Barry Maggie; Tolley AnneHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is with pleasure that I rise to speak at the second reading of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. It is not a bill I've known a great deal about; I wasn't on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. I've been listening to the other calls with great interest because as the spokesperson for disabilities and as someone who has more than a passing interest in sometimes the plight of seniors or those who are visually impaired this particular mechanism seems to me to be a very sensible worldwide initiative that we need to do what we're doing with now which is to put it into our legislation.The fact that it has been a long time coming—it was very interesting looking back on its history because it was back in October 2015 that the then National Government released that first discussion document and it was to seek feedback from New Zealanders as to whether this was worthwhile whether we should look at it just for visual impairment or perhaps broaden it out to people who have hearing disabilities and so forth. But the original intent of the Copyright Amendment Bill was that those matters should not be encompassed and captured within National's—you know what I mean by that: nationwide legislation for each of the countries that want to do it. So the area around examining for example whether people with hearing impairment should do it—I know the select committee had nine submissions they talked about considering and broadening those changes but because it was so much outside the scope of the wider review of the Copyright Act that's currently in progress it was decided not to do it. So while that may be an ample opportunity for legislation in the future—I think it was important that it was discussed—there is still more work to be done.But talking about the visual aspects in particular it does appear to me that this select committee process has really robustly tested all of the issues that might be likely to come back to bite us as it were as a Parliament if we did not consider them.The commercial availability test which was referred to by my colleague Lawrence Yule a few moments ago was something that I thought might be a barrier and might need to be addressed. But again the rigour of the select committee process has meant that that has been discounted—and for very good reasons which he went into. I think the idea that it would disadvantage print-disabled people disproportionately and the copyright holders themselves would benefit from it is an extremely good reason why we would not want to go down that track. But again it is in the engine room of the legislation at select committee that a lot of this stuff is teased out and unintended consequences are explored. I think when we look at what happened in the progress of this bill it's also started some very interesting conversations. So it was in June 2017 that the National Government announced that New Zealand would join the treaty with Parliament to complete the examination process. So that was duly considered the public consultation and the analysis which was prepared by the Commerce Committee of the 51st Parliament. So this is something that has gone through a number of select committees and so probably the rigour of the process has been even more than usual. But when you look at the number of people that have print disabilities 168000 of them—of course that will grow as the population ages and as the visually impaired in our societies and communities continue to grow. The fact is that they might be isolated without the access and the fairness which has underpinned a lot of the policies that we did as a National Government under the Hon Nicky Wagner and Enabling Good Lives. We want the one in four New Zealanders who have disabilities—and you know it is a particularly difficult disability when people are unable to see what's going on. But this is very much at the heart of and in keeping with the principles that we really want to do.So changes that are required to the Copyright Act needed to be carefully considered and I think replacing the concept of prescribed body" with this new concept of "authorised entity" is a very sound way to futureproof this particular legislation. And as well as that it is explicitly providing for the import and export of accessible format copies from and to the authorised entities. Again it's making the passage of the work more accessible and more readily able to happen electronically as well as in paper form. So I think that when we look at clarifying the definition of "print disability" which is open to interpretation there will be of course individuals who have a visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability which just cannot be improved. So you know again we need a similar function without the impairment. It is important that as legislators we consider all of these things and on balance—DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has lapsed."