Martin Tracey: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13554. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the legislation in front of us the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this legislation when it was first introduced in 2003 and New Zealand First again supported the principal Act’s retention in 2008. But at the first reading of this amendment bill we recognised that the cinema community had to a certain extent reinvented itself in many areas to be able to market the cinema as it once did as an experience—not just a place to go and watch a film but a full experience for the consumer. So we were concerned that the industry might not need the protections that are outlined in the bill in front of us.At the same time we also acknowledged that many of those inside the industry as has been mentioned by previous speakers had made significant inroads into the evolution of digital delivery. Matakana Cinemas the Te Awamutu Regent Theatre and theatres such as those had made a significant financial investment in screens and projection equipment that are more up to date—again to enhance the experience.But we were somewhat conflicted because at the same time New Zealand First expressed its concern for the New Zealand film exhibitors and the approximately 10000 New Zealanders directly employed inside this industry. Last night we heard that there was a possibility of 163 to 165 jobs being lost should this extension not be left in place. However it is recorded that there are approximately 10000 New Zealanders currently employed inside this industry directly and another 21000 New Zealanders are affected or could be affected indirectly by the possibility that this extension does not take place.Just to address the word “ban” which is part of this legislation it is interesting how language can change the pros and cons of an argument. Perhaps if we were talking about this as a delayed release as opposed to a ban I wonder how people’s positions might have changed at the beginning of the conversation.But I go back to the fact that we expressed concern about the negative impact that the removal of such a staggered protection could have on those 10000 New Zealanders. We had particular concern for rural cinema operators and their employees as all too often we in New Zealand First find that urban arguments and urban solutions are foisted upon our rural communities often with a detrimental effect.It was due to these conflicting concerns that at the first reading New Zealand First withheld its judgment and we abstained from the vote. Since that time—even though we have not had a member on the Commerce Committee which considered and listened to the submissions—we have followed the progress of the committee and we have read the submissions and the report to this House of that committee. What has become clear to us is that this is an evolution not a revolution. This is a situation that needed to develop and it was important that this particular industry was given that opportunity to do so.The financial investment required to step up all cinemas to this digital technology particularly those in rural New Zealand is very significant. We feel that it is appropriate to give this final extension particularly because again as we often talk about we are and have been in a recession. So it is appropriate to give this final extension to these operators to transition their equipment and their business plans through.I just want to touch slightly upon the minority views placed on the record by the Labour Party and the Green Party. I quote from the Labour minority view in the first instance. It says: “The Labour Party is concerned that if the public cannot legally obtain material in a timely manner through DVDs subscription TV or online streaming then they become sceptical of copyright law and use illicit channels.” The Green Party also makes mention of that in its opposition to this bill. The suggestion is that if this extension this delayed release were to remain it would encourage “illegal file sharing in the absence of legal alternatives.”New Zealand First finds it a very long bow to draw that should these delayed protections remain in place we will be driving New Zealanders to illegal acts. There is such a thing as delayed gratification. Let us remember that it is a 5-month delay period we are talking about here from the international the worldwide release date of a major motion picture. That means that when it is released in California 5 months from that day you can buy it in a store from the DVD shelf. That is not a great hardship. It is a film. I think this is a First World problem if people are concerned about not being able to buy their DVD the day after a major release. So we think that that is a very long bow to be placed inside the minority reports.Without taking up too much more time this is a bill that needs to go through this House before 31 October. This will be the last time it goes through this House. We have no doubt of that. The industry does need to take note. This is very very likely to be the final extension for the industry. The time has come to step up. It must transition through. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through the House.