Walker Holly: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWalker Holly: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11465. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]HOLLY WALKER (Green):E te Kaihautū o te Whare tēnā koe. E mihi ana ki ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou mō te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I rise to speak to the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. The Green Party has been aware for some time that legislation of this nature would soon be coming before the House but I have to say that it is very disappointing to have it come to the House in the manner that it has today under urgency with only a few hours’ notice and no advance copy of the legislation.Under different circumstances it is likely that I would be thanking the Minister of Broadcasting for the open way in which he consulted with parties across the House about the need for this legislation. Indeed to give the Minister credit he did do that and he did proactively consult with parties about options for amending the Copyright Act to address the fact that the current ban on the parallel importation of films will lapse at the end of October. However unfortunately some of that goodwill has been undone by the decision to introduce this bill under urgency and without notice in the middle of the time during which the Minister had sought the views of other parties. There is no apparent need for such a high degree of urgency.We in the Green Party consider that we have not had sufficient time to consider this legislation and indeed for that reason we will abstain on the bill at its first reading but we will revise this position and either support or oppose the legislation at subsequent stages after a select committee has considered it. But with such an unjustifiably poor process as was followed today we are unable to take a firm position in the House tonight.I would like to take a step back and talk about the issue that this bill seeks to address and it has been covered by other speakers as well. Between 1998 and 2003 the parallel importation of films and DVDs was unrestricted in New Zealand but in 2003 the then Labour Government introduced a 5-year temporary ban to prohibit the commercial importation of films for a period of 9 months after the film’s first public release. The Green Party supported the introduction of this 5-year ban at the time. This restriction was renewed in 2008 but it is due to lapse as we have heard on 31 October of this year.The film industry contends that it would be detrimental to allow the restriction to lapse at this time and it has requested that it be continued in some form. As I understand it there are two main issues here. The first is the impact that unrestricted parallel imports of films and DVDs would have on local cinemas particularly smaller regional cinemas in provincial New Zealand and the people whom they employ.Secondly there is a risk that small independent local films which are a marginal proposition in terms of profitability as it is may not be made if there is not a guaranteed period during which they can be exclusively screened in cinemas. The example that I guess we could use would be the damage that was done to the filmSione’s Wedding when counterfeit copies of it were extensively distributed during its theatrical release. That was not an issue of parallel importation but it did illustrate the impact on a film’s profitability that the circulation of copies of a film can have during that early period of its release.We certainly would not want to see anything that would result in a constraining of the New Zealand film industry. In addition I understand that there are some questions about the future viability of both large and small film festivals because if there is no way to restrict the distribution of the same films by DVD before they are released at a film festival that could be problematic for securing films and audiences for film festivals. I am sure this will be close to the hearts of many members as they pore through the programme for the 2013 International Film Festival at the moment.There is of course a counterargument to all of this and it was expressed quite nicely by the previous speaker Clare Curran. She said that the world has moved on that we really should not be favouring one particular form of distribution of film content over another. In an era of increasingly digital distribution in which New Zealand does miss out currently often for months on high-profile international titles that have been released overseas and during which time people are given a perverse incentive to illegally download titles in frustration that they are not legally available in New Zealand there is an argument that it does not make much sense to continue to artificially hold parallel importation at bay.Indeed it effectively takes place at the moment because as Clare Curran said the internet has changed the situation dramatically. There is rapid circulation of unrestricted copies of films on the internet and in the light of this reality I think there really is a strong argument that we should explore how to facilitate legal file-sharing sooner rather than trying to cling on to the idea that we can limit films to release through cinemas only.No doubt these issues will be teased out by the select committee in the submission process and we will listen very carefully to these submissions because we think there is a lot of merit in these arguments as well as we come to a decision about whether to support or oppose the bill at future stages. However these concerns notwithstanding we do share the concern of the Minister that we need to retain regional cinemas and the jobs they create the employment they create in these communities and we do need to protect and maximise the opportunities for the New Zealand film industry.The particular legislation that the Minister has put before the House tonight would extend the current ban until 2016 but it would shorten the restricted period from 9 months to 6 months. It is not clear from this particular vantage point the rationale for that particular configuration of the extension of time and reducing the number of months. It will be interesting to hear from officials—and hopefully we will—at the select committee about why this particular combination of years and months was chosen.I note that it is in fact another temporary solution which may require Parliament to revisit it in 3 years’ time. I do wonder whether it might be better or possible toundertake a more comprehensive process at this time to effect a permanent solution to this issue rather than continuing to legislate for it in a rather ad hoc way every few years as has happened in 2003.Essentially that is our discomfort with the legislation and the reason that the Green Party is abstaining at this first reading—because it does all feel very ad hoc. It is beyond me why this bill needed to be introduced in such a rush today—in such a rush in fact that we were unable to obtain a copy this afternoon because it was still being written—when the Government has known since 2008 that the temporary restrictions would lapse at the end of October this year and it has had months if not years to figure out a policy response to the lapse of the ban.I know that the industry has been actively engaging with the Minister for several months so there has been plenty of time to take a decision and to bring it to the House in a timely manner. In fact there is still plenty of time because the provisions do not lapse until the end of October and it is only the beginning of July. There are still 4 months for Parliament to consider legislation on this matter so it is not at all clear why we are looking at it in such an urgent process tonight. It smacks of a very ad hoc poor process on the part of the Government in relation to this legislation.We think the Minister would have been better off to finish engaging with the other parties to seek a permanent solution rather than another temporary solution and to allow time for a fulsome select committee process to take place. But instead we are here in the House debating this bill with only a few hours’ notice and the Green Party cannot support it so for this reason we will abstain on the bill until future stages. Nō reira Mr Assistant Speaker kua tae mai au ki te mutunga o taku kōrero. Tēnā koutou katoa.[And so I have come to the end of my address Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you all. ]