for a period after they are released at the cinema.On the one hand there is the argument that actually the industry should have made the transition in the 10 years that it was given to make the transition to the business model of the digital world. That period is over and it is time for it to make the change. By not requiring the industry to make that change we are essentially diminishing choice for consumers and potentially unnecessarily increasing costs for consumers. On the other hand though the fact is that for many provincial cinemas in particular the cost of completing that transition has been prohibitive and they have asked for a little bit more time to be able to do that. Those provincial communities would be losing something very significant if their local cinema had to close down.Like the Government we are concerned that people are exiting the provinces at a tremendous rate. We are concerned that many New Zealanders are flooding over to Australia. There is this massive exodus of people out of the country as the economic opportunities in the regions have been stifled by the lack of a comprehensive programme of regional economic development from the Government. We share those concerns with them. We would not want there to be any other reason for people to leave the provinces and go to the major urban centres or even as we know they are doing leave the provinces to leave the country altogether and head over the Tasman to Australia and further afield.It is in the full knowledge of trying to achieve that sensible balance that Labour with reservations of course does support this bill. It was a Labour Government that originally passed the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Act 2003 which was the original legislation that gave the industry that 10-year grace period in which to make the transition. It is because those provisions in that Act are set to expire very soon that this bill continues on with those provisions.We agree that as part of the agreement with the industry to carry on that transition period the ban delaying the importation of films has been reduced from 9 months downto 5 months. That will certainly assist with bringing those films on to the market in other formats and in ways that might be more accessible to people.I think my colleague David Clark actually touched on one of the issues that really is at the heart of this. What we are talking about is the cost of being able to access films which is part of the cost of living and the cost of things that we expect Kiwi families to be able to take for granted. Of course with the cost of living there is a balance to the equation. There are two sides to the equation. One is what things cost but the other is actually how much money people have and the resources people have to be able to meet the cost of living.What we have seen in recent years is the cost of living going up and up and up in a number of ways whether it be people’s power bills whether it be the cost of accommodation or whether it be the cost of fuel the cost of food the cost of clothing the cost of school books and shoes. The basics of life are going up and up and up but wages of course are not keeping up with that increase in costs.So although on the one hand we should be doing everything we can to keep the cost down of what is pretty basic entertainment and something that everybody growing up in and living in New Zealand should be able to take for granted—we should keep those costs down—we should also be looking at how we ensure people have the resources to be able to achieve and experience a basic standard of living in New Zealand. That of course requires decent wages. On this side of the House we have reservations about this legislation but we would also make sure that family pay packets were augmented by doing things like increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour and supporting the living wage campaign. So in many ways this legislation is a balancing act.I take some issue with the Greens’ position. It is all very well to be able to take the purist view. A lot of what is behind the Greens’ argument is perfectly valid but they have got to actually look at what it means for people’s lives in a real sense. I encourage the Greens to get out of Wellington—get out of Wellington Central—and actually go and talk to some of the provinces and the provincial communities that would be impacted should we not pass this legislation. It is not ideal. We accept that it is not ideal but we have to think about the practicalities of the legislation that we pass and what things will mean in real terms for people. If we held the Green view which in the purest sense is an understandable view the fact is that cinemas in regional and provincial communities would close. It is as simple as that. So it is all very well to have an intellectual argument about these things but we have to think about the practicalities as well.There is growing concern that the kinds of bans on parallel importing that are included in this legislation may be something that we are going to see more and more of. I know that a lot of people in the community have concerns that that would come with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Of course one of the big problems about trying to take a view on the Trans-Pacific Partnership is how little information we have received from the Government about what it is that it is negotiating and what that will look like. I understand and I know that what Government members would say is that in the past when Labour Governments have negotiated free-trade agreements they have not handed out all the details. But what we did do is take a more inclusive approach so we made sure that organisations like the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and organisations like Greenpeace—Tim Macindoe: Valiant effort. Valiant effort.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry? I appreciate the words from the Government’s junior whip. We made sure that organisations like the Council of Trade Unions and Greenpeace were kept in the fold and had an understanding of the kinds of issues that were being dealt with during free-trade agreements.The Trans-Pacific Partnership is much more than a free-trade agreement. It goes well beyond simply talking about tariffs that are applied to commodities. I think the Government is probably experiencing so much resistance from the wider public because it has really taken that withholding of information to an extreme—to the point where people are starting to feel as though it is becoming quite an anti-democratic process and people are feeling locked out of the process. When you lock people out of the process there is a lack of understanding and there is fear of what that might mean.And certainly there is concern that the kind of ban on parallel importing that is part of this legislation will be applied to a range of other products where people enjoy the low prices that come with parallel importing—particularly I think of clothing and the basic necessities of life where the price has come down because we have had the ability to use parallel importing in New Zealand. There is fear out there in the community as to what the impact could be if such bans were included in a treaty that New Zealand signs up to.So we call on the Government to be a lot more transparent around its negotiations and to work with the public. We understand that the agreement could have a lot of benefits but it does carry a lot of risks as well so naturally there is fear out there in the community. The Government could handle this in a much more constructive and collaborative way with the public than it has been doing.To summarise the Labour Party does support this bill. Labour has significant reservations about it but it understands that this is necessary for rural and provincial and regional communities to be able to carry on with that basic right of being able to go out and have a family night at the movies. This is necessary but this is the final opportunity for the industry to make that transition that it needs to make and to start living in the digital world and the 21st century.