Sharples Pita: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Sharples Pita: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12634] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I was looking over a review written in 1973 of the classic recording of Ma-wai-hakona Maori Association  
Songs of Maori Heroes 
. The review written by Alan Armstrong was effusive in its praise of that album describing it as one of the most important recordings of Maori music to be issued for some years. But the reviewer was far less pleased with the fact that all the original items were labelled copyright. As he said: “Such a move would be unprecedented amongst Maori groups and would certainly have tarnished Ma-wai in the minds of many. The free circulation use and even adaptation of the works of others has always been a feature of most Maori music and composition.” Those are strong words indeed and they provide a dramatic contrast to our current performance climate in which Maori performers are passionate about the need to protect their cultural heritage which provides a source of material for performance. 
The 1973 album is also interesting in laying the foundation for the developments we see reflected in this bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill. One of the tracks on the album was of a canoe poi “Hoea Ra” penned by Hera Dovey Katene-Horvarth a Ngati Toa kuia. Aunty Dovey was a stalwart member of Ngati Poneke resident composer for Ma-wai-hakona club and patron of the Aotearoa Maori Chorale. That poi has an honourable story of its own. Aunty Dovey wrote the poi in the times of the mass outrage over the loss of Maori land. The poi was performed en masse at Waitangi in 1974 and it appealed to everyone to keep paddling through the turbulent waters of injustice in order to one day achieve peace. But “Hoea Ra” was also known for becoming the source of a 1975 Rolf Harris hit “We’re the Maoris” from his  
She’ll Be Right 
 album. In that hit the copyright was attributed to Ma-wai-hakona Maori Association ensuring that the club earned due recognition and monetary return for the use or misuse that the Australian entertainer made of the original composition “Hoea Ra”. Trust copyright? Sure can! 
I have chosen to bring this story to the House because I believe it indicates the history that Maori performers have of respecting the cultural integrity of works once they enter the public domain. Just as Ma-wai-hakona Maori Association stood for the collective cultural rights over 30 years ago Toi Maori Aotearoa has consistently promoted the concerns that Maori performers have about retaining the collective ownership of Maori cultural knowledge and intellectual property. Toi Maori Aotearoa represents 10 national art form committees and it argues for the need for widespread discussion about the rights provided to performers in legislation. Those rights stand to be threatened by the ongoing risk of piracy and unauthorised digital downloading. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry reports that 20 billion tracks were downloaded in 2005 alone. That attack on cultural integrity jeopardises the security of the recording industry musicians and songwriters alike. 
This bill is intended to address the risks that come with digital technology by clarifying how copyright exists in a digital environment. The submission of the New Zealand Society of Authors outlined that it is imperative that the move to digitisation must not exacerbate an already complex situation. It reminds us all that an author’s copyright material may be all that he or she has to earn an income from and there must be sufficient protection in place to protect the material from unauthorised copying. 
The environment in which new technology sits is a completely different world from the one of 1973 and that only adds to the intensity of the fight that Maori publishers performers artists creators owners and users have in seeking the protection of matauranga Maori. But there is one key point of commonality between the 1973 fight and the 2007 legislation. That is the call for collective rights to be preserved and protected as the cultural property rights that have been created over the generations. Te Ropu Whakahau the professional association of Maori who work in libraries archives and information services explains this view: “We contend that there is a need to develop a category of collective ongoing and enduring rights that will ensure that Maori retain the right to control the appropriate expression and transmission of our cultural heritage. This control is one that can’t be invested in an individual and protected by conventional intellectual property mechanisms such as copyright.” 
What Te Ropu Whakahau is saying—and indeed many Maori performers say this—is that the comprehensive protection of matauranga Maori requires unique measures—measures that could well result from the Wai 262 rulings. It is widely hoped that the tribunal’s conclusion on Wai 262 will advocate for a package of measures such as sui generic systems customary law intellectual property laws and preservation initiatives—in effect new systems to protect Maori knowledge. Wai 262 seeks recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to their own control and decision making over taonga. The goal is to ensure that the integrity of Maori culture is retained and treasured. 
We in the Maori Party commend the intention of this bill in balancing protection with access for users to cultural property including indigenous knowledge and culture. But alongside our disappointment with the omission of any mention of collective property rights we are also concerned that the bill does not appear to comply with international law and practice in three forms. We note the concerns of the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand and of Independent Music New Zealand that this bill is out of step with copyright developments in other territories and particularly those in Australia the United Kingdom USA and the European Union. The concern of those organisations is that 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaties established specific measures to give legal protection against circumvention—procedures that they suggest this bill falls well short on. It is their considered opinion that the failure to exclude circumvention devices clearly covered by the laws of other nations could in effect make New Zealand a haven for the manufacture and sale of circumvention devices that are prohibited in other countries. 
Those organisations also draw attention to the creation of a whole new category of work—a communication work—that sets up a new status for any person who communicates a work such as in a sound recording or a film. A new category is dreamt up with rights that clearly conflict with the rights of the creators of the work as well as clashing with international treaty obligations. 
The third limitation in relation to the protection of cultural and intellectual property is particularly relevant to indigenous knowledge. There is no reference in the bill to the international context of cultural restoration and the nurturing and protection of the traditional knowledge. A strong comparator could be found in looking at the experiences of the Sami of Norway Sweden Finland and Russia. Those States have established a reproduction rights organisation that is set up and governed by indigenous peoples to represent the interests of the Sami culture. It is a model we could have emulated. Another example could be found in the Pacific Model Law for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Culture or indeed as I referred to at the first reading of this bill the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples which sets in place a framework for protecting controlling and valuing indigenous cultural heritage. 
Maori concerns around the treatment of cultural objects in the electronic environment are basically focused around the fear of the loss of control of information when it is digitised. In the days when Aunty Dovey’s lyrics were transformed into a Rolf Harris song the ownership of the original poi was firmly retained by the writer Dovey Katene. But in an electronic environment the chances of retaining any cultural property right are greatly threatened by the increase in availability. Once an item is digitised and placed on the Internet access is no longer controlled and cultural safety is no longer guaranteed. There are too many risks and dangers inherent in this legislation for us to do anything but vote against it. Thank you.