Sharples Pita: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sharples Pita: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15422] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. The definition of a generation gap is when one accidentally refers to a CD as a 45 or asks whether the track is available in LP form. With this bill I wonder whether that gap is widening even further with the realisation that over the past 5 years CD sales have plummeted a massive 23 percent. 
The way of listening to a popular track is now commonly accessed through downloading and sharing of files. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry in fact reports that some 20 billion tracks were downloaded illegally in 2005 alone. The Recording Industry Association told the Commerce Committee that even the legitimate digital business is expanding rapidly. Music is being made available now through lawful means via licensed services such as iTunes digiRAMA and Amplifier with current projections expecting that in 2 years’ time at least 25 percent of all music sales worldwide will be digital. 
So we are talking about a whirlwind industry that has relegated vinyl to the back shelf in favour of the iPod classic the touch screen iPod touch the video-capable iPod nano or the screenless iPod shuffle. As of September 2007 the iPod was the best-selling digital audio player in history having sold over 110 million units worldwide. We are in the midst of a sound revolution and it is in that context that we in the Maori Party welcomed the amendments to the Copyright Act to address new technologies such as the Internet whilst also maintaining the existing balance between the interests of owners and those of users of copyright works. 
As a performer and a writer myself my interests in copyright have been about not so much the profits or gains entrenched in a music economy but the threats posed to intellectual and cultural property ownership issues. I do not expect to see any of my patere or pao that I have composed available as a mobile phone ringing tone—although it would be a good idea; one could wake up to “E tamarangaake!”. But I do have ongoing concerns about the need for protection around the appropriate transmission of our cultural heritage. The digital world is one of instantaneous communication and it is absolutely vital that the cultural knowledge that has been developed over generations is protected from exploitation in a commercial age. 
The concept of Maori cultural and intellectual property rights is of course extremely relevant as Aotearoa awaits the Waitangi Tribunal findings on Wai 262 some 17 years after the claim was first lodged by Ngati Kahungunu Ngati Kuri Ngati Wai Te Rarawa Ngati Porou and Ngati Koata. Wai 262 asserts exclusive rights to cultural knowledge and property consistent with international discussions taking place in such fora as the World Trade Organization the World Intellectual Property Organization or the Convention on Biological Diversity. In essence the concerns are to do with the commercialisation of knowledge that we may consider as taonga: nga toi Maori or arts; whakairo or carving; history; oral traditions; waiata; and te reo Maori. Those treasures are increasingly being targeted in the international arena. 
The protection and retention of matauranga Maori or traditional knowledge is also to protect against the exploitation and misappropriation of cultural taonga. We have witnessed the most horrific abuse of our traditional artefacts such as our moko mokai or preserved heads being displayed hung on meat hooks or the use of moko to promote a Halloween mask. 
Tangata whenua have also been concerned about the failure of legislation and policies to protect existing Maori collective ownership of cultural taonga and in particular the lack of equitable benefit sharing and the lack of acknowledgment of the traditional knowledge protection mechanisms of indigenous peoples. Our cultural property has been created over generations and exists far outside the realms of individual ownership. A particularly fascinating example of the complexity of copyright laws as related to Maori was described by Alistair Smith in a paper entitled  
Fishing with New Nets: Maori Internet Information Resources and Implications of the Internet for Indigenous Peoples 
. Smith traces an experience related to the works of the Bohemian artist Gottfried Lindauer. In 1996 Lindauer’s portraits of Maori chiefs from the last century were scanned and placed on the web by the Auckland City Art Gallery. This generated considerable outrage from descendants of the chiefs profiled in Lindauer’s portraits who believed that the cultural property rights lay with them. Yet conventional intellectual property law applies only to Lindauer’s works and because 50 years have passed since his death the copyright law enables these portraits to be regarded as being in the public domain. 
To assist in navigating some of these complexities the Government has produced  
Te Mana Taumaru Matauranga 
 which gives some valuable advice with regard to intellectual property rights laws and international agreements. Yet while we all take part in the waiting game for Wai 262 both that guide and the bill before the House today are inevitably of limited value in protecting the expression of matauranga Maori and associated cultural property. As such we were fascinated at the choice of which issues were specified as requiring further review by the select committee in this Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill. We of course took note of the authorised comment from the outstanding three-time Academy Award director producer and writer Peter Jackson. His comment which was stipulated as able to be used only for the purposes of these submissions argued that the director should be recognised as the author of audiovisual works urging us and I quote: “if we as a country profess to honour and promote our creatives then let’s get behind it legislatively and ensure that they can get some financial benefit from the sales of the works that they create. … Our Copyright Act should reflect this let’s make it happen by keeping up with the rest of the world.” 
Accordingly the Ministry of Economic Development advised the select committee that it would begin work on this issue in early 2008. Yet although concerns around intellectual and cultural property rights were raised by Te Ropu Whakahau—the professional association for Maori who work in libraries archives and information services—the report back on the bill is remarkably silent on this issue. Te Ropu Whakahau concluded: “we contend that there is a need to develop a category of collective ongoing and enduring rights that will ensure that Maori retain the right to control the appropriate expression and transmission of our cultural heritage. This control is one that can’t be invested in an individual and protected by conventional intellectual property mechanisms such as copyright.” 
There are interesting international precedents that could have been examined. The Pacific Model Law for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Culture 2002 is an intellectual property - based sui generis system that draws on copyright principles to provide protection for traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. The concept of sui generis—one of its own kind—has already been introduced in Aotearoa in the Trade Marks Act 2002. Amongst its provisions the Commissioner of Trade Marks is able to refuse to register a trademark if it is considered offensive to Maori. This was a very welcome and innovative move. It is considered that the Waitangi Tribunal ruling on Wai 262 will also recommend the implementation of sui generis systems in order to protect Maori knowledge. Another interesting model is that provided by the Sami people of Norway Sweden Finland and Russia. They have established Sámikopiija—a reproduction rights organisation that represents the interests of Sami culture. The organisation has been set up to administer collectively their rights and to ensure that appropriate remuneration is paid to the Sami for reproduction of intellectual property. 
This bill was in the ideal position to build on all of these developments both domestically and internationally and just as it did with the recommendations around the directors also to grab the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in requiring comprehensive protection of matauranga Maori—Maori knowledge. It is a matter of great disappointment to the Maori Party that the House has not been presented with such an opportunity. It is therefore inevitable that the Maori Party will be unable to support this bill. Thank you.