Clark David: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11483. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):At the start of my contribution this time I want to just elaborate further. A member of the public has emailed in and pointed out that I must have misspoken when I mentioned only the servicemen and not the servicewomen who have given service and their lives previously and that is remembered in the plaques at the back of the House. I also wish to remember the police personnel.This bit of feedback from members of the public is important in and of itself but it is also important because this is what we are doing here. We are having a debate about this particular set of special powers—the instructions that the whole House can give or have or make for a truncated process—and I am hopeful that as we on this side of the House have given feedback to the Minister of Commerce he will consider whether the special power instructions he is trying to give are appropriate and he may even choose to withdraw in due course the motion that he has put forward to this House.We on this side of the House I think have put a fairly compelling argument as to why this bill the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill need not follow any kind of rushed hurried special process. It is a bill that has been able for a long time to be put before the House. The sudden urgency that perhaps saw it being written this afternoon and certainly it being tabled with only a minute for many of us to consider before we were making speeches here in the House need not have been thecase and it also need not be the case that we continue with a rushed process. A considered process is well worth doing.We have 120 cinemas we are told around the country including commercial independent and community cinemas that will be affected by this legislation. Many of these community cinemas are funded by local councils and trusts and they may have only one or two screens. They will not have a lot of resource to put in submissions. Often certainly in the case of a cinema I attend in Dunedin it is the same person who sets the film going who also serves the drinks in the intermission and takes the ticket fare at the beginning of the evening. That person I suspect—strongly in the case of the Metro Cinema in Dunedin—will probably also be the person writing the submission to the select committee if they so choose.These people who run these things often do it out of love out of a sense of the value that they are contributing to society through the telling of stories. Let us not forget that many people today get their life’s meaning their sense of purpose from experiences in the cinema. It is no longer the case that they head along to the local parish church on a Sunday in the same numbers that they once did. As a minister of religion I might say “More’s the pity!” but I actually think that film has a huge amount to contribute to our society and people do really interact and get a lot of value out of these screenings.So we do have an issue here that needs proper debate and we do have a sector of society that has a limited resource to contribute and to get the submissions in. It then follows that we should have a proper process to enable us to have—we have talked about the downside. Some of my colleagues have mentioned some of the potential downsides of the different options that were considered by officials and mentioned in the regulatory impact statement: that there will be a lapse where no regulation governs this and that there will be a short period where parallel importing could take place higgledy-piggledy as it were. My colleagues I think have argued quite reasonably that that is unlikely to have a huge effect if it is only a short time span.What seems to be far more important is that we actually have the debate properly about what the proper measure is to take in order to protect the industry suitably or to prepare it for a future transition to what is more likely to be an online environment where people access films either in groups or individually—and we are certainly seeing it individually as it happens. It will be pretty soon the case that Mr Faafoi will be able to look upThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute in the leisure of his own room probably through an online service dedicated to doing just that. But what we are dealing with here with the length of ban before a parallel import is the precursor to that new world.I suspect that when the Commerce Committee does come to consider these issues it will consider also the future. It will not limit itself to this ban right now and what the effect on the industry will be in the next 2 to 3 years; the members on that committee will be exercising their minds as to what the future consequences of it will be as will those submitters who will take time out of running the movies out of serving the drinks out of issuing the tickets. They will be thinking about what comes next. What impact will this legislation have not only now but also in the future? Should they wish to in a future time importThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute to show in their cinemas how is that going to line up with what people are able to access at home through a digital environment where there is ultra-fast broadband where this can be downloaded almost instantaneously?This really does come back to this issue of a truncated process which we are debating now and which we on this side of the House think is completely unnecessary and actually unhelpful because we do need to have a proper process—Hon Trevor Mallard: It might even slow the process up.Dr DAVID CLARK: It may even as my colleague says slow the process up if we go down this track because we may end up having a more—how shall we say—edgy debate as people feel that their voices have not been heard in a truncated process. They may feel that some issues have been ridden roughshod over in the debate because they have not been considered because members may or may not have had time to wade through the associated papers and to consider the issues at their leisure to have conversations over a cup of coffee or to debate across the House not just in the Chamber but actually in those conversations that often take place in the corridors of Parliament where often little insights are shared and often a consensus view is formed. So sometimes this hurried process can lead to not only poorer outcomes but a longer process when spanners are thrown in the works when unintended consequences come to light late in the piece. These can often be ironed out through a smoother and more normal process where there are the regular means for input and when officials are able to generate timely advice. These are the consequences of rushing down this path with the truncated process.As I said at the beginning of my contribution I am hopeful that the Minister who is pushing for this hurried process will take another call. I am not sure whether he is entitled in this debate to explain whether he thinks that for some reason this is deadly urgent—this bill that all of a sudden was popped in this afternoon which still has got 4 months to run and could even be run through a normal process probably if there were willing participants who could see that everything was in order when they had due time to consider it. If that Minister is not able to make another speech I would be keen for him perhaps to withdraw the motion if he thinks it is appropriate because there has certainly been a strong case put as to why hobnailed boots are not required for this particular piece of legislation.To pick up again the earlier point around the other processes available this could have been put through an omnibus bill a Statutes Amendment Bill which could have taken that usual longer process if indeed it is so simple as the Minister would have us believe. There are other means and methods that would take less time in the House but that would give the due process that is really required.To finish I do want to come back to that point of what happens in the future. We are dealing with not only how this ban affects the industry now but also the kind of capital expenditure they will make for their own business decisions as they invest in new equipment because there are still some cinemas that have not converted to the most modern equipment. Will they be investing in a certain type of equipment in a certain type of reality where parallel imports are delayed or are they likely to shift at a future time to a much more immediate availability of content? And how do we protect and advance New Zealand’s interests and the producers of New Zealand content so thatThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute  which Mr Faafoi might wish to watch today might becomeThe Kiwi and the Magic Flute of tomorrow? Thank you.