Coddington Deborah: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4655] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. It is important that we define what we are talking about because we are not talking about movies and breach of copyright or things that are pirated and imported illegally. We are talking about the banning of parallel imports. The United States hated our open policy on parallel importing and in 1999—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes this Government did offer that up to the United States as a sort of suck-up to it. Well this Government may as well not bother now because the Government has made our relationship with the United States totally irrelevant. Nevertheless the United States wanted a ban reinstated and that is what this Government has come out with. 
There is absolutely no doubt that parallel importing has served New Zealand consumers really well. It has lowered prices for the New Zealand consumer for everything from underwear to cars. When the Government came out with its media release I think in June 2000 Mr Anderton said that he thought the parallel importing ban would make New Zealanders pay more for creative industry goods thus allowing Kiwi artists to charge more for their work. When has it been the Government’s role to make New Zealanders pay more for creative industry goods? That is a typical example of going back down the road of bestowing privilege on certain sectors of the community that effectively lobby Cabinet Ministers and are good at employing public relations consultants and lobbyists to visit Cabinet Ministers’ offices and argue for the protection of their various industries. 
The explanatory note states: “The availability of parallel imported copies of new release films for rental before or during the release of those titles in New Zealand threatens the viability of cinemas and the ability of local distributors … ”. I do not know whether people in this Government have noticed but all around the country in the last 5 to 10 years cinema complexes have been growing rapidly. Cinema owners have responded very swiftly and effectively to demands from consumers in supplying smaller and more consumer-friendly customer-friendly cinemas. There is one in Auckland that I go to all the time where one can buy wine book in advance and have a big wide seat. It is a great place to go. Having said that why should consumers not have choice? Why should people not be able to rent a DVD if that is what they want to do and watch a movie in the comfort of their own home? That is what this bill is all about. It is about removing choice for the consumer. 
Parallel importing goes something like this: a producer or manufacturer of a DVD or a video will produce that product so that it can be sold in Australia for $40 in New Zealand for $30 and in China for $10. So a parallel importer can go to China buy the product quite legitimately for $10 bring it back to New Zealand and pass on those savings to the consumer. There is absolutely nothing illegal or wrong with that. In fact it benefits consumers because they have the choice to buy something. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Who cares about property rights? Not ACT. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: There is no propery right breached in that. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Are you serious? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister is terribly confused as is the speaker from United Future because a rental right is not the same as a copyright. The owner of the copyright is quite different from the owner of the rental right. I own the copyright on several books. Libraries have the right to rent out those books. Libraries do not own the copyright. Libraries cannot republish those books. There is a difference between rental rights and copyrights—[ 
Interruption 
] I might be a new member but I thought that running commentaries were out of order. 
As the Hon Tony Ryall pointed out quite correctly when the Government came in it said that it would reintroduce parallel importing on books videos CDs and DVDs. Now we have this bill that deals only with DVDs and videos and introduces a ban that applies for 9 months after a film’s international release. Why has the Government restricted this ban to only DVDs and videos? We would have to ask that question of ourselves would we not? If we look at certain rumblings that are happening out there we see that this legislation gives an opportunity for this Government to have plenty of lovely photo opportunities with its friends in the film industry. The Minister might laugh but why has she not applied this ban to books? Will books be next? I think people who go to the Warehouse to buy books at $10 when they would otherwise have to buy them from somewhere else at $35 or $40 should be very worried that although this legislation applies to DVDs in the future we could see it applied to books. 
I come back to my point that this Government is anti-business. It has brought in this legislation as Jim Anderton said to force New Zealanders to pay more for creative industry goods—and that will do absolutely nothing for the economy. But I suppose this Government does not care about that anyway because it has already signalled that it is abandoning the goal of getting back up to the top half of the OECD. Parallel importing was one of the good things done in the last few years and here we see us going down the old road. 
I come back to this matter of changes to the onus of proof. The Minister has actually admitted that that is a bad precedent. She stood up and said the Government was advised against that. Official information papers show that the Government was cautioned about going down that road. None the less it has decided to go down the road anyway—where the onus of proof is now placed on the defendant not the plaintiff. We saw yesterday in the provision for the seizure of cars under the boy racer legislation that the onus of proof is now on the defendant not the prosecutor. If this Government was really interested in protecting copyright which it professes to be and which the Minister was giggling about why does it not look at its National Library legislation which I see on the Order Paper? Why does the Government not consult newspaper owners about what that will do to their copyright in terms of their websites? I see the Minister reading her newspaper but she is not interested in the copyright rights of the owners of those newspapers. 
I support what the Hon Tony Ryall said. This bill reduces choice for consumers. It will raise the price of DVDs and videos. It will not allow people who want to see a movie at the same time that it is released in the cinema to rent a video and take it home for viewing. It will not allow them to do that. The bill seeks to protect one sector of strong lobbyists and we are opposed to it.