Hughes Gareth: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. It is with some dismay and shock that I find myself the only member in this Parliament rising to stand up for competition. I find that deeply ironic. Both the National and Labour parties the neo-liberal free-market parties are the ones supporting a statutory monopoly for content rights holders. I find it staggering that it is the Green Party standing up for competition new industries new jobs and new innovation. It is not always that the Greens are in this position but I will relish it.It comes as no surprise that the Greens are opposing this bill despite loving our regional theatres and despite loving films. I do not know whether I am embarrassed or not but the last film I saw was I thinkRiddick the third in thePitch Black series which was pretty cool.Kris Faafoi: Tell us more.GARETH HUGHES: I will not tell you any more because I would rather talk about the substance of the bill. What this bill does basically is it reinstates the ban on the parallel importing of films reduces the period from 9 months to 5 months and gives a 3-year extension. The Greens are voting against this because we do not believe that one industry deserves a statutory monopoly that is going to drive out competition and driveout competing content delivery systems to protect one business model. It is a business model that we should point out has had a 10-year transition period to date—a 10-year transition period. If 10 years is not enough where is the evidence that 3 years is going to be enough?I am going to talk a little bit about the process a little bit about our opposition and a little bit more about our solutions. Firstly and I think it is important to note this bill landed in Parliament under urgency. There was no reason why this bill had to come in under urgency. Of course we have had a 10-year warning period before this ban on the parallel importing of films was expiring. We think it is unacceptable that bills like this should be introduced under urgency. The Green Party abstained from voting because there just was not enough information in front of us. We had a letter from Minister Foss arrive on our caucus table that day. So we abstained.We went into the select committee period with an open mind. We talked to the submitters obviously. We talked to the movie industry outside of the select committee process to gauge its opinions. And we have come to a clear conclusion that the Green Party cannot support this bill. I think it is disappointing that the Labour Party is supporting it given that in its minority report it said that the losers of this law are the film retailers and the public who are unable to exercise choice during the period of the ban. That is from the Labour Party. So it is a bit disappointing that it did not go the further step.I would like to thank the chair of the Commerce Committee the member Jonathan Young. I would like to thank all the members on the committee and all the submitters. I think two submissions stood out for me in particular. The first was Consumer New Zealand which said that the ban should lapse entirely this year—not in 3 years; this year. I would also like to note that the Creative Freedom Foundation said that the consequences of this bill are that we are going to see greater copyright infringement. The members in the old parties might call it piracy; I would call it copyright infringement because it is not actually a criminal—Tracey Martin: Really?GARETH HUGHES: No it is not under the criminal statute actually; it is a civil offence. That is why I call it copyright infringement. Again it is deeply ironic. Here is the Green Party standing up to stop copyright infringement. We hear some of the old parties standing up and yelling from the rooftops after being lobbied by the rights holders that we need to crack down on piracy. We all remember theSkynet debate. But here is the Green Party standing up for artists standing up for people and sending a message. What we need is legal content delivered through new online means new content delivery systems. We do not support copyright infringement; what we support is a sane copyright approach a new debate. So here we are in the deeply ironic situation that it is the Green Party standing up for competition and it is the Green Party standing up and saying no to copyright infringement.The root of our opposition to this bill is that we can see no justification and we heard no reason why this one particular industry needs a statutory monopoly. This is an incredibly powerful tool our Parliament has. Most of it was scratched from 1984 to 1992 onwards when we went through that big transformation in New Zealand the neo-liberal revolution. Many of those statutory monopolies—things like bans on margarine to protect the butter industry—were abolished during that period. So we do not find it compelling that this one particular industry needs a statutory monopoly to block out competitors in order to provide its content.What we see in the regulatory impact statement is that the Government’s own officials are opposed to the bill. What we see yet again is another special deal for the Government’s mates. We have seen it with Warner Bros we have seen it with Skycityand we have seen it with RioTinto which had the Government over a barrel. There are numerous examples from the oil companies to the casinos. Again we are seeing special deals for the Government’s mates.What we see in this legislation is very much a temporarybandaid. That is what the Labour Party is arguing—that it is a compromise that it has hammered out that it has negotiated and that it is a temporarybandaid. Ten years’ transition was not enough so we need just another 3 years. What we have to ask is if the industry cannot do it in 10 years how is it going to do it in 3 years?There are two justifications that both parties and submitters raised one of which is the school holiday season need for cinemas to be able to have a statutory monopoly—a ban on parallel importing to protect the holiday season films. The fact is that both parties acknowledge that this is going to expire in 3 years. I ask the other parties what is going to be different in 3 years. We are still yet to hear an answer.The other reason is that the industry needs more time to continue the digital switch-over. The fact is that it has had 10 years. Is it going to come back in another 3 years asking for more time to complete the digital switch-over? In saying that I want to reaffirm the Green Party’s commitment to and support for regional cinemas. We love cinemas but we think cinemas should be able to trade on their merits on their services and on the great atmosphere they provide not on a statutory monopoly in law. We think that is an incredible power that Parliament alone has in our country and one that should not be used unwisely. Unlike the member David Clark I think gee if we want to support Kiwi families I would rather see kids having breakfast. I would rather see kids and families pay less for their electricity bills not for cinema tickets. We have got to think about the important things facing Kiwiwhānaus.I want to say that this bill also stifles cultural participation. The disability community has come out asking why it should have to go to cinemas to see content when it comes out. I love cinemas but many Kiwis do not find the cinema experience appealing. They do not want the sticky seats and the popcorn on the floor and to be crowded in a room; they want to consume content in different ways.The last point I want to make is that what this bill does is look at copyright in isolation. It is vitally important that our Parliament grapples with this very interesting policy debate. It is something that is causing big waves around the world. We saw the European Union throw out the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty. We have seen the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act thrown out of the Congress and the Senate in the States. We have seen Australia we have seen the UK and we have seen America do copyright reviews. What we hear from the Government is that we have to put aside our much-anticipated copyright review because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The fact is that other partnership countries are undertaking copyright reviews. There is no reason why we should not be having a fundamental discussion of what copyright means in the internet age because our Copyright Act was written very much in a pre-internet age.I would like to reference a recent London School of Economics report. Again I find it odd that I am the only member to talk about London School of Economics reports when it comes to copyright. The fact is that what this report very clearly states is that the claims made by rights holders are overstated and are built on faulty data. It also states that the most successful way we can support artists and rights holders is not these punitive approaches that use the might of the State through laws to ban content or crack down and disable people’s internet connections; the best way we can support artists and rights holders is to empower them to have new ways to deliver their content affordably and legally and to give people choices. That is why the Greens are opposed to this bill. We want to see new jobs created. We do not want to protect just one sector. If you candeliver content online or through other means we want to support you. We want to give you a fair go a level playing field. If you can compete based on your services your quality you should be able to do it. It should not be the might of the State cracking down on you.The fact is that if the digitisation reason is the big driver for why the industry needs 3 extra years I think the most effective transparent way that this Parliament and this Government could support the digital transition is actually cash support—maybe financing support. We have seen it in other sectors of the economy. If it is that dire the industry should be asking for transparent support mechanisms that do not disadvantage other industries other competitors. But it is the Greens you know who are standing up for sensible copyright reform competition jobs and a fair go for all New Zealand companies. Kia ora.