Parker David: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18111] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will respond to a couple of the points the Hon Dr Nick Smith made and also reinforce some of the issues I raised that he did not address. 
The first is that he hurled across the Chamber what he thought was an insult. He said we on this side of the Chamber should be ashamed of ourselves for being in favour of union movements. That is not something we hide; we are actually called the Labour Party. If ever people wanted evidence as to why unions are necessary to maintain and improve the rights of low and middle income workers they have only to see what the Government did this year with the minimum wage. The minimum wage went up by 25c a week in the face of all these huge increases in the cost of living. People cannot rely on the Government to get a wage increase; they have to organise their own rights to have a bit of countervailing power in their negotiations with employers in order to earn enough money to live. 
The other issue I raised and put to the Minister in the chair was whether National would extend the monopoly rights conferred through copyright pursuant to the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. We all know that National has an abysmal record in terms of controlling monopoly excess. One example it should really be ashamed of at the moment is its failure to strip out some of the billions of dollars of excess pricing we have in electricity as found by the Commerce Commission in its 2009 report—$4.8 billion of overcharging. Dr Smith will get to his feet and say we did nothing about it while in Government but that is wrong. We regulated prices for lines and we set up the Commerce Commission inquiry that reported just after we left Government and proved the $4.8 billion—or 18 percent per annum average—overcharge by the State-owned energy companies which National will now sell entrenching that price gouging and making it even worse. 
That is why on the basis of that history it is right for me to come to this Chamber and inquire whether what National will do with monopoly rights in respect of copyright will be another example of plundering at the expense of consumers as it favours the interests of the copyright-holder. 
I have already said that I agree with copyright. I think we should protect copyright for creative content. 
Hon Member 
: That’s the second time you’ve said it. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith did not hear it when I said it the first time. I think we should protect copyright but that does not mean it should last for ever. They are monopoly rights that enable people to monopoly price. Monopolies ought to be controlled in the copyright area as everywhere else. That is why there is a limited term to copyright in law; otherwise those monopoly rents can be extracted for ever. That is the theory that lies behind copyright behind patent law and behind limited terms to both patent and copyright. That is why Brian Fallow is right to state in his article that the US trade demands on intellectual property are a real sore point. 
Simon Bridges 
: I can’t read it from here David. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member cannot? Well I will read it out to him. The headline states: “US trade demands a real sore point”. Protectionism provisions in Trans-Pacific talks should alarm our Government. 
Dr Smith also said all our negotiations on the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement were in secret. Not so I say to Dr Smith. There were regular briefings of Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions by the Labour-led Government. Grant Robertson was involved in them so the Minister in the chair should not suggest that we had that same level of secrecy. 
We still have not heard from the Minister whether he will reopen the vexed section 92A issue pursuant to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and whether he will upset the fine balance that has been achieved and endorsed by legislators. I again quote from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article of 31 March by Brian Fallow: “Fine balances have been achieved and endorsed by legislators Shera said but the US agenda in the secretive TPP process could drive a coach and horses through much of that.” That was said by Rick Shera a partner of Lowndes Jordan. I am sure he is a competent person; I have no reason to doubt that his views are credible.