Tizard Judith: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15246] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Again I thank members for their mainly constructive views. Some of us are prepared to say that when this Labour-led Government is re-elected I am sure with the excellent support of parties that we have we will happily go on with the evolutionary process. I am sure that the National Party in Opposition will find something constructive to do but we look forward to that process. I genuinely thank members for their constructive approach on the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill. 
It is always regretful that at times particularly because of the technical nature of this sort of legislation Supplementary Order Papers cannot be produced too far ahead of time. We obviously have to go through a process of Cabinet considering any change to earlier agreed policy. Then we have the select committee process—and the Commerce Committee expressed some frustration at the technical nature of this legislation. I would argue that it is technical legislation because it is about a range of interests that sometimes compete. I agree with Dr Jonathan Coleman that we are attempting in this legislation to make it as technology neutral as possible so that we do not have to go on changing legislation because of assumptions that have been made in earlier times—like the use of film work or authors of work. We have in this legislation introduced the new idea of a communication work rather than a book an article a film or whatever the earlier legislation may have covered. 
I remember when the House considered the major amendment to the Copyright Act in 1994 and 1995 up to the implementation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights which set up the World Trade Organization. We spent endless hours debating terms like “mixed media works” and if we could have all of those hours back I think many of us would be very grateful. We now realise that we cannot guess how technology will change in the future or indeed how people will use technology in the future. To the greatest extent we can we are trying to streamline and teflon-coat this legislation so that no matter what the nature of the content or the process is the copyright protection will override that. 
I thank Dr Richard Worth for his examination of the area of technological protection measures as I do the Hon Mark Burton whose contribution was very useful. I make the point that there are already technical protection measures on things like commercial CDs and to a large extent the market has seen that off. People did not buy the CDs that had anti-copy protection partly because many people found it very difficult to play them in mobile reproduction—I am trying not to use particular names—in things like iPods and MP3s and sometimes in people’s cars. Those CDs would not play; they would skip. People would go back to the retailer and complain that the CDs did not work. I think that has seen off the attempt to put anti-copying technological protection measures on commercial CDs of music. But that does not mean that people will not go on trying to adapt evolve and invent new ones. 
One of the points that the Commerce Committee considered around the whole area of technological protection measures was access—and Dr Richard Worth’s comments are pertinent in this area where he was saying that we were perhaps not exactly following what other countries were doing. Well part of the reason is that we think there is an important issue that copyright protection overall which in New Zealand covers from the death of the author plus 50 years—in Australia it is from the death of the author plus 70 years—be made infinite by the use of a technological protection measure. We are very concerned that access can be given in a reasonable way. We do not want to have technological processes that mean New Zealanders in the future may not be able to access things that are important to them. We have the exceptions that include areas of research and the open-source community makes it very clear that its concern is the ability to get into the back-end—particularly of software—so that they can see how it is done but also so that they can make better protections against viruses worms and other attacks on our systems or our information. 
There is a need for research and a need for protection of devices and systems but there is also the exception provided where there is good reason. For example there was an issue that was brought to me by a teacher of the blind who works through the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. Her point was that every other child in New Zealand was able to get the last Harry Potter book at 1 minute past 11 on I think 26 July last year but if one happened to be blind one had to wait for some months for either a Braille copy or an audio or video copy. The teacher and the children involved were perfectly prepared to pay for a copy as everybody else did when buying a copy of that very popular book. In New Zealand we have access to a substantial range of works for people who are sight-impaired and of course with the older generation living longer we have more and more older New Zealanders who never learnt Braille but who are becoming sight-impaired. It is really important particularly for things like newspapers magazines and that sort of work as well as published books that we have the widest access. I look forward to the day when we will have an international agreement where people with sight disabilities can access that. But in the meantime I think it is perfectly reasonable that having made an attempt to acquire a copy of a textbook another book a magazine or a newspaper people wanting to access it in a digital form that can be used by people with disabilities can do so. 
We have been consulting very broadly with the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind to look at all of those issues and I want to pay a particular compliment to Mary Schnackenberg who is policy and research person at the foundation. She has been urging us on in this and the ministry is now taking a very proactive approach at international level particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization. For example at a recently held Standing Committee session of that organisation we made an intervention to support future work and further work on the issue of importing accessible copies from other countries. I would urge anyone who is talking with representatives of other countries to urge this work on. I think it is of huge benefit to New Zealanders with sight disabilities and also more broadly. In the meantime the ability to legally circumvent technological protection measures may be necessary for people to get access to a digital copy so that that can then be translated into Braille or other forms available for them. 
I thank members for this. I think this debate has been very useful. The issues that Chris Finlayson raised that he was concerned about are being discussed by the officials and we will get a reply before this part finishes. Thank you.