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:18124] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been an absolute privilege to speak tonight even though my voice is fading. I acknowledge all the robust debate we have had. 
So we have the Internet eh? It is not like Skynet but it is transforming our world in such amazing ways and I have seen that tonight in the debate online. It is not just a “nice to have” in the parlance of the Government. It is an essential utility. It is an essential part of our modern world. It is the way the Government interacts with its public. It is the way our democracy is increasingly having its debates. It is where Government departments interact with the public on things like tax. It is where we entertain ourselves. It is where some of us meet our partners. It is where we literally live our lives. It is such an important part of our world. I also think that Internet access is a fundamental right in our modern world. One survey of 28000 people in 26 countries found 80 percent thought that Internet access was a fundamental right and I support that worldview. 
Essentially the debate we have had tonight is the legacy of a decade or more of a lack of actual foresight by this Parliament and previous Parliaments. We should have been having these discussions 10 years ago. A whole generation—my generation—has grown up not knowing anything else but copyright infringing. All my generation has grown up with are those ridiculous ads we see when we load a VHS. Those ads say that stealing a video is like stealing a car or robbing a purse. It is nothing like that. Those exaggerations in the ads have done no good service to the genuine debate on copyright in New Zealand. 
It is good that Parliament is discussing Internet issues and copyright in general. The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill is better than before and I have taken every opportunity I can to point that out. It is so much better than section 92A of the Copyright Act. The Commerce Committee did some fantastic work in cleaning it up but ultimately we need to have a fundamental rethink on copyright law. We have gone about it in the wrong direction in this Parliament. This bill has come from the position that we need to strengthen copyright. That is the basic premise this bill is built on not a genuine reflection of what copyright is in 2011 what it will be in the coming decade or what we need to do to make our copyright law better more robust and reflect the real world. 
It is disappointing that this debate is happening under urgency. I was looking forward to contacting members in the Chamber and putting forward another Supplementary Order Paper to amend the parody and satire law clauses of our copyright legislation. At the moment websites are being taken down in New Zealand because we do not have an ability for artists creatives political satirists or anyone to use parody or satire as a legal defence as they can in Australia. I recommend that members check out the Hitler downfall parody videos that are online particularly the one about Internet take-downs. 
It is a pity we are taking this legislation through all stages tonight. I acknowledge the listeners and thank them for their tweets humour and ideas but most of all for engaging with politics. Too often there is a disenfranchised chunk of our country. It is great that they have definitely been watching us in their hundreds—maybe thousands—today. 
The theme I have picked up from those tweets blog posts and humorous pictures is the scepticism of us as elected officials and the scepticism of Parliament as a legislature when it comes to copyright law. Section 92A really did scare a huge chunk of our most informed population and the lack of responsibility in the House has been disappointing. It is all right to say we mucked up section 92A. It was bad law. It was rushed through. The process at the end—when massive amendments were rammed through—was terrible. It is all right for both Labour and National members to take responsibility and sometimes say that they mucked up. 
It is also not surprising that there is scepticism from the public for the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. New Zealanders are legitimately concerned that we are literally negotiating away our rights as a country in order to get free-trade deals and when it comes to our own independent ability to make law on things like copyright. 
I acknowledge the compromise that was reached at the Commerce Committee. I prefer that we are seeing this position in the Chamber. I would still like to see the facts about what thresholds will enact it what the evidence will be what the timelines will be and whether there will be public consultation. I have not seen the facts and I do not think the public have seen them. It is good we are debating the bill but I do not think we should have a provision in the bill for account suspension. 
The Green Party is fundamentally opposed to that provision so is Labour. Labour members say they are fundamentally opposed to the provision but they are quite happy to devolve responsibility to the Minister. They are washing their hands of the responsibility. People want to vote and people want to see principles in the Parliament. They want to see what a party’s bottom lines are and when members say they are fundamentally opposed to something but will vote for it people start to question that view. 
Our position on the opposition to account suspension is not a Green position; it is our community’s position. I have seen comments from the right of the political spectrum all the way through to the left. It is not moralistic or a case of the Green Party taking a higher ground; we are taking the public ground—what the public of New Zealand want. 
This law is bad precedent. The Minister Nick Smith is wrong. We do not take away someone’s bike or car if they use their bike or car to commit a robbery. We do not take away someone’s telephone if they use it as part of a criminal act. It is just not like that. We have seen no evidence that account suspension will be effective. We have seen no compelling arguments as to why we need to do it. 
I misquoted earlier. The 70 percent figure those who would reduce their file infringing after receiving an education notice was not a New Zealand figure. I understand that it was a Canadian figure. We just do not have that evidence in New Zealand. Ultimately we are bringing in a law that is disproportionate will not work and takes away people’s rights to an Internet account when the Minister decides to enact it through an Order in Council. 
The Greens have not been irresponsible. We do support notices and fines and we do think they are an appropriate deterrent. It is somewhat ironic that Jami-Lee Ross our newest member who gave a fantastic tea-party speech all about the role of the big State is voting for a law where the State will come in if the Minister enacts it and take away—pull the cable out—someone’s Internet account. That is “big State” if ever I saw it. 
There is a chance we could have got a better bill. There is no reason why account suspension had to be in the bill. Minister Power is a reasonable Minister. I am sure he would have liked to have cross-party support in the Chamber but we will never know because Labour members say: “Trust us. We negotiate as hard as we can. Trust us.” But can we trust Labour? Ultimately like the tweeters I have a great degree of scepticism of the Government and I believe that it will bring in account suspension as soon as it can. Who knows how long the Government will look at the evidence for what type of evidence it will be and who will be providing it? Serious questions are left up in the air. Essentially the section 92A debate will keep on flowing over the next years. 
In summary I acknowledge the good changes made at the select committee—peer-to-peer software the changing definitions of Internet service providers and the fact that on the whole lawyers will not be involved in the tribunal. I acknowledge all the stuff we did not get a chance to talk about tonight because rightfully we focused on the account suspension issue. It would be good to discuss what was left in the regulations. It would be good to discuss mobile termination and the big decisions the select committee made on that issue. To wrap up I say that I am proud to be standing on my principles in this Chamber and not voting for a law that has such a disproportionate unfair unworkable and wrong clause in it about account suspension. Kia ora.