Hughes Gareth: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11473. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I also would like to share my acknowledgment of the ceremony that was in the Chamber earlier tonight and the new plaque on the wall. It is a fitting addition to this Chamber—the fourth-oldest democracy in the world I understand. So I guess it is disappointing tohave to be debating another copyright law under urgency in Parliament. I do not know what it is about copyright laws and this Government but somehow for some reason they have got to be debated under urgency. The Greens will be abstaining on this bill. We want to hear the arguments.I think it is a ridiculous process that we are discussing an issue with such a heads-up. This ban on parallel imports on copyrighting films which this bill deals with was first implemented in 2003 and extended in 2008. It is not like we have not had a long amount of time leading up to this decision. There is no actual urgency. In fact the bill was tabled on the Table only when the Minister started speaking. That is unacceptable for a bill like this. In fact our caucus was discussing a letter from Minister Foss only today asking our opinion. Yet a few hours later we see this bill slammed down on the Table with no justification. I think it is a disappointing practice. There has been no urgency. In fact it turns out that they were literally writing it today and we still have not heard a reason why it had to be implemented under urgency.What we want to have is a good debate about copyright. This is vexing international legal experts all around the world. It has moved from arcane dusty rooms of law libraries and law professors discussing it to the front pages of our newspapers and literally the front lines of global treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the new Copyright Tribunal in New Zealand. Huge political movements around the world are debating these very issues and I do not think it serves this Parliament or this Government very well to be debating such an important issue under urgency.What we see under this bill is very much a temporary solution a band-aid over the ban that was extended in 2008. All this bill does and I note that it is only two pages is extend the temporary ban on parallel importing of films for another 3 years but it does reduce the length of the ban from 9 months to 5 months. It is very much a temporary measure. They call it a transitory measure but how many times can you keep extending a so-called transitory measure? Will we be back in another 3 years’ time extending it again because the movie industry has said it has not had enough time?It is important and it is good to see the regulatory impact statement. It says there were only 16 submissions during consultation so not exactly overwhelming public debate on this very issue. What we actually see is the Government officials advising against this legislation. It is clear: they are advising against this legislation for a number of reasons. The bill and the regulatory impact statement raise a number of very important issues and they need considered thought not this rushed botched little process. On one hand you get the arguments of people saying we need to protect the cinemas we have got to protect Kiwi films and this is the only way we are going to do it. People say we need a temporary monopoly of distribution rights favouring one technological distribution method. It is an idea that has its opponents and what you see is industries in New Zealand like Quickflix which wants to provide online content distribution channels raising some concerns. Obviously DVD providers are raising some concerns. I guess this is why the Greens do not have a position on it: we are going to hear the arguments from both sides.The legitimate question that has to be raised is why you would pick the cinema industry to protect vis-à-vis all the other industries they could be protecting or maybe just having a level playing field as the regulatory impact statement states. Why can we not have competition in the sector? Why would you pick this sector? I did not see the National members outside saving Video Ezy stores and trying to protect VHS. I did not see National members trying to protect the carbon arc projector and then the reel projectors. Why would you protect this one sector? I think if cinemas are going to be competitive it should be because of the atmosphere. There are some great Kiwi cinemasaround the country offering a service and not needing statutory protection to protect what some people would say is an old-fashioned business model.The bill is framed as a transition but we have got to ask whether we will be back here in 3 years. The officials say that lifting the ban would have only minor impacts on the sector. In fact it would encourage those legal distribution methods and all the international data and data from New Zealand shows that providing legal alternatives and different distribution methods legally and affordably is the best way to crack down on infringing piracy. This is what we see in the submissions.Actually what this bill is going to be doing is encouraging online infringement of copyrighted materials. We heave seen this punitive lobby-first approach from sectors involved in this debate and ultimately we need to embrace the modern. We should not be scared of it like the carbon arc projector. We should be looking to the future. But there are arguments on both sides. We will hear both sides in the select committee debate. We think it is an absolutely shocking process to receive this bill literally when it starts being debated. So that is why we are not voting for it and we are not voting against it. Kia ora.