Young Jonathan: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I do think it is important to acknowledge that as the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern has said losing 165 fulltime-equivalent jobs is what PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that completelyremoving this temporary ban would have as an effect. We know through the Commerce Committee’s consideration of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill that 57 percent of theatres in the country have converted to digital format and principally all of those are in the major metropolitan areas. Little towns like Huntly probably have not converted yet and little towns likeHāwera where I was born probably have not converted yet. The reason is that it costs $100000 to convert from a 35 millimetre format to a digital format and that is what the industry told us. The reason why the previous Labour Government in 2003 instituted this legislation was to give time for that transition to take place knowing that it was going to cost a considerable amount of money. Of course in 2008 it renewed that for another 5 years through a Supplementary Order Paper when it was considering a copyright bill.The pending lapse of the temporary ban on 31 October 2013 is a trigger to assess whether the original rationale for the ban justifies its continuation. It has been an interesting process through the select committee as we have looked at all the pros and cons of what this temporary ban has provided. One of the things is that we saw that arguably if the ban was not extended those revenue decreases because of the transition and then the transition costs of $100000 per theatre would be too large an expense to make digital conversion viable. That would simply put many many theatres out of business which is where those 165 fulltime-equivalent job losses would occur. For small towns in New Zealand—even for small cities in New Zealand—the closures of these theatres would see those estimated 165 job losses. Added to that it would also see the closure of a significant number of theatres that are places of entertainment and of social value for those small towns and cities. So it was quite a complex discussion looking at all of these things.I felt through the discussion of the committee and hearing the different submitters that could see validation in extending the temporary ban. Of course not for 5 years only for 3; not for 9 months but for 5—certainly a reduction. The report of the committee to the industry said that there was an obvious change in digital technology and the way that people are accessing movies so our words to the industry were to make this 3-year period this window they have been given the window that they certainly choose to take advantage of this period of time to do the transition and to complete it.I also acknowledge the argument put forward by the distribution and exhibition industry for the extension of this temporary ban to ensure that the general public have access to a wider variety of movies particularly family movies at times when they want to see them. In fact some said that they desired the ban to actually be permanent not temporary. However the bill did not present that option nor was there an appetite in the committee to do that.Essentially the ban on parallel importation of films until 5 months after the release date—most often in the USA—is principally focused on family films. To explain this weekTheSmurfs 2 will be launched in New Zealand. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is talking about the cartoon of the Labour Party and that “Smurf 2” is a code name for its intrepid leader “David 2”. I can imagine his chief of staff saying to the Diplomatic Protection Squad: “ ‘Smurf 2’ is on the way.” The New Zealand audience has been enthralled by watching “Smurf 1” for the last little while and we are ready for the sequel “Smurf 2” to be released in a theatre near you. But I think New Zealand is looking forward to seeing “Smurf 3”: David David and David.However coming back toThe Smurfs 2 it was released on 31 July in the USA which is in the middle of its summer holidays. But for us on this side of the world in the different hemisphere 31 July was the first week of term 3. So although it is great to release the film over there here it does not work because it is just not the right time. Asa parent I am not going to be sending my kid—and other parents are not going to be sending their children—out to the movies in the first week of term 3. It is time for settling down to school work is it not? This is the problem that the industry is identifying—that you just cannot do global release dates not for family movies. They are best to be released in the school holiday time and this is what this bill is all about. It is about staggering the release dates so they work for the population according to the seasons of their holidays.The decision of the committee was to support the bill in that we have this extension of a temporary ban not for 5 years but for 3 not for 9 months but for 5. We believe that that is the right window and we want to see the industry transition and to see entertainment available for New Zealanders. Thank you.