Hughes Gareth: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18109] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I would like to take a few calls but I am not sure whether my voice will last long enough. I am not sure whether members are aware that a parallel debate is happening right now on the Internet on Twitter. The debate has already gone to The Pirate Bay where people are using peer-to-peer software to move this debate around. 
In a Senator Ted Stevens moment—Senator Stevens was the guy who famously said the Internet was “a series of tubes”—Jonathan Young has now been immortalised as the creator of a meme with his fantastic comment that the Internet is like Skynet from The Terminator. Already Tweets and pictures with that meme have gone around. That shows the power of the Internet and how fast it moves. The debate online has already moved much much faster than the debate in the Chamber. 
I will make a couple of comments on Part 1 of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. I will start with clause 5 which repeals section 92A of the Copyright Act. I have heard members from both National and Labour blaming each other for the mess that the last Parliament got itself into with the deplorable bill that introduced section 92A the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill. I heard Labour members blaming National members for voting for the bill and National members blaming Labour members for bringing it in. In fact both parties are responsible for that bill and only the Green Party members can stand here and say we did not vote for a single reading of it. I would like to see a bit more responsibility taken from members in both parties for legislative actions in this Parliament. 
I thank the officials in the corner; they did fantastic work. Unfortunately I could not find the gigantic flowchart they prepared for us to try to explain the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. I say to them: “Kia ora. Thank you very much.” 
I heard from Miss Street that when it comes to Internet account suspension there is no evidence. I heard from an honourable member that no compelling arguments were presented by the advocates for account suspension. I do not get why we are putting the provision into the bill when both sides agree there is not the evidence to back it up and there are no compelling arguments for it. Everyone in this Chamber agrees that education is the key. We all agree on fines and notices yet we had to go one step further and write this deplorable account suspension provision into the bill. That is why I have introduced an amendment to take the deplorable series of clauses from 122O through to 122PA out of the bill. Frankly account suspension provisions should not be in legislation. 
We have heard some good arguments from Labour members on why account suspension is bad but I have heard in the debate this evening two different things. From members on the left side of the Chamber I have heard that they have a guarantee from the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Simon Power that accounts will not be suspended. Yet from members on the right side of the Chamber I have heard that if suspension is appropriate it will happen. There is a disjunction between the comments of the two parties and I would like to flesh out the facts. The compromise is being presented as a great common-sense solution. I want to get the facts on the table and find out exactly what is happening with these clauses. 
The fact is that an account suspension provision is still in the legislation. I am sure Labour members’ intentions are good but the fact is that their perspectives on the negotiations are solely their perspectives and not necessarily those of reality. National had the numbers so maybe it just called Labour’s bluff. I am sure Labour members are all crack negotiators and well skilled in negotiations but what if they had stayed strong to their principles? What if they had gone to the Minister and based on their principles said: “No way. We are going to fight it with all of our breath. We are going to run another section 92A campaign and get rid of this deplorable legislation.”? What if? We will never know because we are hearing only one side of the negotiations. 
Minister Power has a track record of building cross-party support for his legislation in Parliament. I am sure that would have been an incentive to bring together robust legislation that did not have this deplorable clause allowing accounts to be terminated. The fact is that I admire and acknowledge the intent of Labour members but I just do not trust the Government when it comes to the bill and its provision to enact account suspension through an Order in Council. I do not know why Labour members trust the Government. Labour members do not trust the Government on GST tax and workers’ rights. Why all of a sudden would Labour members start trusting the Government on digital copyright issues? It is just amazing. 
The Green Party was not involved in any of the out-of-select-committee negotiations so we do not know what was discussed. I ask the members on both sides of the Chamber what was negotiated. Is there a piece of paper? What was the deal? None of that information has come out yet Labour members are telling the New Zealand public to trust them that they are crack negotiators and that they have struck a great deal with the Government to make sure that account suspension never comes into force. Yet National members are saying that the Government will bring it in if it is appropriate. Where is the deal? Will anybody table the deal? Is it on paper? What is the threshold for account suspension to be brought in? Will there be any public consultation when the provision is enacted by an Order in Council? None of those questions is being answered and the public have a right to know why. 
In the absence of the information being out in the public I urge parties to support my amendment to take the termination provision out of the bill. The provision can come back to Parliament because that is where it rightfully should be decided on not by a Minister through an Order in Council. The decision should be made in Parliament. 
We are making a big call tonight on the State’s power to come in and turn off people’s Internet account for a civil offence—not even for a criminal offence. Essentially the legislation has a disproportionate remedy. It will not stop the pirating of copyright material and it takes away what I believe is a basic human right to the Internet. 
The Hon Mr Parker raised an interesting point about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Was the partnership discussed in the deal? Is the termination provision in the legislation a reserve in case we need to enact it under the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Why is the provision in there? If the Minister cares to take another call I would like to know what his threshold will be to enact the provision. Will the Minister guarantee that the provision will not be enacted in this term of Parliament? 
In summary we all acknowledge that the bill is a step in the right direction after the old failure of section 92A but the Green Party cannot vote for the bill with a clause on account suspension written into it even if it is not to be enacted. Kia ora.