Ardern Jacinda: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13642. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I will take the opportunity to be the first member to rise to speak on the Committee stage of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister of Commerce for talking openly with various parties through this process over how to proceed with this issue. This is one of those issues that I think Parliamentary colleagues can at least discuss and debate openly and frankly. I know that happened during the select committee process and indeed beforehand.I do want to put on the record that the general issue of parallel importing did meet with two differing perspectives within our caucus. It was very much a line call for the Labour Party as to which way we would go. Indeed there are arguments on both sides as to whether the time has come immediately at the point of expiration—which is currently for this existing law in mid-October—to just simply let it lapse and expire or whether we allow a small and final extension to the existing law. As I have said before in this debate where we have come to as a party is to opt for a time-limited compromise. That is to say we satisfy to a certain degree the view that it must go byrestipulating and restating clearly today that the extension being applied here and now will lapse in a few years’ time and that it will lapse for good. I think that is somethingthat even those members who are not voting for the bill today are indicating—that they want to see it go. I have even heard from members from the opposite side of the Chamber who agree that this is the final chance.The reason I think we need to state that very very clearly is that the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill is an amendment to the Copyright Act 1994 which bans the commercial parallel importation of films for 9 months from the date the film was first released. I believe there have been three extensions Minister?Hon Craig Foss: Two.JACINDA ARDERN: There have been two extensions. So this is the third extension to that legislation. So there had been multiple chances before. The reason we want to be very clear that this is the last chance is that I know that some parties have based their opposition on the fact that they are worried that there will be another extension. We will not support another extension under any circumstances. We have made that extremely clear. For us this is the line in the sand for the industry that the time is up.So why did we fall on the other side of allowing this one last final extension? Well we have put some caveats around it. Of course those are set out in what is a very short bill. Those are set out in the last part of the bill. Subclause (2) of clause 4 states essentially that this bill will expire on 31 October 2016. There was an opportunity for a longer extension than that. We have said no; we think that we can make it shorter and that is the time that we have gone for. The second indication that this is the last chance is the fact that under clause 4 “Section 35 amended (Infringement by importation)” those infringements apply where a person imports a copy of a film into New Zealand within 5 months of the date that the film is first made available to the public. So instead of as it was previously a 9-month window it has now changed to a 5-month window. Again that indicates that this is an incremental withdrawal of the ban on parallel importing of films that currently exists in New Zealand.I want to talk briefly though about the rationale behind that ban existing in the first place. We have heard some of the arguments already. There are currently 120 cinemas in New Zealand. In people’s minds they might immediately resort to thinking about the cinemas in the big cities—multi-screen cinemas the ones that look like they could probably sustain themselves quite readily if you removed any importation ban that exists. There is of course another set of cinemas that exists in New Zealand—smaller provincial cinemas which for instance may not have converted to digital exhibition and we know at this stage that only about 57 percent have. Those cinemas are quite reliant for instance on the revenue that they take in around family films at school holiday times in particular. And of course there are those that might specialise in providing smaller fringe films—arthouse films and so on. Those are the ones that certainly are going to need to adapt to a removal of an importation window. It is to those cinemas that we send the message that there is now this small amount of time left before that opportunity will no longer exist for them.Some might argue that there are other industries that have had to adapt to the changing world. The music industry is a prime example of an industry that has had to adapt quickly to the fact that citizens and consumers are now accessing products in a much faster way. Digital and online accessibility has changed the way that we consume those products and they have had to adapt rapidly to that. It is about giving consumers choice and accessibility. The film industry has not done that as rapidly. It is of course with some disappointment that I say that that is the case but as I mentioned this is that one last chance for it to do so. I would encourage the industry not to use the October 2016 date as an end point target but rather as an indication that it should move as rapidly and as quickly as possible for the sake of consumers.It is interesting that the regulatory impact statement does make some points around the factors that impact on the timing of release of films in New Zealand. I just want to share this to give the Chamber a little indication as to why this window is often used in the way it is and why it is important to those who work in the cinema exhibition space. The first thing to say is that when something does go to a cinema and if it has been released that does not stop a consumer from accessing and purchasing that DVD online from overseas. That is not prohibited by this bill. So this argument—that it is through only illegal means that you could access it online if has been released—is not a fair comment to make. You can do that online. An argument could be made that that disadvantages your domestic providers. That is a fair argument to make but it does not entirely stop a consumer from being able to access it.What are the factors that influence the timing of a release? Seasonal factors do. Family films that are based around school holidays—we have already talked a little bit about how that then impacts on some cinemas. Other factors are competition with other films; screen availability whereby some cinemas simply will not be able to display a film immediately on release because of that screen availability; availability of advertising; and a profitability assessment. For some films distributors will decide on whether they are going to bring it to New Zealand based on profitability. So it is not an automatic assumption that we will get everything. So these are all the things that impact on whether or not something is even released in that way. There has been some concern over whether or not the parallel import ban being lifted would stop New Zealand from receiving as many films. In particular I think that is an argument that can be made around some of those foreign andarthouse films as well.On balance though I think that that is something that we are willing to sacrifice on behalf of consumers by the time that this window lapses. So you can see that this was a finely balanced decision for us. As I have said it is absolutely fair to say that there are caucus colleagues who probably would have aligned themselves more with the other side of the argument. Again that is why I call this a time-limited compromise. It is a time-limited compromise because at the end of the day all members of this Chamber probably agree that the industry does need to move it does need to change it does need to modify itself and it needs to do all of those things on behalf of the consumers it serves. In the meantime we ask the industry to move as quickly as it can to find ways to innovate—and I do not think this window removes the incentive to innovate; in fact I think it gives it the flag it needs to do it quickly—and to try to salvage as many jobs as possible. We do know from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that was commissioned on this that we would have been looking at potentially immediate job losses of over the 100 mark for some of those smaller provincial providers. That would have been the immediate consequence.So now we are raising the flag for those providers and we are asking them to try to find a way to provide for consumers but also to try to save those jobs at the same time. Therefore that is why we have come down on this side of the argument.