Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I thank that member Andrew Falloon for his kind words. Look I'm passionate about copyright. I mean for me it's a really interesting nexus of history of intellectual property of art of literature—how our law interacts with our society and our cultural norms. I mean all the way back to 1710 with the treaty of Queen Anne it's been something up for debate. It's something I've been privileged to participate in in this House from the old fashioned Skynet legislation through to drafting legislation for parody and satire amendments to the Copyright Act through to this—the Marrakesh Treaty. Now it's great to be finally in this House debating something positive. We've had a big debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership previously but it's great to be debating legislation which is going to assist 168000 print-disabled Kiwis. Basically the Marrakesh Treaty from 2013—this bill allows us to accede to the treaty joining 51 other nations. It's all about making sure that print-disabled Kiwis can get access to documents because what we know and what the Blind Foundation have told us is only about 10 percent of printed materials are actually designed in such a way that print-disabled Kiwis can access them. It's incredibly important because I believe in the right to read and unfortunately for a significant segment of New Zealand and global society that right isn't able to be fulfilled because of their disability. We simply aren't providing access to the materials so they can participate in society. Now our original Copyright Act 1994 did have an exception for prescribed bodies to make available with permission accessible versions. The problem was of course that there's an incredibly small number incredibly under-resourced—but most importantly we couldn't import those materials to help those Kiwis consume those materials particularly in a globalised economy where much of our content comes in from overseas. So it's wonderful now that through this legislation we're making it easier for print-disabled Kiwis to access that material. We're broadening the definition so artistic works are also included which will make a difference; replacing the current prescribed body with an authorised body and that list will be made public. But as the last member said the biggest issue that submitters made and that officials raised was around the issue of the commercial availability test. Now I point out—we saw the Library Association the World Blind Union Blind Citizens New Zealand Universities New Zealand all make quite an impassioned plea for why the commercial availability test in section 69A should be revoked.Now we did grill the officials on this point because it's important to note that the commercial availability test is not required under the Marrakesh Treaty 2013. The treaty simply allows for a commercial availability test to be enacted. It's also important to note that only four countries have enacted the commercial availability test out of the 51 countries that have so far acceded and signed up to the Marrakesh Treaty. So this commercial availability test we asked the officials why they had drawn the line on the side of Australia Singapore Canada and Japan but not the vast bulk—most European Union countries the United States etc. They sort of said Well there wasn't strong evidence and we sort of made a line call." effectively was the message. So I was really glad that I was able to push—and other parties agreed—to amend the legislation in the committee to remove this section 69A the commercial availability test because what I clearly heard from submitters was that there were significant problems with it. What we heard from Universities New Zealand was that according to academic research of print-disabled students only 50 percent of them actually can access accessible materials when they start their course. In fact what they also found is many students face substantial delays. In some cases and in New Zealand universities students who were enrolled in a university course can't actually access the content of the course until the course has been complete—makes an absolute mockery of the right to read and the ability for print-disabled Kiwis to participate in university courses. What Universities New Zealand told us was that it's incredibly onerous trying to find and access accessible content. It can take literal months sending multiple emails to multiple providers multiple publishers sometimes not getting a response at all. It's incredibly expensive to make an accessible format of an academic text or a literature book so it's a huge barrier for people to even participate in universities.What we also heard was that—I'm trying to find it; it was quite a telling quote from Universities New Zealand which was how onerous the regime actually is. For example many students to try and access an accessible format under the current Copyright Act buy a traditional non-accessible format because they need to have proof that they legitimately attempted to find a copy. So what you see is multiple Kiwis literally buying books which they have no intention to read; in fact they have no ability to read but they were forced under the current regime to buy it. So what we see is students lacking access students are stymied an incredible administrative burden on universities and it actually taking in some cases until the course is over before they actually can access the content. Another big challenge was there's no actual database; there's no shared classification regimes. So even if you're trying to access this content both in New Zealand or overseas—noting that you couldn't actually import this material until this legislation passes—with the lack of shared databases the lack of shared classification regimes it's incredibly hard. So I thought that argument was incredibly compelling. For me it was a moral argument. I want to make sure that print-disabled Kiwis get access to the material can participate in society can participate in universities. But here I'd like to acknowledge the National Party and the contribution of Brett Hudson who actually made quite a rational economic argument because by removing the commercial availability test and allowing people to make their own accessible version of it it's acting as an economic incentive on those producers those content producers at the get-go to make sure when they're publishing a book or an academic text to actually produce an accessible version. Look people aren't going out making print or Braille versions of academic texts for a profit. It's incredibly time-consuming incredibly expensive and of course it's always going to be cheaper to do it at the same time you're publishing that content.So by removing the commercial availability test we're not only making it easier for people to access the material—they're not going to spend literally months trying to send multiple emails not getting answers trying to work out who even owns the copyright which in some older academic texts can be essentially impossible—but it's actually acting as an economic incentive for publishers to produce accessible versions. So I think that economic argument made a lot of sense. I really want to acknowledge the contribution there.Actually what we're going to be doing is encouraging those producers—only 10 percent are making accessible versions—to get on and do the work. Now by acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty of course while we allow ourselves to import material it allows us to export material as well. So given we've got some skills and Universities New Zealand told us about the work that's already happening there we could actually be exporting accessible formats. Of the Kiwis that are already doing the job we can see more employed which I think is a win-win. It's great for Kiwis and it's great for our economy.It's important to point out that new section 69A in clause 6 which the committee has added does require an obligation to notify the copyright owner so I don't think the sky's going to fall in which I think quite frankly was the copyright association's Paula Browning's response. By allowing this ability to make an accessible copy but with the corresponding obligation to notify the rights holder I think it's going to act as an incentive. What you're going to see is more material more jobs and more Kiwis being able to exercise their right to read. Kia ora koutou."