Clark David: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13555. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I have been called a lot worse. I want to begin by saying that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga spoke earlier in the debate and I would like to put on record from the outset that I do agree with the bulk of the member’s statements. This has been said already of course today. But there are some statements that I struggle to agree with and I do struggle a little with the way in whichhe has characterised the debate that has been had. I know that he will be struggling with the outcome that his party has come to on this because he is someone who believes in the value of markets. But there he is. He stands up and he says what he thinks needs to be said in this debate. But as with the debate on housing and perhaps actually more pertinent in respect of the debate on housing as my colleague Phil Twyford I think has quipped no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig it is still a pig. That is certainly true with the Government’s housing policy.But we are here of course to discuss the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill which has been reported back to the House. I sat on the Commerce Committee which debated this bill. We found that there were arguments in favour of and against extending the protection offered to cinemas around the country. We as a committee have recommended in the end to continue with some level of protection albeit a very clearly signalled final episode of protection and a shorter episode of protection. So the bill reduces the delay for parallel importing of films from 9 months to 5 months after a film’s international release date.Labour’s qualified support for the 5-month delay rests on the impact on provincial and rural cinemas that have less capacity to show multiple high-grossing movies simultaneously and less flexibility and ability to cut costs to remain competitive. It is fair to say that there are also other cinemas perhapsarthouse cinemas and the like in medium-size towns that are vulnerable here. I guess I am a little surprised at the stance the Green Party has taken knowing that the stance it is taking if this bill were to be successfully pushed through the House would mean the loss of about 160 jobs we are told. It would mean the loss of small community facilities. It would probably mean the wholesale destruction ofarthouse cinemas in New Zealand. It seems a peculiar stance for the Greens to take and it is sad to hear that they are not concerned to look after the educational opportunities that are in cinemas that they do not value the community that builds around rural and small-town cinemas and that they do not value the jobs that are in the industry.We think that the decision to have essentially a compromise a shorter period of time of protection leading over to a period when the industry must adapt is the sensible solution. It is a solution that takes the middle path by protecting the industry for a period of time while the adjustment is made. It is not like a very hard decision that means jobs are laid off without a transition period and without the ability to make adjustments. It is showing concern for the industry for the community facilities and for the jobs. So that is the point we reached in our deliberations. They were challenging deliberations. I think the discussions in the select committee were good ones they were full ones and they really went across all of the issues so it is a little sad for me to hear that the Green Party does not seem to value those kinds of community facilities. They do not seem to value the jobs or the films that are shown in the cinemas in those smaller communities. However that is where they stand and they have reached their decision. I am sure it was not easy for them to reach that decision either but I do feel it needs to be put on record that that was a different decision from the one that most parties reached.It is also interesting when we think back that this bill was introduced under urgency. It was introduced under urgency in this House. We spent a lot of time debating why that might be after it had languished on the Order Paper for an inordinately long period of time. The kind of relaxed approach this Government is now taking to it betrays that perhaps it was not quite as urgent as it was first projected to be. The speeches have been very short—very short—and they have contained very little detail or explanation of why this is such an urgent matter. In fact Government members seem quite dismissive of the prospect of debating the bill. That is a little surprising but I think it points to the kind of process that this Government is running through. It is trying to rush things throughunder urgency as it tries to catch up on the lost time from bad organisation in this House. I think that is clear—I think that is clear.This bill will expire on 31 October 2016 with the effect that the importing of a film first made available to the public after that date would be allowed immediately on the film being made publicly available. This is a time-limited bill—it is introducing a time-limited measure—and at that point in time we are expecting that cinemas will have adapted. They will have made the necessary adjustments. They will have switched to digital technology if that is what is required. Also we are recognising the changing patterns of consumption amongst ordinary Kiwis who are increasingly looking at other electronic means of gathering these films this entertainment and the educational material that goes with it. We recognise that Kiwis and others around the world will find ways of sharing a community experience as they adapt to online means of sharing and viewing this material. These forums—online forums—are developing all the time where there is a sense of commonly shared experiences. But not all New Zealanders are there yet and so in some ways that is why this bill makes a lot of sense to continue to preserve that community experience for an interim period of time while the industry adapts and while New Zealanders adapt to the rapidly changing technology and that preserves the opportunity to have those community experiences.In our previous reading I noticed in many speeches MrFaafoi’s entrancement withThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute which came into the discussion. That was the first movie he ever went to see. We discussedStar Wars and other movies butThe Smurfs came up again in a speech by a member sitting opposite me here. I think it was Mr Macindoe if I remember correctly. He raised the issue ofThe Smurfs 2 being released this month and the effects and some of us on this side would have liked to name some of the other characters in the House in order to highlight perhaps the levity with which this bill has been debated at times.I think some of the frivolousness in the speeches from Government members reflects the fact that for them this is not really an urgent bill. It is a bill that reflects the Government’s inability to organise its time in the House. The fact is that it has come through late it is now being rushed through after languishing on the Order Paper and those members are not so attached to it one way or another. It is filling space. It is using parliamentary time but it does ultimately achieve something that we find difficult to oppose because it is a transitional measure.To sum up the Labour Party will be supporting this bill because we believe it provides an appropriate interim measure whilst the industry and community adjust to the changing nature of public entertainment and education in the film sector. Thank you.