Goudie Sandra: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19277] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I follow on from my most excellent colleague Christopher Finlayson in speaking to the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. I want to cover Supplementary Order Paper 246 which of course did not go to the Government Administration Committee. 
Before I do that I would like with the Chair’s indulgence and in line with the speeches of some of my colleagues to acknowledge the valedictory speeches that were given in the House yesterday. We appreciated having the opportunity to hear those valedictory speeches and we commend those members for doing so well. We wish them all the best in the future. This is not an easy environment. Who knows at some point somebody might put all those valedictory speeches into a book to be lodged in some our excellent libraries. It would be very interesting to see how many people actually picked up that book and read the speeches. I am not sure though with such a collection who would be entitled to the author’s payment! 
I note that we are sitting under urgency at the end of the parliamentary term. After 9 years of this Parliament the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill is going through the House under urgency. We have a Supplementary Order Paper and it has not been to the select committee. 
A number of matters were raised by my most excellent colleague Christopher Finlayson and I share those concerns. I would really appreciate the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard taking a call to explain to us—because we have not had the opportunity to discuss these matters at the select committee—the rationale for including subclauses (6) (7) and (8) of the definition of “author” inserted by new clause 4A. I absolutely concur with my most excellent colleague Christopher Finlayson that those subclauses should not be there. In the purer sense if an author’s book is in a library and if the author is entitled to the author’s payment then there should be no condition around whether that author was under a contract of service or a contract for services. That raises the point about authors suddenly having to be smarter about the way in which they provide their service capability or expertise. 
I note that subclause (3) of new clause 4A states: “If a book’s intellectual content is expressed only in text ‘author’ means a person who created the text.” I raised at the select committee the issue of whether books in Braille audio books and CD books fell into that category and whether that provision would affect the ability of the authors of those books to receive a payment. Let us face it: a lot of Braille books are taken out from libraries—more than we realise. It is incumbent upon the advisory group that establishes the regulations to work out the eligibility criteria. The advisory group will set all the criteria for eligibility for payment and I wonder whether it will take into account the number of Braille and audio versions of a book as part of its assessment of a book’s eligibility. Use of such versions of books is significant. Often they are in a small select category of books. 
One of the other things I was looking at was subclause (3) of new clause 4B. It states: “ ‘Book’ does not include a text book intended for use in schools.” It is interesting to note what my most learned colleague Christopher Finlayson said about textbooks. They are actually books that first were written and then were included in the school curriculum as text books for a particular subject. I wonder how that provision will affect an author’s payment. 
There is also the issue in new clause 4C(a) of “New Zealand author” being defined as “a New Zealand resident as defined in section YD 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007;”. That is the criterion for establishing whether an author is a “New Zealand author”. I share the concerns of my colleague because a New Zealand author may not have eligibility in terms of that Act and therefore will be prevented from having a payment.