Ryall Tony: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9409] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In reporting back to you Mr Speaker on the Committee stage of this bill I draw to your attention the lengthy comparison members made between what the Prime Minister promised and what the Government is delivering. In her Speech from the Throne which followed only a few days after she gave $89 million of taxpayers’ money to the arts the Prime Minister promised to deliver to the arts community a prohibition for 2 years on the parallel importing of CDs videos films books and software. It has to be asked where any of that is. Helen Clark promised a 2-year import ban on software in this bill. Is it there? No. She also promised a 2-year ban on importing books and films in this bill. Is it there? No. Helen Clark promised in the Speech from the Throne a ban on the parallel importing of CDs and DVDs for 2 years. Is it there? No. 
The Government was told by its officials and by many submissioners in its consultation process on this issue that Helen Clark did not know what she was talking about. That was a promise made on the hoof to try to curry favour with a small group that the Prime Minister likes to be fêted by. It never stacked up it was always a joke and the Prime Minister was told that by the public servants and by those people who made submissions during two rounds of consultation. The papers showed the ridiculous situation of Paul Swain saying that we would have a 2-year ban on books being imported into New Zealand after their release but libraries would not be banned from doing that nor would the Government. That was quite ridiculous. That is how bad it was. It is no wonder he was dumped as the Minister of Commerce with that sort of woolly stupid thinking. 
The National Party in Opposition opposes strongly the Government’s silly 9-month ban on the importation of DVDs and videos. We oppose it because it is stupid anti-competitive and anti-choice. It will deny choice to a whole lot of New Zealanders. On the other hand it may be nothing but puffery because we have been told in the Committee stage that the 9 months applies from the international release of the video DVD or film. That means that if a film is released in the summer in Europe—I am sure Mr Speaker you have been in Europe in summer and you will know that a lot of films are released at that time—it may be another 6 months before it comes here. So this ban may apply for only 3 months. 
We also know that there is no ban on the owner of the copyright importing a DVD into New Zealand even before the international release of the film. There is no ban on the owner of the copyright to the video or DVD importing it and putting it on the shelves of video shops around New Zealand on the very day of the international release. That is not caught nor is the personal importation of DVDs or videos. While we are not allowed to go down to the video shop in Hawera or Eketahuna to get a video we can get on the Internet order it and have it within 2 days. So if people can afford to buy a DVD or video this bill will not apply to them. There are so many problems with this bill and with the Government’s programme to try to ban the importation of videos and DVDs within 9 months of the international release of films. 
The National Party asks why the Prime Minister did not just admit she was yet again foolish and spoke before she thought about it. She made a silly election promise trying to pander to the favourite little group that she likes to pander to and nothing has come of it. The official papers which we managed to prise out of the Government under the Official Information Act show that the Government spent 2 years trying to find something that it could window dress to look like the Prime Minister’s promise in the Speech from the Throne. The fact is that the Prime Minister has delivered zip. She promised a 2-year ban on videos DVDs books and software and what has she delivered? She has delivered a 9-month ban on that. 
What does this legislation actually do? It tries to affect a few people who the Government thinks are somehow people who have their hands in the till. Those are the people whom the Government wants to target: people who may have their hands in the till. The Government is trying to say to them that they should not be allowed to act in a way that satisfies the demands of ordinary New Zealanders. It is the ordinary New Zealanders who will miss out—the ordinary New Zealanders who are hard-working stay in their jobs and obey the law. They are the people who will miss out under this ban because they will be denied the right to go down to the local video shop and hire a DVD or a video within 9 months of the public release of the film. Frankly I think that is outrageous. It is outrageous because it is a denial of the choice that New Zealanders have become used to. 
New Zealanders have become used to the fact that they can go to the video shop and rent a recent release. That is why that stand at the video shop is called “Recent Releases”; they are quite recent in terms of the release date of the film. This Government has now proposed that ordinary people should not be able to rent a video within 9 months of the release of the film. That is the consequence of this bill. 
Larry Baldock 
: No! Absolute rubbish! Get back on to the subject. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I tell Mr Baldock that this legislation is a denial of a right of ordinary New Zealanders to go to their video shop. The United Future party endorsed the Care of Children Bill endorsed lesbian fathers and endorsed 12-year-olds having abortions without informing their parents because United Future members had not read the bill. I say to Mr Baldock that he has not read this bill. If he reads this bill as he should have read that bill the Care of Children Bill which the United Future party endorsed— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The point I am making is that the member has not read the bill. If he had read the bill then he would not have made the interjection he just did that this measure will not restrict people’s choice at the video shop. I can table the press release of United Future supporting the Care of Children Bill—endorsing it in this House—because United Future members had not read it. If they had read it their position would now be to oppose it. 
Larry Baldock 
: Table it! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I will table it later—the press release showing United Future supported the Care of Children Bill. 
Jill Pettis 
: What’s that got to do with this? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It has to do with the fact that they have not read the bill. If they had read the bill they would know that it denies ordinary New Zealanders the choice of going to the video shop. 
The Government was told this legislation would not work. This will not save one provincial theatre in New Zealand. It will not save a picture theatre in Temuka from closing. It will not have any effect whatsoever on that and the Government was told that it would have no effect. On the very day after we heard about a record performance by Sky City Leisure which owns a chain of theatres up and down New Zealand including provincial New Zealand the Government is trying to say provincial theatres need protection. The fact is that they do not. 
Ordinary New Zealanders need choice. That is what we in the National Party Opposition stand for. We stand for choice. Parallel importing has delivered huge amounts of choice to ordinary New Zealanders. It has reduced the cost of books videos CDs and software but it was opposed by the Labour Party. The Labour Party has to realise that this proposal to stop people buying  
Finding Nemo 
 for their kids for Christmas is a joke. It is a denial of choice and it says to New Zealanders that they have no right to get those cheap products. That is quite wrong.