Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9399] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear the United Future member supporting the onus of proof required by this bill. I wish that party had also supported the rules we tried to put in place to prevent the clocking of used cars brought into this country but no United Future members wanted that thrown out because they did not believe that it was the ideal thing to do. 
I will pick up on a point that Tony Ryall made about small cinemas. The Minister in the chair Judith Tizard believes that this bill will protect small cinemas. I suggest that small cinemas are not protected by this bill at all because the 9-month ban dates from the time of international release. If the local distributor does not allow the film to be distributed in this country until the 9 months have elapsed then DVDs and other parallel imports will overtake it. Therefore local cinemas will be protected only if there is a simultaneous release with the international date. For small cinemas that is not a protection. The Government announced in the Speech from the Throne that it would put in a 2-year protection for operators of small cinemas in this country but this bill is a complete cop-out and a backtrack. 
Authorised distributors have control over what is distributed in this country. They decide whether catalogues that are available overseas are to be distributed. This bill blocks distribution of those back catalogues. There is a huge back catalogue of particularly region 1 films. Most of the films are not distributed in this country because the authorised distributors have not allowed their distribution. Therefore parallel imports of those films are the only way to allow them to come in. If this bill as it tries to do prevents the parallel import of films until they have been released and distributed here then those operators are missing out on a very large catalogue. 
Piracy has been going on for many many years probably for as long as the recording industry has been in existence. Piracy has accelerated in recent years with technology with the means of the Internet. But that is not the major difficulty with films because those files are of such large volume that it would take many many hours to download a complete film on the Internet and most people do not want to waste their time doing that. I know that a lot of young kids do it but they would never be able to afford to buy the film in the first place. Some of those kids might download music but they turn round in later years and buy back catalogues of the music they downloaded because it becomes a nostalgia thing and they enjoy the music. So I do not see that the problems with piracy affect the industry as much as we are led to believe. I do not believe that the bill really addresses the problems that it is aiming to address and protects the local industry. The local industry distributes locally. If the local industry is lucky enough to have a film captured by the overseas market that is wonderful but we are not likely to parallel import it back into this country when it is available here at probably much the same price as the industry can get it under a parallel importation. 
We have heard Tony Ryall talk about the cost of films and music overseas in Australia particularly where it is only slightly below the cost in America. Why are New Zealand prices so much higher? That is one of the areas that this bill should have addressed and put at a more realistic level. The cost of films and music that can be bought in this country is so much higher and that encourages people to parallel import.