Chadwick Steve: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18087] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am not on the Commerce Committee but it is interesting that we are talking about conflict here. When the original Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill was proposed it was supported by National at the time and it was actually the Internet service providers who as a voice and as an industry voice rose up and said they had some very real concerns about it. I heard the leader of our committee Clare Curran speak and she did not attack it at all; she said Labour had some reservations. I tell the House that we do support this bill and this position. 
This position has come about because this bill I think has not been rushed. It went to the Commerce Committee and submitters were heard and given their day of having their democratic right exercised at the select committee. It is as the result of that and of considerable negotiation that we have come to this position today. We have serious concerns and reservations about the suspension of Internet accounts as a penalty for breaching copyright but because of the compromise that has been reached democratically at the select committee—and I congratulate all members and the chair—Labour members are now prepared to support this legislation and we reiterate that in the House tonight. 
All of us in New Zealand know that it is incredibly important for copyright to protect our local artists our musicians and our creative industry producers. They are the heart and soul of New Zealand and their very success shapes us as New Zealanders and the face of New Zealand internationally. We would never want to damage those creators of creative products who are very much at risk through the copyright provisions proposed in this bill. We in Labour strongly believe that those who create music films and other entertainment should have their work protected from piracy. I am sure members of the Government believe the same because we are all incredibly proud of our creative industries which are growing industries in New Zealand. The creative industries would provide opportunities for more jobs and more work if only the Government would put emphasis into the training of people in those industries but we do not see that at all. Our opposition to the suspension provision takes nothing away from the support of our local artists. We agree that repeated copyright infringements deserve a penalty but the balance is all about what that penalty is and what that penalty regime is. 
I congratulate those who spoke up and submitted to the select committee. Labour wants to give all of their industries a fair go and to make sure that everyone pays their fair share. That is Labour’s principled approach to most of our policy positions. There are jobs in this industry especially in the information technology industry and especially in interactive video games that are yet to be created but they are intrinsically linked to the development of the “New Zealand Inc.” information technology identity. I think those jobs are very worthy and need protection. 
We still have serious reservations about the suspension of Internet accounts as a penalty for breaching copyright. Amendments were made and compromise was reached at the Commerce Committee—and I congratulate members on that negotiation—which means we will now support the legislation. I think that is positive. We were assured by the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power that no New Zealander would have their Internet connection suspended as a result of this bill. 
I think that National member Sam Lotu-Iiga was absolutely right; most people on the Internet when they become Internet-savvy do not use it to infringe. They do not infringe intentionally. But I know the younger generation and I have certainly seen evidence of infringement amongst my children’s generation when they download. I do not think they see that as being illegal at all. If they infringe copyright with what they download then we have a problem. Information technology creatives are also creative in finding ways around and in circumventing any disconnection. They will do that simply by setting up multiple Internet service provider connections and we know that. This industry moves very rapidly in creativity. When in Government Labour was very aware of piracy and we were aware of piracy in lots of areas too such as films and lots of other creative products. We wanted Internet service providers to do their own policing of illegal downloading and to have a policy—just a policy—for terminating active repeat offenders. 
We still have concerns about this bill but it is great that we are debating it in the House tonight. The regulatory impact statement states there is a case for intervention but there is uncertainty about the scale of harm done by illegal file-sharing. The case has not been clearly made that sales of music and movies via the Internet are decreasing due to illegal file-sharing. The regulatory impact statement did not have a preferred option which shows that the case has not been clearly made that sales of music and movies via the Internet are decreasing due to illegal file-sharing. 
Some sections in the bill remain problematic. The infringement notice is a burden and the bill actually says that people will have to prove that they did not in fact infringe a copyright. Some submitters raised concerns about that point at the select committee and I am pleased that the Minister has attempted to clarify that under the Supplementary Order Paper put forward today. 
I think there has been a good process. It has been a robust process and Labour certainly now supports the bill. I congratulate all of the committee members. I am pleased about the Supplementary Order Paper. I think we have to be very aware of the trans-Tasman implications. When we think we have fixed legislation in New Zealand we may find some other global implications we need to be very careful of. But to all intents and purposes we support the bill.