O'Connor Simon; Tolley AnneSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh look I'm delighted to take a call Madam Speaker and I'm sure my colleague across the House Kieran McAnulty is as well. Look this is a fantastic piece of legislation and in some ways one could argue long overdue—long overdue—before the House. I don't say it with any political shot if you will at any particular party but the Marrakesh Treaty is really important both in and of itself in what it does but I think symbolically too about New Zealand—that it actually is working as hard as it can and however it needs to to actually embrace those who have disabilities in our communities. We term it the Marrakesh Treaty. It's shorthand of course for the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. I think for me first and foremost it's actually refreshing in this House to have a treaty that we are moving through domestic legislation that actually accurately describes what it's about. Particularly when it comes to matters of blindness it's always very easy for us to think that it is just literally completely and utterly blind but if you engage with the likes of the Blind Foundation you'll understand as I'm sure the House does that there's many people out there with visual impairments and otherwise. I think we're up to—actually I'm not going to quote the numbers because I may get that wrong but it's a substantial number of New Zealanders in that space. What the bill seeks to do—and I think the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee if I understand it correctly led by Gareth Hughes has done a very comprehensive look over this but not either slowing down the progress of the bill to bring it here today. What it's effectively trying to do and other speakers have very eloquently touched on it is remove what's been a copyright problem for years in New Zealand and granted across other jurisdictions around the world where the cost and in fact even the ability to bring in documents which those who are blind or visually impaired can use has been prohibitive incredibly expensive—in fact prohibitive to the point that it's just not feasible. New Zealand's existing copyright laws do allow the likes of the Blind Foundation and others to take a document and to turn it into something that is far more accessible. Of course Braille comes to mind as one means and I want to stress that that's one means; we obviously have the sort of more vocally oriented texts. To do that takes time and it takes money and particularly in our more modern world and environment it almost goes without saying there's an expectation that we should be able to jump online and access the world's resources. But the major fact that we have to bring into focus here—no pun intended—is that this treaty allows now the likes of the Blind Foundation Macular Degeneration New Zealand and others to seek texts from overseas and not to incur the costs that go along with that and really importantly not to have an infringement of the Copyright Act. So that's the heart of it. It would go without saying and I know it will have come through the select committee—I sadly as others indicated haven't sat on this current select committee. We did look at the Marrakesh Treaty in the previous Parliament when I was on a select committee where I particularly picked up on it. I also had the good privilege back then of sitting on the Health Committee so the likes of the Blind Foundation Macular Degeneration New Zealand and others would come and talk to me about it—so somewhat familiar. What the bill is doing is—well sorry I've gone off on a different tangent briefly. The Blind Foundation the likes of Macular Degeneration New Zealand and copyright groups in New Zealand are all supportive of this. That's no surprise. It's nothing particularly new. So I think it's really good again that the committee has engaged with those views. They haven't made any really substantial changes and that again is not taking away from the work that was done. I think the treaty itself is pretty straightforward and as I often stress in the House at this second reading when there's an international treaty and New Zealand has signed up to the international treaty of Marrakesh we need to put it in some domestic legislation to bring it about. So really what this is doing is changing section 69 of the Copyright Act to fundamentally make it legal permissible possible for a New Zealand individual and institution to take a written word for example to take a book and turn it into something that is far more accessible. So I think that's incredibly incredibly positive. I should add actually that the Blind Foundation's advocacy on this has been incredibly strong. I think they've been probably and understandably the strongest advocates for it. If I might—and it will only take me 20 seconds to—acknowledge Sandra Budd. She is actually after 12 years the outgoing chief executive of the Blind Foundation. Sadly in a way she's resigned—or stepped away not resigned; sorry Sandra—only a few weeks ago from this role. She has been in those years a tireless tireless advocate. So Sandra can I acknowledge the work that you do and obviously those who remain like Dianne Rogers and others. Look what is fundamentally important here is that we have thousands of New Zealanders whose lives will be improved solidly by this bill. As I have mentioned before I think it's well over time that we've brought this out. It'll be a challenge beyond the treaty itself and our discussions here in the House tonight to make sure that this Parliament itself adopts in fact the principles of the Marrakesh Treaty. Why I say the principles is that we're not talking about what we can and cannot do—we have the ability of this House to translate for want of a better word our documents into a variety of forms—but actually that this House becomes far more accessible for people. So what we can do symbolically is going to be very very important—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am terribly sorry to interrupt that amazing speech but the debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.