Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. You really know what grinds my gears? It is that Minister talking about and I quote him openness" "transparency" and "we are having a conversation." A conversation after the thing has been negotiated; a conversation openness and transparency after the thing has been decided. That Minister came down to this Chamber and said "What are you moaning about? You've had 50 roadshow meetings." after the thing was decided. He said to MPs and unions "You've had access to negotiators." after the negotiations had finished. You cannot have a conversation with someone who cannot budge who will not budge. This has been a terrible process and here is the Minister trying to defend it by saying that it has all been about openness transparency and a conversation. That is absolutely ridiculous. This has been a secret process throughout a number of years. The only way citizens unionists businesses and NGOs could find out information about what his team was negotiating was through WikiLeaks. That is not openness. That is not transparency. That is not a conversation. That is being dictated to. This is a bad bill which the Green Party will not be supporting. The Minister was talking about my amendment and I want to touch on this. My amendment: a positive amendment for fair use. Under this legislation we are being forced—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member's Supplementary Order Paper 240 is out of order. It is out of scope. I know you have been informed of that. So if could you confine your comments as you have already started to other substantive matters but your Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is out of order. I will be ruling it out of order when we come to have the vote and you cannot talk about it because it is out of scope of the bill.GARETH HUGHES: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just seek clarification. I am aware of that fact but why was the Minister not required on mentioning my SOP—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No well he actually just commented on your SOP. You are the one who is now speaking to it and I am telling you now that it is out of scope. There are some very small technical agreements that are in scope those required to implement the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) but your amendment seeks to extend the copyright provisions to mirror American provisions. I know that you have been informed that it is out of scope. I am telling you that I will be ruling it out of scope when the vote comes but I am also saying now that you cannot talk to it because it is out of scope.GARETH HUGHES: So under this legislation under the copyright provisions of Part 2 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill New Zealand is forced to enact US-style copyright rules US-style copyright term extensions. This legislation is all about New Zealanders facing US costs with none of the US benefits that US citizens can access such as modern copyright legislation. Because currently what this legislation does is keep our 1994 Copyright Act stuck in the past stuck in the pre-internet age where it was written in the early 1990s. Under this legislation New Zealand copyright has been moved towards the balance of rights holders. Everyone involved in the copyright debate in New Zealand and around the world agrees we need balance when it comes to copyright. However what this bill does in Part 2 is put all the balance on one side: on the rights holders' side. When we see the impact this has on New Zealanders—I researched the impact it is going to have on New Zealand music and New Zealand literature which would be coming out of copyright but because this Government is extending terms along the US lines with none of the corresponding US benefits or protections. We are going to see some iconic New Zealand literature such as New Zealand's first gay novel some incredibly famous music such as the song of the century Fourmyula's "Nature" stay locked out of the public domain which means New Zealanders cannot access it. We cannot have a richer creative public space because it is being locked away. This is exactly what we see in this legislation which is all about balance that is tilted towards one side which is the corporate interest not the public interest. That is why we should be having the conversation. If we are having US costs why can we not have US protections? This was a key message we saw in the select committee process. Although we are criticising the process that sees us at this point—which was the secrecy being consulted on and engaged with only after nothing could change—we saw that exactly in the select committee process which went through a very constrained time line and did not listen to the people. Here we are in Parliament racing ahead passing a law literally on the eve of the US election where both major candidates have said they will not be supporting this legislation. New Zealand is racing ahead. It is disappointing that we cannot access those protections that other citizens can. The Green Party is going to continue to push for it because as we had the copyright conversation we should be talking about balance not just costs for New Zealanders which we know have been estimated to be in the order of $55 million a year. Thank you."