Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19275] 
Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will direct my comments this morning to Supplementary Order Paper 246 proposed by Judith Tizard the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage in the House last night. In my second reading speech I explained why following a visit to the Government Administration Committee by Sir Geoffrey Palmer it was thought fit to include in the interpretation clause some definitions that were regarded as very important. The first is “author” the second is “book” and the third is “New Zealand author”. I will now analyse those definitions briefly. 
I forwarded to the Minister a couple of comments that have been made to me and I will now record some of those questions and perhaps get some answers to them. The first definition is that of “author”. Everyone recognises of course that for the purposes of this scheme an author has to be a natural person. But I have a couple of questions about subclauses (6) (7) and (8) of new clause 4A which is proposed to be inserted in the bill by Supplementary Order Paper 246. 
Subclause (6) states: “ ‘Author’ does not include a person who writes or illustrates a book as part of his or her duties under a contract of service or a contract for services.” This phrase seems to catch both employees and those commissioned. That seems to be the case even if as is the case with academics copyright for the work remains with the author. I am not quite clear whether the intention is to cover books that are written after the conclusion of a publishing contract. It seems to me that authors who wish to benefit from the scheme ought to be clear that the publishing contract they sign is expressly not a contract for service. 
Subclauses (7) and (8) state: “ ‘Author’ does not include a person who receives payment for writing or illustrating a book wholly by way of a fee.” and “ ‘Author’ does not include a person who paid a third party to publish the person’s book.” Looking at it from a first-principles basis and not from the point of view that that is what is in the scheme already I have difficulties working out why both those categories of person are excluded. Surely how the author is paid or whether he or she has contributed to publication costs will be irrelevant if the book proves popular in New Zealand libraries. 
Let us take this hypothetical situation. A person may have difficulty getting his or her book published so the person self-publishes and the book then turns out to be very popular. It is sold in bookshops around the town and becomes very popular in New Zealand libraries. Looking at it from a point of principle I ask why that person should be denied access to the benefits of the public lending right. I know the immediate answer is that that is not what the scheme currently provides. That is all very well; I acknowledge that. But looking at it from a first-principles basis I ask why those people are not included given that this is the time to review the public lending right scheme. 
The second definition is “book”. The first clarification made in new clause 4B is that “ ‘Book’ means a publication that—(a) is listed in the national bibliographic database of the National Library of New Zealand …”. There are certain exceptions. There is a curious exclusion in new clause 4B(3) of “a text book intended for use in schools.” Those types of books are not included. 
But let us take this hypothetical situation. Someone writes a book—for instance  
Owen Marshall: Selected Stories 
 edited by Vincent O’Sullivan. It proves to be very popular in our shops and is regarded as the locus classicus of short stories in New Zealand and it becomes the standard text for year 13 English students. It is used as a textbook. Therefore why would that book be necessarily excluded? 
Perhaps the hypothetical situation is slightly off-key because the Supplementary Order Paper states “intended for use in schools.” What does that phrase mean? Maybe when the author was writing it he intended that ultimately it would be for use in schools. Those are just a couple of the questions I have on the definitions of both “author” and “book”. 
New clause 4C defines a “New Zealand author” as “an author who—(a) is a New Zealand resident as defined in … the Income Tax Act 2007;” and who also satisfies certain other conditions. I have less of a problem with this definition although it has been pointed out to me that there is an issue with what to do about expatriate writers. Someone who goes to live in Menton under the residency that is made available for authors and decides to stay there and continue writing for 4 or 5 years presumably does not qualify in terms of the Income Tax Act as a “New Zealand author” but is still very much a New Zealander. I mentioned Katherine Mansfield as a hypothetical expatriate writer and the Minister’s advisers said very helpfully that Katherine Mansfield is of course dead. I was most grateful for that information. I had not realised it! One can see hypothetically that an issue could arise so I would be grateful for some guidance on that. 
In the course of preparing for this debate I brought down to the Chamber a couple of books that I am reading at the moment. I started with the doyen of short stories in New Zealand Owen Marshall who has written a splendid text. But I just notice—and I would be grateful for the Minister’s guidance on it—that copyright in this text is actually held by two people. The introduction and the selection are by Vincent O’Sullivan and the stories themselves are by Owen Marshall. This book currently qualifies for a payment under the Authors’ Fund and will qualify one would hope under the new regime that is being established. One works out that payments ought to be made to the author but how does one sort out in a situation like this one where there are two authors—Vincent O’Sullivan for the introduction and Owen Marshall for the substantive part of the book—who is to get what and in what proportions? 
Of course it is much easier with another book I am reading  
My Father’s Shadow: A Portrait of Justice Peter Mahon 
 by Sam Mahon. That case is quite easy because he is a New Zealand author and therefore qualifies and he is the only person who holds the copyright. If his book qualifies then so be it. 
To illustrate the principle of what would not qualify the third book is a book written by the former British Foreign Secretary David Owen. It is called  
In Sickness and in Power 
. Members may know that when the Labour Party in England went crazy in the late 1970s and early 1980s David Owen went off and formed the Social Democratic Party. Mr Barnett looks up; I think he was an active member in the Social Democratic Party. But anyway at the conclusion of his time David Owen looked back and wrote a book called  
In Sickness and in Power 
. It is a very interesting book and I recommend it to Mr Barnett when he is flying back to England. In fact I may even give him my copy because I think it would be good for him to read it. 
As David Owen says it has been observed for centuries that something happens to people’s mental stability when they are in power. The causal link between holding power and aberrant behaviour that has the whiff of mental instability about it was captured by Bertrand Russell’s phrase “the intoxication of power”. David Owen says that power is a heady drug which not every political leader has the necessary rooted character to counteract: a combination of common sense humour decency scepticism and even cynicism. He then starts talking about hubris. 
I think I may give this book to Mr Barnett as a farewell present because I can certainly pick up another one from Parsons later on. But there is an example of a book that does not qualify because it is not by a New Zealand author. It would not be entitled to payments under the public lending right scheme. 
So I have some questions for the Minister as to the definitions of both “author” and “book” and I think we ought to touch on—albeit briefly—the definition of “New Zealand author”. When one is dealing with this legislation on a first-principles basis I do not think it is enough to say: “Oh well these matters are already included in the guidelines for the New Zealand Authors’ Fund. To broaden the definitions would extend the scheme to more titles and authors.” I think that is a pragmatic answer but not a principled answer so I would be most grateful for the Minister’s comments. 
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. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 It is an enormous pleasure for me to stand in the Committee stage of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill to address some of the questions that have been raised but also to give a bit of background on this legislation. As Christopher Finlayson has said this legislation is a result of a promise made by the Labour Party in its 1999 election manifesto. We referred the issue of the public lending right or the Authors’ Fund as it then was to the Arts Council and Mr Finlayson happened to be the very excellent chair of the Arts Board. I was grateful to the council and the board for taking this issue up. They are independent bodies and they have the responsibility for the Authors’ Fund almost by accident. 
The public lending right or the Authors’ Fund was set up by a Cabinet minute in 1972 as a result of the work of people like Keith Sinclair who was a Labour candidate in 1969. He was a professor of history at Auckland University and a significant author as both a poet and historian. He had realised that people who did not have university or other public salaries and who put their efforts into writing—people like Janet Frame—were often extremely poorly paid for their writing effort. Those authors are people who have defined the way New Zealanders see themselves. They have taken our collective and individual cultures and created something that is new and in many cases beneficial to New Zealanders. But even where authors are writing about the dark underbelly of New Zealand society or indeed of humanity it adds of course to our knowledge of ourselves and our society. 
I believe that what all artists do is vital to us. We celebrate we commiserate and we mourn using their words. Who could imagine the burial of the Unknown Soldier when that serviceman’s remains were returned from France to New Zealand without the beautiful poetry of Vincent O’Sullivan? The memory of that and of the tuis singing in the pohutukawa trees will remain with me forever. It crystallised the emotion and the background of that ceremony. 
We as a Government have said that all artists need to be compensated better for what they do; they are both the soul and the critic of our country. This bill is part of that work. Up to 2002 in response to the report on the Authors’ Fund we looked at the amount of money involved and I thank the Green Party for its excellent Budget bid in 2002. It has meant that $1 million more has gone to authors both directly through the Authors’ Fund and the Prime Minister’s Awards for Literary Achievement and indirectly through support for example for New Zealand publishers who are looking at book exporting. The Ministry of Economic Development has also assisted that work and we are very pleased at the response to that.The public lending right issue to a small extent went away for a while after those developments. 
However the New Zealand Society of Authors came back to us and said it wanted stand-alone legislation and this is the result of that very good representation. I acknowledge the Society of Authors and the many people who have been chairs and committee members of its predecessor PEN New Zealand. I am thinking particularly of Kevin Ireland Tessa Duder Gordon McLauchlan and Dame Fiona Kidman. A huge number of people have been involved and undoubtedly I will leave many of them out. I also congratulate and thank Dr Lydia Wevers for her wonderful job in chairing the group after we had that Budget announcement in 2002 which led to the range of initiatives that include the increased funding for the Authors’ Fund. We have also seen an extraordinary expansion in the number of number of New Zealanders who are writing books that are being published. 
We come to this legislation and I say yes to a large extent and in pragmatic terms it does repeat the definition of “author” that is in the present scheme. It does that mainly because there was no ability to discuss that more widely. Sandra Goudie I am afraid suggested the bill had not been referred to a select committee but of course it was. The Government Administration Committee although it called for submissions and heard some of those submissions was not able to give the House a recommendation in time. That is why we have Supplementary Order Paper 246 in my name. To the largest extent that it can that Supplementary Order Paper keeps the present definition of “author”. It is a limited scheme. It does mean for example that overseas-based New Zealand authors who are not paying income tax in New Zealand as defined under section YD 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007 are excluded. Indeed I say to Mr Finlayson if Katherine Mansfield was alive today she would probably be excluded although I suspect that any tax she paid was probably paid through her father so she may well have been covered. 
The reality is that this scheme is very focused on authors who are writing in New Zealand primarily for a New Zealand market although we look at wonderful New Zealand writers like Lloyd Jones who are finding increasing international audiences for their work. There is a process at present for dividing the Authors’ Fund amongst the various copyright-holders and I cannot imagine that Vincent O’Sullivan would in any way assert that by writing the foreword he had written Owen Marshall’s book. The present scheme divides that and there is an ongoing debate which I think the House will have to address at another stage about who is covered. This scheme is very much designed to support authors who are not otherwise compensated. When writing a book as a textbook one is selling textbooks and as an author being compensated for that. The idea of this scheme was not to compensate people who through the course of their work were being paid to write whether that was through a university or another educational institution. The scheme was not designed as a Christmas bonus for those people. It is intended as a recognition of people who are to a large extent full-time writers. 
The only other question I have to deal with is Sandra Goudie’s one about Braille and audio copies. Audio copies are not covered but the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind has an arrangement with authors and their works are recognised. It is not always possible to pay for every copy that is used particularly by people with sight disabilities. 
I commend this bill to the Committee. I thank members for their attention to the Supplementary Order Paper and the bill and I look forward to the bill proceeding. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. It provides for authors to receive annual payments in recognition of the fact that their books are available for use in New Zealand libraries. 
I have just a couple of points to make on the bill. It is interesting that “New Zealand author” as defined in the income tax legislation is not an author who is a New Zealander but rather anyone in New Zealand who is writing a book that is available in libraries. So it is good to see that a wide range of people can be defined as writers in New Zealand who are not necessarily New Zealanders. The wide range of new immigrants and groups that we have in the country making a contribution will also be entitled to payment in terms of this fund. 
Of course authors have a great habit of criticising members of Parliament but I hope they take into account the fact that here in the dying stages of this Parliament we are rushing through legislation to enable authors to benefit. I hope authors bear that in mind and do not write books criticising parliamentarians for rushing legislation through the House when in fact this last piece of legislation in this session is here to benefit authors. I trust they will take that into account in future. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again on the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. Again I declare my interests as a beneficiary of the New Zealand Authors’ Fund and no doubt of the new scheme that is being introduced. 
My two colleagues on this side of the House who spoke before me raised some very important points in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 246. I do not propose to repeat them because I want to talk about something else in Part 1 but I offer the observation that we are a little bit disappointed in the explanations given by the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard and in the lack of detail in her answers. I would invite her to take a second call and be a little more precise. We on this side of the House were not particularly interested in her interpretation of New Zealand history or New Zealand literature. I would however be interested in her taking a call to explain to the House why in listing all those New Zealand authors she forgot about John A Lee who was probably the greatest author to sit in this House and a Labour member as well. Of course he and the party did come to a parting of the ways because of what he had written. But I leave that to the Minister. 
I want to address Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” and to talk a little bit about the intention to disestablish the Authors’ Fund and to replace it with a public lending right for New Zealand authors. I look to the Minister to take another call and in addition to addressing the issues I have already raised provide this House with some assurances that the issues that led the Government to commit to this scheme in its 1999 manifesto—it is 9 years since then but that is par for the course for this Government—issues that were raised by authors themselves and by Creative New Zealand will not recur as a result of the change. This legislation disestablishes a fund that has been in place for quite some time. It disestablishes the role that Creative New Zealand had in administering that fund and it hands that role over to the chief executive of a Government department with an advisory committee. I want assurances from the Minister that taking that action will address the issues around the old fund. 
Those of us who are authors have observed over time that the return from the fund has been diminishing—relatively slowly but it has been diminishing. The other side of that coin and it is a very good side is that the fund has had to be spread around a much wider range of authors. That is good. I heartily endorse any effort at all to encourage more authors in New Zealand to continue to develop what is still a very young literary tradition. On that subject it is very important that the House notes that we do not need a Minister to spend time on the last morning of the final sitting of this Parliament giving us a particular interpretation of that tradition. Her interpretation had very little substance in fact and very little substance in research. 
So there are three things that I am seeking from Minister. The first is that she take another call and actually address the issues raised by my colleagues Mr Finlayson and Miss Goudie; the second is that she give us a little bit more of her interpretation of the historical and literary traditions of this country and explain Labour’s reluctance to acknowledge one of its own John A Lee probably the finest New Zealand author to sit in this House; and the third is that in relation to Part 1 she give this Committee the assurances that I am seeking— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: This is the silliest speech that you have made. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The “Dead Poets Society”! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: There they go. I wondered how long it would take them to get motivated and wake up. I make the observation that members on that side of the Chamber have been incredibly quiet. Government members have not been getting to their feet during the debates that have been occurring in urgency. The Ministers in the chair have just sat there. I would welcome a Government member making a contribution instead of sniping at me across the floor. 
Hon Members 
: Aww! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is Friday guys. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Public lending right for New Zealand authors scheme 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Part 2 is the heart of the legislation; it establishes the scheme. It disestablishes the Authors’ Fund established by Norman Kirk in 1973 and it provides for the establishment of an advisory group. I do not think I need to detain the Committee for too long on this issue. 
The heart of the matter is clause 10 “Matters that may be dealt with in regulations”. As I said in my second reading speech there were some concerns about the extent of the regulation-making powers. Sir Geoffrey Palmer that zealous constitutionalist thought that the regulation-making power was too broad and that is why in Part 1 we included definitions of “author” “New Zealand author” and “book”. As a consequence of that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper says there will need to be a minor amendment to clause 10(2) to provide that the regulations may add conditions to the definitions of “author” “book” “New Zealand author” and “New Zealand library” and of course we support that because it is a necessary consequential amendment given what we have done in Part 1. 
The advisory group will be established and these are persons who must have appropriate skills to administer the scheme. Importantly the advisory group must include at least one representative from organisations of authors and at least one representative from organisations of librarians. These people will be appointed for a term of not less than 5 years although the terms may be renewed. I think that the way in which the advisory group is set up is sensible. It does not allow capture by a particular group so a broader range of interests will need to be taken into account when determining the way in which the scheme is to operate. I am hopeful the advisory group will work well. I should not have thought it would need to meet all that regularly. Certainly in the initial period there will be quite a lot of work to do but thereafter the only issues that will arise for consideration are the book rate and the frequency with which the book rate is to be altered. 
That is all that one needs to say really about Part 2. It is all pretty straightforward and we can move on. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I had thought after the debate last night— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: The last day and Mr Peachey has the chance to speak! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: The bully boy of the lower sixth Shane Jones cannot help himself. He is the Gilbert and Sullivan clown who wanders around this Chamber seeking high office. He will be wandering for a long long time. 
I wanted to take a call on Part 2 to make a couple of what I believe to be very very significant points. The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill is a short bill. I am troubled about the lack of discussion at the Government Administration Committee about Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard. 
This is a relatively short bill and its real substance lies in Part 2. It seems to me that if this legislation is going to address the issues that were causing concern about the old Authors’ Fund then the nature of the advisory group and the way in which the chief executive of the Government department that is given responsibility for it interrelate—the way that the chief executive works with and consults the individual members of the group and the interests they represent—will be critical. Getting that right will be the key to whether this legislation which has been so long in the making and has now been so rushed in the last 2 days of the sitting of this Parliament will work. I seek assurances from the Minister on that issue in the absence of any other member taking to the floor to support the bill. 
To the authors who are following this debate closely this bill is very important. They have a very strong interest in it. They will note the role of members on this side of the Chamber in advancing their interests. What we need is an assurance from the Minister that the relationships involved in the administrative structure that has been set up around a chief executive of a Government ministry and an advisory board—and bearing in mind the role the chief executive has in the establishment of that advisory board—will be got right. We do not want to let down the authors of New Zealand any longer. So there is a very very high level of responsibility on this House to be sure that it has got this legislation right. 
Members on this side of the Chamber have some worries about that as we were landed with a Supplementary Order Paper that a select committee has not had the chance to do its work on. We all acknowledge here the important role that select committees play in getting legislation like this right. When a select committee does not have a reasonable opportunity to do that it is therefore valid for members on this side of the Chamber first to raise that reservation and secondly to seek from the Minister a clear explanation and assurance that the structure that has been set up will deliver the intention of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Great speech! 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Ha ha! 
I commend this bill to the House thank the House for its consideration and recognise that the bill has been of particular interest and concern both to the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark—who is of course the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage—and to the Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Michael Cullen who takes an enormous interest in this issue. 
New Zealand was the first English-speaking country in the world to introduce a scheme to compensate authors for the use of their works in libraries; Norman Kirk’s Labour Government did that in 1973. We saw an attempt to get rid of this scheme but it was maintained by the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act in 1994. This bill will repeal that provision and establish a public lending right scheme for New Zealand authors. It is a great measure and I commend all of those who have worked towards it. This Government believes that the work authors do must be recognised and compensated for and this bill does that. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The National Party enthusiastically endorses the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill and we will support its third reading. As I said last night during the second reading debate it is one of those strange pieces of legislation. If one is a property rights person one can be very much in favour of the public lending right from a property rights point of view. If one is a socialist or a social democrat and believes that everyone should be on welfare then likewise it is utterly acceptable. So there is no reason why anyone in this House should oppose this legislation. It serves our excellent New Zealand authors very well indeed and my personal hope is that we will be able to do more for authors in the years to come. 
As the Minister said it has been a very long journey. A funding scheme was introduced by Norman Kirk in 1973 and it simply existed for some years. The Minister quite rightly accepts responsibility for saving that fund by means of a particular reference to it in the Act that re-established the Arts Council in the mid-1990s. But by the end of the 1990s it was becoming apparent that the Arts Council was not doing all that flash a job in administering the Authors’ Fund and that the time had come for reform. So the Arts Board had a report commissioned on the fund and that worked very well indeed; Associate Professor Geoffrey McLay wrote a very good paper. The Labour Party promised that it would introduce a public lending right and reform the Authors’ Fund. That was promised in its 1999 manifesto but nothing has happened for 9 years so it is good that in the dying stages of this Parliament this legislation will shortly be passed into law. 
As many members have said we have a thriving literary community in New Zealand. Most of the people in this community are members of the Society of Authors. They really do contribute to the richness of our culture and this is one very very small way of recognising that contribution. 
I am very happy to support the bill. It was rushed admittedly and we did not get time on the Government Administration Committee to write a report which was perhaps a little disappointing but we were concentrating on the resale royalties legislation. I think we have tidied up the bill as best we can. I know that Mr Jones is not all that happy with the existing scope of the regulation-making power but we will have to see how it goes. Let us see what the advisory group does when it is established and let us see what sorts of regulations emerge. I have a feeling they will be acceptable. 
The real debate will come when a Minister of Finance is spoken to about increasing the book rate and I hope all Ministers of Finance will be generous in that regard because authors deserve it. The frequency with which the book rate is going to be negotiated will be a major question. I do not think to do so annually will make a lot of sense. I think in Norway and some other Scandinavian countries it is done on a quinquennial basis so maybe we could do something like that. 
So there we have it. I am pleased that this is the last bill to go through the House before Parliament dies and I am hopeful that what we have here will serve the interests of authors for the next little period. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a very short call in the third reading of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill to put on record my pleasure that this bill is being concluded with the support of the parties in the House. I also thank the members of the Government Administration Committee. I have worked on that committee for 2 years and it is a very interesting committee. Quite a variety of things come across our table and this was one of the bills we considered even though we did so in a very short time frame as the previous speaker Chris Finlayson said. I enjoyed working with Christopher Finlayson on this bill and I enjoyed seeing the love-fest between Sandra Goudie and Mr Finlayson which is continuing to this very day. 
Hon Member 
: What was this? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Oh yes the member did not hear about that. But this is a very very important bill. 
It was a great pleasure to hear from some of our top authors and from the other people we asked to make submissions to us. That process impressed upon me the real importance of the literary scene in New Zealand—how much it contributes to our society and how generous authors are in sharing that through libraries. I also thank the officials and the department for their work. 
I finish by saying that I have enjoyed working with the other members of the Government Administration Committee on these types of bills. I am pleased that we are getting this bill through on the last day of Parliament in such a good cause. Thank you. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Any civilisation is remembered by its contributions and the people who make the greatest contribution to a civilisation are its artists and writers. The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill recognises the work undertaken by New Zealand authors towards creating our own New Zealand civilisation. 
The bill in its definition of who a New Zealand author is does not limit the definition to a New Zealander in terms of the tax definition provided in the legislation. In terms of the bill’s definition anyone is included who is resident in New Zealand and who is writing in New Zealand. I think that not enough has been made of the contribution made to authorship in New Zealand by the many new immigrants who have come into this country from various parts of the world. They are making a contribution and will be making a contribution to writing in New Zealand. In a way this bill gives recognition to that state of affairs. 
New Zealand authorship goes back a long time. Much mention has been made of the works of Katherine Mansfield and the work of Peter Buck who was the iconic writer for New Zealand anthropology. His work  
The Coming of the Maori  
is something that is read in New Zealand universities even today as part of anthropology studies. Of course both those writers are deceased and neither of them will receive any benefit from this legislation. This bill is meant for those people who are currently writing in New Zealand and whose books are available in New Zealand libraries. As mentioned earlier the legislation excludes books that are written for the purpose of school studies. 
My only criticism of the legislation is that when it was first introduced it had a regulation power that was far too wide and it is only because of the well-intentioned purpose of this legislation that one can turn a blind eye to the usual overarching regulation provisions that were in the legislation in the first place. The select committee has done some work on improving the situation. Of course this bill went to the select committee and came back without amendments in the committee’s rush but then the Minister put amendments to the Committee of the whole House and those amendments were accepted. The bill is in a much better state than it was when it came back from the select committee and as I have mentioned already let us hope authors give us some credit for rushing through the House a bill that benefits authors in New Zealand. 
The question of interpretation was raised by Chris Finlayson. I can assure him that I was not a student of Geoffrey Palmer. In fact he came into this House after I came into it and I am sure he learnt a thing or two on the Statutes Revision Committee as it was when he was a member of that committee and I was its chairman many years ago which might have helped him in his subsequent literary and literate contributions to New Zealand. 
The bill is supported by New Zealand First. As the New Zealand First spokesman on culture I have great pleasure in taking part in the debate on this legislation—as we all take pleasure in New Zealand First in this legislation. It is the last piece of legislation before we move into the adjournment debate—which I am sure we are all looking forward to with great interest—and the House rises. On that note I indicate that New Zealand First supports the bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is my very great pleasure to follow my most learned colleagues in speaking to the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill and National is very proud to be able to support New Zealand authors by supporting the bill. I note that the previous speaker Dail Jones said the bill was in a much better state than it was in previously. In actual fact the bill is in exactly the same state that it was in when it went to the Government Administration Committee; it is Supplementary Order Paper 246 that makes it slightly different. In response to some of the previous comments made I say that yes I am enjoying the love affair that is continuing to grow with my select committee colleagues. I have to say that I will indeed miss the very fine contributions of Dover Samuels who always had a cheery smile and a ready quip which was gratefully accepted. 
We love our books and we love our libraries. They are wonderful institutions in New Zealand and I am delighted that our authors are being recognised and will receive payments according to the criteria set down by the advisory group as long as they meet the eligibility criteria for a payment. I would just like to mention one book  
The Great Brain Robbery 
—and that is no reflection on this Parliament. It is a wonderful book by Tom Scott and Trevor Grice and it raises an issue in respect of the public lending rights of New Zealand authors. The book has two authors so who will the payment be made to? Of course it will be incumbent upon the authors to make a decision about who receives the payment and how they divvy it up according to the degree or percentage of contribution. I certainly extol  
The Great Brain Robbery 
 for any parent wanting to know about teenagers and drugs. It is a wonderful book and it is one of those resources that is readily accessible in our libraries. That is the wonderful thing about our libraries: not everybody can afford to buy a book but people can go along to the library and get the information they seek. 
The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill is one way that we can recognise and reward the significant contributions that authors make to support the people of New Zealand in their greater understanding of a wide range of issues. Drugs are one of those issues and a very important one given the devastating effects they have on our children and our families in New Zealand. National is very happy to support the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill and we look forward to working with that legislation in the future. 
Bill read a third time.