Smith Nick: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18107] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly I compliment the members who have contributed to this debate. It is a pretty tricky balance between the copyrights that the National Party holds dear—and people who create items that have value such as music film and the like being able to secure value from those creative endeavours—and another pretty important right the right of freedom. The National Party was founded on some very basic principles about freedom of expression and the State being limited in the degree to which it can constrain freedom of expression and the general freedoms that we enjoy as New Zealand citizens. I want to put on record though the chequered history around this issue and I note some of the contributions that have been made by Labour members. 
I do not proclaim to be an expert on copyright law. I commend the job that the Minister of Commerce Simon Power has done in this area. Like so many members of this House I have had to become familiar with this issue because of the huge furore created by the passage of section 92A of the Copyright Act. Anyone who was in an electorate office who looked at an MP’s mail or who was at the Nelson market has heard of section 92A. The first time I heard of section 92A I was not too sure which legislation it was in but literally thousands and thousands of people were agitated by the bill passed by a previous Government in 2008. It got us into this pickle and Simon Power and this Government have had to work through this issue in a balanced and sensible way. I think the provisions in this bill and in particular the very constructive work done by the Commerce Committee get us to a very sensible balance between those competing rights. 
I will respond to a couple of specific points in the debate. Clare Curran brought TVNZ 7 and the creative industries into the debate. I have to tell members that in so many areas the previous Government left financial landmines that have gone off for this Government. In respect of TVNZ 7 the previous Government funded it for a limited period and said that it would become self-sustaining. Whether the issue is in relation to the work that Simon Power has been doing today in legal aid the mess in ACC that I was left with or some of the other problems that so many of my ministerial colleagues are dealing with—including the area health boards and the huge deficits there—it shows that the previous Government was financially reckless. It set up programmes that are unaffordable in these tight fiscal times. 
I challenge the Labour members who are interjecting. I have a simple question for them: do they commit to funding TVNZ 7? On the one hand they cry in protest that this Government with all the challenges of the Christchurch earthquake and the global recession has to make difficult decisions. We had an impassioned plea from Clare Curran that the decisions we have made about TVNZ 7 were absolutely awful and that we should fund it. I simply ask Clare Curran this question again: will Labour fund it? Oh! The silence is deafening. We have a Labour Opposition that is playing politics and is not prepared to commit its opinion to say it would fund it. It truly shows how hollow Clare Curran’s criticisms are. 
I shall come to the thoughtful question from David Parker in respect of the issues around copyright and the Trans-Pacific Partnership discussions. The first point I make about the discussions is that— 
Clare Curran 
: Secret negotiations—why are they in secret? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Look it is really interesting is it not? The member interjects that the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership are occurring in secret. Well I have a simple challenge for her: when her party was in Government and negotiating the free-trade agreement with China were those negotiations all held in the open? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Rubbish! They were not. Exactly the same protocols about the negotiation of the free-trade agreement that occurred with China are occurring with the US. But you know we all understand in this Chamber that there is an ugly anti-American language probably amongst that party—I think it was a “gaggle” that one of the Labour members referred to; I think it was the self-interested trade unionists who were referred to—in relation to the anti-Americanism there. Members on this side of the Chamber are proud to say that a free-trade agreement with the United States would be good for the living standards of New Zealanders and good for trade and providing we can get an agreement that is in New Zealand’s interests that is something we will advance. 
But I also want to clarify an issue for Mr Parker. He assumes that all of the copyright issues between New Zealand and the United States are one way. Well that is to significantly discount the huge creative industries that exist in New Zealand. Let us take Dave Dobbyn a wonderful musician and his musical product of “Loyal”—right? Should he be able to claim the copyright and value for that production? We as members of a party for property rights say that Dave Dobbyn deserves to be able to protect the property rights of his creation and so should other talented musicians and filmmakers whom this National Government is very keen to advance. We want to protect those sorts of talents. 
Further I point out a hole in David Parker’s approach—as a typical sort of self-interested unionist; I think that is the phrase—in saying that these copyright laws benefit only corporates. Let me tell members the point. Let us say there is an argument to be had about how long copyright should apply. Should it be for 50 years after the death of the author for 60 years or for 70 years? Mr Parker argues that the only people who would benefit from that copyright would be corporates. Let me tell members why that perspective is incorrect. Why is that incorrect? Generally what happens with musicians artists and films is that a person sells that right on to a corporate and the value that that person receives as an individual and a creator of that copyright material is dependent on how long that value is for. So any extension in the period of copyright would play as much to the benefit of the creator as it does ultimately to any person who might purchase that right; and the sort of anti-business rhetoric we continue to hear from the political left undermines New Zealand’s interests in respect of those trans-Pacific negotiations. Again I stress that this is a really balanced and sensible response to a difficult issue and I think this bill should be commended to the Committee.