Hughes Gareth: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13536. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a real privilege to rise to speak on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. Copyright is an incredibly important issue. It has moved from the arcane and sort of dusty world of law libraries of maybe 10 years ago to something literally changing global politics. The front pages of our newspapers will say that the Kim Dotcom case is changing the representation of the nature of Parliaments all around the world with new political ideas coming in new business models and new jobs being built. It is good to be debating it in our Parliament but not in the context of this bill which is a bill that the Green Party will be opposing. It is disappointing that both the Labour Party and the National Party will be supporting it. When we heard the submissions and the arguments in the Commerce Committee I think there was a very compelling argument not to support this bill. But oh well the Greens will be opposing it.What this bill does is reinstate the ban on parallel importing of films for 5 months following the film’s first release to the public in New Zealand. The rationale is to give distributors and cinemas sufficient time to have the films screened to make money out of it without the risk of competition. This ban will be in place for 3 years until 2016. Of course it comes on the back of a 10-year ban which we are just about at the edge of now. No one in this Parliament thinks that we should have this parallel importing ban post-2016. What the Green Party says is: “Let’s deal with the issues now. Let’s not disadvantage new competitors new business models emerging in New Zealand. Let’s do it now in 2013 not 2016.” which every party in this Parliament agrees with.I first want to touch on the process. What we have seen is an incredibly poor process. As I said we have had 10 years’ warning. We have had a 10-year parallel importing ban that is soon to expire. We have had 10 years’ warning yet the Government still introduces this legislation under urgency. In fact the Green Party was considering a letter from Minister Foss in our caucus meeting inviting us to share our opinions and that afternoon this legislation was slammed down on the parliamentary Table introduced under urgency. It is not a good process at all because what we should have had is a robust consideration of the issues. We were willing to engage with the Ministerof Commerce and we would have liked to hear from officials but when you ram through a bill under urgency it is an incredibly poor process. Something like this where we have had 10 years’ warning is surely not adequate to be debated under urgency. That is why the Green Party abstained in the first reading. We did not have time to talk to submitters. We did not have time to talk to the public and experts so that is why we abstained.I would like to acknowledge the people who were involved in the select committee process. We had only a handful of submitters but I would like to acknowledge them. I would like to acknowledge and thank the select committee members and the chair. In the select committee we heard the arguments we heard the submissions we weighed up the evidence and that is where the Green Party reached its position to oppose this bill.So when you look at the advice the Commerce Committee received and see the advice the Minister received in the regulatory impact statement even the officials are not clear that this bill is a good idea. In fact the officials were advising against this legislation as I pointed out in my first reading speech. There is just no justification to treat cinemas as a special case. I find it rather ironic that the two older parties apparently talking about free markets and neo-liberal economics railed against examples of say margarine being prohibited versus butter.Dr David Clark: What about community facilities? What about the community facilities? Destroying communities.GARETH HUGHES: I will get to that point in a minute. But the analogy like this bill is that in the 1970s New Zealand protected its butter industry by blocking out competitors in statute. It is exactly the same case. It is like how we stopped margarine. This bill is about using a statute to protect a temporary monopoly to block out competitors. I find it deeply ironic—and the members on the select committee know this because of the arguments we had on the select committee—that it is the two old parties that support this bill. It is just like blocking out margarine to protect the butter industry. We have heard about the digitalisation of cinemas argument. The fact is that they have had 10 years to prepare as we know. If the cinemas cannot do it now they are still going to struggle in 2016 with the release of say children’s films which is what we heard on the select committee. If they have trouble now it is going to be difficult to see success there.I want to touch on the member’s point which is that the Green Party loves cinemas. I personally love cinemas. There are some fantastic cinemas around New Zealand. They compete not because they have a statutory monopoly of the rights to material disadvantaging competitors; they do it because they have got good-quality facilities and because they provide a great service. They do not compete because they have lawmakers and the ability to lobby to try to get a temporary statutory protection of the material disadvantaging their competitors. So what we see is just another example of this Government doing special deals for its mates.We have seen this Government put aside its so-called principles when it comes to economics. When it came toTīwai Point we saw the Prime Minister literally pick up the phone and give $30 million when we hadTīwai Point bend the Government over a barrel because of the asset sale. We saw the Government pick up the phone and give $30 million to protect it because of the asset sale agenda. We have seen it with Chorus—$600 million in excess costs being paid by New Zealand consumers. We have seen it withSkycity. We have seen it with Warner Bros. And here we are seeing it again.The fact is that this bill is very much a temporary solution. It is a transitory measure. It stifles competition and new business models where I want to see new jobs being created. It ironically encourages piracy online copyright infringement. People in saythe disability community—and this is what we heard on the select committee Miss Martin—for whom the only way they can see a film is in a cinema say a Westfield Group cinema and perhaps cannot actually visit a cinema because of their disability are going turn totorrenting or file-sharing sites.It stifles current cultural participation because it says that this is the only way you can see this content for 5 months. Of course it is occurring in isolation because the Government has delayed the much anticipated copyright review ostensibly because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But I find it deeply ironic that we cannot review our much-out-of-date copyright laws because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership but we can rush through legislation like this Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill through a rushed process in Parliament.Canada Australia and the United Kingdom are all going through copyright reviews despite two of the countries having Trans-Pacific Partnership involvement. The fact is that we need to update our copyright laws. They were written in a pre-internet age. They are not fit for purpose. They are not protecting New Zealand jobs or New Zealand industries promoting innovation. We have got the ironic situation that you can legally copy a CD to your iPod—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Honourable members the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.