Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill

I am very pleased to stand in support of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. It was interesting to hear the preceding speeches, as everybody talked about, I guess, their history, their memories, and these sorts of things. I think that there is a very good case and cause for us to see the extension of this provision in the Copyright Act, which ensures that we retain the opportunity for employment and incomes and provision of movie theatres in our communities, in which many people find great enjoyment.

I remember, of course, all those times as a kid, as I am sure everybody else does as well, when we enjoyed the latest and greatest movies—Tarzan, The Terminator—as they came rolling through our communities. It was fantastic for kids. I remember 50c to get in and 10c for an iceblock. [Interruption] Clare remembers the first talkies.

I received correspondence from people in Taranaki who are involved in the cinema industry, imploring me to speak about this to the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister of Commerce, the Hon Craig Foss, and it is great to see that he has supported the concerns of people in our communities. They say, for example, that fewer titles will be released to cinemas if we do not extend this provision, meaning fewer movie choices for customers. Holiday titles will have to release on the same dates as in the US, which means they will not release during New Zealand holiday periods at their peak earning time in New Zealand. All of this will affect the earning capability of these theatres. They went on to say that they need to maximise earnings during the peak holiday periods to survive between holiday periods. It is quite a seasonal industry, as we know.

Also, cinemas are currently facing the prospect of having to make major investment to convert to digital projection technology. If they do not invest in the new technology, they will have to close and they cannot afford the deterioration of their financial viability. So this bill goes a long way to bring reassurance to these people. In consideration of these submissions and engagement with the other parties, the Government has agreed to introduce legislation, as we have done tonight, to amend the Copyright Act to extend the ban that was due to expire on 31 October 2013. Thank you.

This Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill aims to provide a window, and one would hope that it is a window to the future and not to the past. Unfortunately, there is some doubt as to whether that is the case, but I want to talk about what the future could be and should be, and where copyright does fit in.

This bill provides a provision for an industry to adapt, and I would argue that that adaptation should be happening faster than it currently is at this point. It is important that we allow our industries to adapt, because our film industry in New Zealand is critical to our own economy. However, this bill is not actually about our film industry in our economy; it is ultimately about the film industry in other economies. The reason for this bill is to take account of that need to adapt, the need for it to have an expiry date until 2016, and to shorten that period, where parallel imports are allowed, to 5 months rather than 9 months, which we support. But we do say, and it is important to say this very firmly in this House, that the world has moved on. I just want to quickly bring the House up to date as to why this bill is necessary and why it is necessary that we move on as a Parliament in considering copyright generally in our country.

Before the widespread use of the digital exhibition technology, as it is called, the release of films in New Zealand was often delayed because of the limited availability of the cheaper second-hand film prints and the distributors that waited to see whether films were successful in overseas markets before bringing them to New Zealand. The ban was intended to give sufficient time for cinemas to screen films without the competition from DVDs, and therefore to increase cinema and distributor revenue. Increased revenue, of course, enabled distributors to reinvest more into bringing films to New Zealand, which provided consumers with greater access to a wide variety of films. As we know, the internet has changed all of that.

This ban was always intended to be a temporary measure. It was always going to be a temporary measure to allow the film industry to adapt. The ban was introduced in 2003 for a period of 5 years, to give cinemas enough time to transition to digital exhibition technology. In 2008 that ban was extended for another 5 years, which we are now up to, because cinemas had not fully transitioned. Well, they still have not transitioned, so they are being given another 3 years to do that. Yes, it is important, but there are a couple of things to note. The first is that cinemas throughout the world and in New Zealand are not in decline. The number of cinema businesses has risen from 66 in 2005 to 87 in 2012, suggesting that the industry has financial flexibility to invest in new cinemas. Digital technology has enabled cinemas to screen films closer to first market cinematic release dates. About a third of films are now released in New Zealand within 1 month of the first market release date, around 57 percent of cinemas have now converted to digital exhibition technology, and it is expected—as we should expect—that 100 percent will convert within the next 2 years.

This year, 2013, was supposed to be the date that a copyright review would occur in New Zealand. Labour supported there being a copyright review in New Zealand, and, in fact, our policy supported it. Labour said that we would undertake a full review of the Copyright Act, with the aim of introducing a new copyright bill within 18 months that would update and extend the framework for digital copyright in New Zealand. The first phase of that review would have been to commission an independent analysis of the problems within the status quo from an eminent expert, such as the review done by the independent UK report Digital Opportunity, produced by Professor Ian Hargreaves, which was created for the UK Government. We would then have undertaken a period of consultation. That was a really important piece of work to undertake, and it has not occurred in New Zealand, despite the Government actually saying that it would go ahead with that. I would be very interested to know from the Minister of Commerce why that has not occurred, and I am sure that we will be trying to tease that out when we get to the select committee process.

The US itself is actually undertaking a copyright review right now, but there has been a suggestion—and I want to put it on the record in this House—that the copyright review that was agreed to by this Government has been suspended on account of New Zealand’s ongoing negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The United States has reportedly tabled terms during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations that, if implemented, would require amendments to our current law. For example, there are some leaked texts that show that New Zealand has been asked to extend the duration of copyright by 20 years, to 70 years, depending on the type of work and the date that it was published. It has been suggested that this could also result in the expansion of the regulatory regime under which internet service providers must assist rights holders in enforcing copyright online, pulling New Zealand closer into line with the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We could also see a new criminal offence for the act of circumventing a technological protection measure or a digital lock, even in the absence of copyright infringement. Another proposal might require New Zealand to afford rights holders an exclusive right over temporary electronic copies, which could mean changing the provisions in our Copyright Act that carve out the liability for transient reproductions of copyright works as part of normal technological processes. These issues are all extremely important. They relate to New Zealand’s intellectual property laws, our regime, and also our intellectual property itself. We ask why that review is not occurring and why we cannot have a public conversation about these issues, especially in light of the US having just announced its own copyright review.

I have said in this House many times that we have to get our heads around the internet. The language of copyright policies in many regimes, including our own, likens a physical copy to a virtual one. This, if actually recognised in law, would become a problem for internet service providers of all kinds, because internet traffic is transmitted from point A to point B by making temporary copies. Strictly applied, this right would pretty much make the internet illegal. I think it is really important to have this public discussion in our country, and I would like to refer to some of the work that has been done by InternetNZ, which has recently said that we must take a principled approach on these issues. We must set down some principles upon which we are going to have this discussion.

In the last year—last October—I spent 3 weeks travelling through the United States on a trip devoted to intellectual property. Despite the reality of counterfeiting and fraud in the physical world, most of the discussion that I had in that period of time revolved around intellectual property in the digital environment. I would just like to say that the United States measures its intellectual property. Its intellectual property supports at least 40 million jobs and contributes more than US$5 trillion, or nearly 35 percent, to the United States GDP. I ask why we do not measure our intellectual property. We do not. I have asked the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment whether we do, and we do not. We do not get the importance of our intellectual capital to our economic growth—either that or we remain in thrall to our trade partners. Our economic development, the growth of our weightless economy, depends on this, and it is time we grew up.

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 film Sione’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, to undertake 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.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and good evening to you and my fellow colleagues here. Before I talk on the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films) Amendment Bill, may I just acknowledge the service that we held tonight in this Chamber for the dedication and unveiling of commemorative plaques, which are to my right in the Chamber, for Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and missions in support of peace; those who have given their lives so that we can stand in this Chamber and debate issues that matter to New Zealanders; and their families who are here tonight to commemorate the sacrifices of our armed forces overseas.

But I will return to the bill. As has already been stated across this Chamber, there is great support for this bill. I am glad that the Minister of Broadcasting is in the House to hear the deliberations and the oral submissions of members on the first reading of the bill. As has already been stated, this bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes, not personal use of films, for 5 months from 31 October this year. Given the two 5-year periods under which the ban has already been imposed in previous legislation, I think it is welcome, given the consultative process that was conducted in February of this year, that that period is reduced to 3 years and that the ban on importation from the first release of the films to the public has been reduced from 9 months to 5 months.

It is a commendable bill, and it is one that we will certainly debate rigorously in the select committee process. It provides for digital expansion and transition to occur in the next 3 or 3½ years, and it is certainly to be accepted that in that period, as Clare Curran and my other colleagues have stated, we will see a convergence of technology, such that, hopefully, we will not be requiring this bill after 2016. I commend this bill to the House, and I thank the Minister for bringing it to this Chamber.

Kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. The title of the bill on the Table is the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. The provisions it is altering were originally in an Act called the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Act 2003. I have some questions as to what has happened to the “Onus of Proof” part of the original legislation, and how that will be addressed by this amendment. But perhaps that will be dealt with at a later time.

New Zealand First supported this provision at its first introduction in 2003. New Zealand First supported the provision’s retention in 2008, just as we supported the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act, which also includes a 9-month ban on copyright infringements. But times change, and inside the world of digital technology times change very, very quickly.

If I can just make sure that we all understand what the original Act did that we are amending here this evening. The provisions of the original Act meant that no one, other than the producers of a new film or their licensed distributors, was able to import into New Zealand any copies of that new film for a period of time following its public release anywhere in the world. This law covers all commercial films, regardless of their format. Private individuals were, and are, still able to buy these films from overseas in whatever form via the internet and bring them in for their own use. The restriction on parallel importation was, and is, directed essentially at commercial distributors.

The original 9-month period—in this legislation there is a 5-month period suggested—for new films was selected as an appropriate period within which copyright owners and cinema operators could derive an economic return on the cinematic release of these films. New Zealand First wishes to acknowledge that it is recorded that film exhibitors employ approximately 10,000 New Zealanders directly, and indirectly another 21,000 New Zealanders gain employment from contributing industries. We want to acknowledge that a major driver for the staggered protection was the viability of cinemas, and perhaps more specifically the protection of rural cinema owners. New Zealand First most certainly supports all those in our very stressed rural economies.

Much of this viability was based around the fact that the major film producers in the US—as has already been mentioned—release their new films in time for the US summer, spring, or Thanksgiving breaks. These do not directly align with the New Zealand school term breaks, where the maximum audience participation happens. This is where, historically, cinemas have made the profits that sustain them over the quieter weeks of the year. It is during those quieter weeks that they show New Zealand films such as This Way of Life, and have film festivals. It would be a concern if cinemas closed or chose not to show the sometimes less profitable New Zealand films, as this would have a downstream effect on that section of our artistic community.

The definition of films covered by these measures relates to those intended for commercial release, having been specifically amended during the passage of the original legislation to exclude films intended for educational distribution. The 2003 legislation had a sunset clause provision that enacted in 2008. The Act was renewed by the Labour Government with another sunset clause of October 2013, hence we are here today.

Coupled with the delay to parallel importation was a provision to protect against the imports of counterfeit films, sound recordings, and computer programs. Infringement would occur if the importer knew or ought to have reasonably known that the imported item was an infringing copy—a counterfeit copy. The onus of proof was reversed at the 2003 introduction, with imported copies being presumed to infringe in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is up to the importer to prove that the parallel imports are not pirated copies. Where has that protection gone? Or is that protection being retained under the original Act even while this new one amends it? If we could have clarity on that, that would be really great. This is part, unfortunately, of the problem of only just seeing the legislation and not having an opportunity to discuss this deeper.

This part of the legislation, this protection around counterfeiting, was essentially technology-driven. The ability to mass-produce identical perfect copies at the push of a button made it much harder to distinguish counterfeit copies from genuine copies that had been parallel imported.

New Zealand First wants to recognise that both of the areas covered by the original Act still have merit. This was witnessed, as I mentioned earlier, by our clear support for this legislation in 2003 and 2008, but whether it is now necessary is the question. New Zealand First sees print media comments along the lines of: “Cinema attendance numbers have shown strong growth in recent years due to the explosion of multiplex venues …”. When we look at rural cinemas to gauge their survival we look at examples such the Matakana cinema complex, which services my local community, or the Te Awamutu Regent Theatre with its investment in a new screen, which gives a sharper picture, and 3-D format projection equipment. We see the innovative way that film exhibitors have risen to the challenge of DVD and Blu-ray, remembering that the current Act has never stopped a New Zealander from going online to purchase copies of new release films from overseas for personal use and to view in their own homes.

New Zealand First believes that through the initiatives such as Imax, 3-D showings, and exceptionally civilised introduction of premium showings where large, comfortable chairs and outstanding glasses of New Zealand wine are available to an appropriately mature audience, cinemas have created a sellable experience that may now be countering what were very real dangers to their viability back in 2003.

As a mother of three teenagers, I would also go so far as to say that it could be argued that it is the DVD manufacturers who now have to create a point of difference for this generation to compete with the cinema experience, which is now to many of today’s younger generation, just as it was to the generation of the 1950s and the 1960s, the place to go with mates. In my research for this speech I spoke to students from the 1960s who told me of going along with a gaggle of mates and sitting through four movies in a row after a day of study at Auckland University. I recognise in that story the number of times that I have ferried my own 15-year-old son to the local cinema to meet up with his gaggle of school friends, where they watch a Sunday movie and then adjourn to the neighbouring ice cream parlour until ready to call the mum and dad taxi to collect them.

We will be interested—we will be very interested—if this bill passes this reading to see the select committee report and its conversations around these topics. Should this Act gain enough support to pass the first reading we would suggest that the select committee consider section 35(2)(b) of the Copyright Act. This section stipulates that courts must not require a defendant of copyright infringement charges to reveal its source of product in circumstances where it would be unreasonable for it to do so. In normal court proceedings for copyright infringement, revealing the source of the product would be an expected outcome of the discovery process. For the conflicting reasons verbalised above, New Zealand First will be abstaining from voting on this bill.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would like to pay my tribute to the New Zealand Defence Force for its peacekeeping role around the world. Because of its sacrifices, we are standing here today and debating freely in this Chamber.

Talking about the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill, this bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes for 5 months from the date of the first release to the public. The ban applies only to the importing of films for commercial use, and does not prevent consumers from importing films for their personal use. In February 2013 the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment undertook a public consultation in order to review the ban on the parallel importation of films. The ministry received submissions in support of both extending the ban and allowing the ban to lapse. In consideration of these submissions and in engagement with other parties, the Government has agreed to introduce legislation to amend the Copyright Act to extend the ban, which was due to expire on 31 October 2013.

Before I conclude, I would like to share that I am also a big fan of watching movies. I go to the theatre every month with my family to have some entertainment. In India the cheapest form of entertainment is watching films. They produce almost 1,200 movies every year. So I have followed that same passion over here, and I go to the theatre every month to watch movies. The cost of production is going up every day, and we have to protect this industry. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

I want to join with the members who have acknowledged the ceremony that took place in the House during our dinner break commemorating the people who have fallen in the most recent campaigns. I think all of those campaigns have been in the time that I have been a member of Parliament, and I know that Governments make very serious decisions to commit troops to them. We have done it in the knowledge that the chances were that we would lose people. We have, but that does not make it any easier. As many of us know the families of people who have fallen, it makes it harder still. One lives in the hope that we will not have to add to the names on our wall, but in the end I think that the Governments of New Zealand will do what is right, and that sometimes involves the deployment of our troops overseas.

I would now like to move to the bill before the House, the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I commend the Minister of Broadcasting for listening to the submissions, but I have to say that I am very disappointed that the bill has come up under urgency. I think that even if, frankly, Michael Woodhouse was still a whip and had something to do with the organisation of the House, this bill would not have come up under urgency. It could have come up on Thursday afternoon next week, when we have an extended sitting. It is something where I think the policy is supported unanimously. It probably could have gone through the House in half an hour in an extending sitting, and we would not have had an extended debate, as we will have after this, on the referral. But, whether a bill is supported or not, because it has come up under urgency it is the tradition—and really the only approach that an Opposition can take—to use its time in order to debate this.

I would say that having read the regulatory impact statement, it is a bill that is not supported by the Minister’s officials, and it is good to see a Minister acting with some backbone to stare down the officials and to make decisions.

For the owners of around 120 cinemas, as there are in New Zealand—I will just say that I am surprised that there are only that many. Because of the way that they have been developing and redeveloping and opening around New Zealand in recent years, I thought there would have been more. At this point I do want to acknowledge and pay tribute to Dick Werry, who is a local Hutt Valley former regional councillor, the son of a former mayor, and someone who bought the old Labour Party hall, which was built in 1926, I think, and opened in 1927 by the then leader of the Labour Party, Harry Holland. Over many years—I cannot remember all of them, especially in the early stages—there were lots of Labour Party dances, concerts, meetings, and film shows. But that is now very well preserved and commemorated in that hall.

Dick Werry has got it pretty much right, with light meals, lots of food available, wine, high-quality ice creams, and other things. He gets a regular clientele because there is a good range of movies. He has sessions for young mothers and kids, and sessions that are designed in particular for older people. Both of those are run during the daytime, and it works well to build up the use of the cinema.

It has changed a bit since the days when, from memory, I think I used to be given 1s 6d to go from Wainuiōmata to what I think was called the Empire Theatre, which was on the corner of Whites Line East. [Interruption] What was that?

💬 Kris Faafoi: Were they silent movies?

No, no. They were not silent movies, but one of the earlier ones that I can remember—I think I was 5—was Ben-Hur. I think it won an Academy Award.

💬 Kris Faafoi: It was an epic.

Well, it was. And I want to say to members that, yes, I did see it the first time round. It was not—

💬 Hon Member: Yes, and it was in black and white, wasn’t it?

You cheeky young thing! It was not on a rerun. I think that it is fair to say that tastes have moved on and theatre styles have moved on a bit since that time.

We have seen some unusual ones. I think that probably the most unusual theatre that I have been in is the wharekai at the—my friend Tau Henare might be able to remind me—main marae at Tikitiki, where the van used to come around every month with the latest movies. There was one particular occasion, just before we had been visiting up there—the van would back up to the door of the wharekai, and the projector would go in and the screen would go up. All the locals would come, mainly on horses, because it was the early 1970s and that was the main method of transport around Tikitiki—[Interruption] Yes, around Tikitiki there were lots of hitching posts, and people would come along. But as old KD—Koro Dewes—told me, there was a cowboys and Indians movie going on, and—

💬 Kris Faafoi: You can’t call them that these days.

What?

💬 Kris Faafoi: You can’t call it that these days.

Why can you not call it cowboys and Indians?

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Hang ‘em high.

Oh, steady on, Rajen, steady on! Oh, come on—oh, come on.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Who are you calling a cowboy?

💬 Darien Fenton: Ha, ha!

Darien! The bad guy was lining up a shot at the good guy when from the back of the wharekai out rang a shot. One of the locals had put a hole in the temporary screen at the front, and right out the back wall of the wharekai, as well. So that was an unusual type of theatre, and Koro Dewes did indicate to me that if I did not behave myself, then he would call those people back.

But times have moved on, and I think all of us have our favourite movies. I am not ashamed to admit that Notting Hill is mine. It is, you know—[Interruption] What? Notting Hill.

💬 Hon Members: Notting Hill!

Oh, come on! Can anything be more beautiful than Julia Roberts—you know, Anna Scott. I have got some doubts about this. I mean, I think we are unlikely to ever see another movie like it. Therefore, waiting 5 months might not be the end of the world, but back in the old days, if I knew I had to wait 9 months for Notting Hill to come back, I would have been very disappointed. That film, of course, had Hugh Grant, who played William Thacker in it, and Rhys Ifans, who played Spike. I think that that was an unforgettable character. I mean, there is nothing like a decent romantic comedy.

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

I noticed some laughter over there from the member sitting next to—this was in the pre - Divine Brown days of Hugh Grant. It was when we had him in a different class. A lot of us are not quite sure what we think about Hugh Grant these days.

But the thing that we are certain about is that this bill is an important window in a transition that is occurring. I think the one thing that we do know is that we do not know what is going to happen as far as movies, IT, and the convergence of television and the internet are concerned. I think that what this does is give us a bit of a transition period so that organisations and people can invest in theatres. They are good social opportunities for people. They are a good place for people to get out to, and this will help their survival.

I will repeat right at the end what I said at the beginning: this bill would not be being debated now if it was done in normal time or in an extended sitting. We could have got through it in 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. The fact that the Government has decided to take an hour and a half under urgency just seems to me to be disorganisation on its part. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): And watch silent movies.

Could I also please just mention that it was a real honour to be a part of the commemorative service tonight for the servicemen and women of our New Zealand Defence Force, and also our New Zealand Police Force, for the service that they have given in Afghanistan and Timor-Leste, and on missions in support of peace. Can I just acknowledge the families who were with us in this Chamber tonight, and tell them that we cannot really feel or understand the pain and the suffering that you are going through, but certainly I know that all my colleagues in this Chamber and New Zealand as a whole try to share and carry some of that burden with you.

I would just like to speak very briefly in support of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. It is another very good bill that Minister Foss has brought to the House. It makes perfect sense. It allows cinemas time to make the switch-over to digital, and I know that I have spoken to the owners and operators of the two cinemas in my own electorate—in Matakana and Whangaparāoa—and obviously they are both very supportive. This is important for them, in terms of their own business. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I call the honourable member Dr David Clark. A split call.

I join all my colleagues in the House in acknowledging the servicemen who are remembered in the plaques at the back of this Chamber.

In discussing this bill, the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill, I am a little disappointed that the previous speaker, Mark Mitchell, did not tell us a little about his favourite movie. Mr Mitchell is a man of much imagination, and I am quite certain that we could have learnt a little more about his character. There is speculation over this.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But why is he keeping it secret?

Members on this side are wondering why he is keeping it secret, and we will leave it to those at home to imagine, or not, why that might be. I am, of course, a fan of one of the earliest movies I saw, which was Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, with Yoda on the big screen. Do colleagues remember R2-D2 and Obi-wan, and many other characters?

I have on occasion sat in this House and thought about who might fulfil those roles in a remake. I will not go into too much detail here, because I think I will get myself in trouble, but there are many members around this House who bear some of the characteristics, and, of course, the Speaker and the other presiding officers all have Jedi characteristics of one nature or another in that parallel. There are obvious members for the Chewbacca link. We can all clearly see which side the Force is on at any given time, but the Dark Side across the House are offering the kind of unhelpful speculation that will not take this conversation much further.

I should put on record that it is a shame this bill is here under urgency. It surely is not a bill that needs to be here under urgency. In fact, it probably could have been tucked away in an omnibus bill or a Statutes Amendment Bill. If what Mr Mitchell said is true—that it is a common-sense bill; and from my brief look at it, it does appear to be that way—then surely it could have been dealt with behind the scenes.

The bill could have been brought in, essentially, as a fait accompli to deal with through the processes of the House, with consultation, as is appropriate, with other parties. But, unfortunately, this Government is a little bit disorganised, it seems, and so it is bringing us bills under urgency. As a consequence, the bills will, in fact, take longer to deal with, because when members do not have the bill more than an hour or so before it is to be debated—in fact, in this case we had it for only 1 minute, Ms Fenton tells me, before it was due to be debated—it becomes a more challenging prospect.

Members feel that they then have to work their way into the bill to make sure that it is really all that says it is and that we are not doing any disservice to the taxpayers who ensure that we are here to debate the issues on their behalf. Having put that on the record, I would like to go back to Star Wars for a minute or two, because Star Wars contains so many metaphors that are apt to this House.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: This member hasn’t even read the bill.

Mr Ngaro opposite is claiming that I have not read the bill. I have, Mr Ngaro. I can point to the many scribbles here and the underlinings. I know that the bill shifts the effective current ban of 9 months down to 5 months for a release of a parallel imported version of a film. I have read a little bit about the reasons for that. We have the regulatory impact statement supplied by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and we have a view expressed by officials that is different from the view taken by the Minister. We have all of that there. But I think Star Wars is the more interesting topic, having had a look at the bill, if we are all honest.

I would like to take some nominations from around the House for some of those key roles: the Han Solo, the Luke Skywalker, the Princess Leia, from around the House.

💬 Hon Members: Jabba the Hutt.

Jabba the Hutt, a colleague suggests. There may be no obvious candidates for some of these, but we will let our minds wander. But Mr Assistant Speaker reminds me I have only half a minute left to wind up my speech on this bill. I do also want to make the comment that in some ways this is debating the issue of today, and it does not take into account the issue of tomorrow when ultra-fast broadband finally gets here—probably under a Labour Government. We will have a much bigger issue to deal with and that is how we ensure New Zealand content is generated and protected. That is an issue for the future of our film industry.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I also would like to share my acknowledgment of the ceremony that was in the Chamber earlier tonight and the new plaque on the wall. It is a fitting addition to this Chamber—the fourth-oldest democracy in the world, I understand. So I guess it is disappointing to have to be debating another copyright law under urgency in Parliament. I do not know what it is about copyright laws and this Government, but somehow, for some reason, they have got to be debated under urgency. The Greens will be abstaining on this bill. We want to hear the arguments.

I think it is a ridiculous process that we are discussing an issue with such a heads-up. This ban on parallel imports, on copyrighting films, which this bill deals with, was first implemented in 2003 and extended in 2008. It is not like we have not had a long amount of time leading up to this decision. There is no actual urgency. In fact, the bill was tabled on the Table only when the Minister started speaking. That is unacceptable for a bill like this. In fact, our caucus was discussing a letter from Minister Foss only today asking our opinion. Yet a few hours later we see this bill slammed down on the Table with no justification. I think it is a disappointing practice. There has been no urgency. In fact, it turns out that they were literally writing it today, and we still have not heard a reason why it had to be implemented under urgency.

What we want to have is a good debate about copyright. This is vexing international legal experts all around the world. It has moved from arcane, dusty rooms of law libraries and law professors discussing it, to the front pages of our newspapers and literally the front lines of global treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the new Copyright Tribunal in New Zealand. Huge political movements around the world are debating these very issues, and I do not think it serves this Parliament or this Government very well to be debating such an important issue under urgency.

What we see under this bill is very much a temporary solution, a band-aid over the ban that was extended in 2008. All this bill does, and I note that it is only two pages, is extend the temporary ban on parallel importing of films for another 3 years, but it does reduce the length of the ban from 9 months to 5 months. It is very much a temporary measure. They call it a transitory measure, but how many times can you keep extending a so-called transitory measure? Will we be back in another 3 years’ time extending it again because the movie industry has said it has not had enough time?

It is important and it is good to see the regulatory impact statement. It says there were only 16 submissions during consultation, so not exactly overwhelming public debate on this very issue. What we actually see is the Government officials advising against this legislation. It is clear: they are advising against this legislation for a number of reasons. The bill and the regulatory impact statement raise a number of very important issues, and they need considered thought, not this rushed, botched little process. On one hand, you get the arguments of people saying we need to protect the cinemas, we have got to protect Kiwi films, and this is the only way we are going to do it. People say we need a temporary monopoly of distribution rights favouring one technological distribution method. It is an idea that has its opponents, and what you see is industries in New Zealand like Quickflix, which wants to provide online content distribution channels, raising some concerns. Obviously, DVD providers are raising some concerns. I guess this is why the Greens do not have a position on it: we are going to hear the arguments from both sides.

The legitimate question that has to be raised is why you would pick the cinema industry to protect, vis-à-vis all the other industries they could be protecting, or maybe just having a level playing field, as the regulatory impact statement states. Why can we not have competition in the sector? Why would you pick this sector? I did not see the National members outside saving Video Ezy stores and trying to protect VHS. I did not see National members trying to protect the carbon arc projector and then the reel projectors. Why would you protect this one sector? I think if cinemas are going to be competitive, it should be because of the atmosphere. There are some great Kiwi cinemas around the country offering a service and not needing statutory protection to protect what some people would say is an old-fashioned business model.

The bill is framed as a transition, but we have got to ask whether we will be back here in 3 years. The officials say that lifting the ban would have only minor impacts on the sector. In fact, it would encourage those legal distribution methods, and all the international data and data from New Zealand shows that providing legal alternatives, and different distribution methods legally and affordably, is the best way to crack down on infringing piracy. This is what we see in the submissions.

Actually, what this bill is going to be doing is encouraging online infringement of copyrighted materials. We heave seen this punitive, lobby-first approach from sectors involved in this debate, and, ultimately, we need to embrace the modern. We should not be scared of it, like the carbon arc projector. We should be looking to the future. But there are arguments on both sides. We will hear both sides in the select committee debate. We think it is an absolutely shocking process to receive this bill literally when it starts being debated. So that is why we are not voting for it and we are not voting against it. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I too was moved and considered it a privilege to be in this Chamber earlier this evening for the dedication and unveiling of the three commemorative plaques. I wish to acknowledge all those who served our nation in Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and recent peacekeeping missions. In particular, I acknowledge the sacrifice of those who fell. They will be for ever remembered in these plaques. It is a wonderful thing that they have been unveiled in this Chamber.

I thank all who have contributed to the debate on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill, and I am pleased to offer it my support.

I move, That the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 August and that the Commerce Committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).

The question is that the motion—point of order, the Hon Trevor Mallard.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no. I am just going to make a speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, you have jumped up too soon, Mr Mallard. I have not put the question yet.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, away you go.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will please say Aye—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Assistant Speaker, I am calling. I called. It is a debatable motion. Wakey-wakey!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh, I am sorry. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is one of those evenings, Mr Mallard.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That was a shocking abuse of process, which is coming very close to the approach from the Minister of Commerce. Can I say that the Labour Party will be opposing this motion, not because we are opposed to the timing involved in it and the report back but because of the oppressive approach of requiring a select committee to sit during House sitting time and on a Friday in a week in which the House has been sitting.

Can I say I have not heard anywhere in this House today any argument against this bill, the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill—I think there are a few questions around the House, and I think probably all sides have questions about the bill—but there are a lot of questions around the process. I say to the Minister of Commerce that if there is a bill around which someone expects agreement and it is coming in under urgency, the practice is normally to supply to each of the parties a copy of the bill—a confidential draft—before the House goes into urgency, so that members have an opportunity to study it so that they are prepared for the debate. Then when they come to the debate they will have a view and it is properly made up. The practice—I think generally last used under Muldoon—of dumping a bill, having it introduced, and going straight to the first reading is something that is not conducive to positive practice in the House or to support.

I will reiterate a comment that I have made previously, and that is that as this bill is one that is generally, I think, likely to be unanimously supported at its later stages, it could well have been a very good candidate to come up on a Thursday morning in an extended sitting and go through in a quarter of an hour or half an hour, rather than having an hour and a half debate on the first reading, and another hour or an hour and a half on a referral motion. I think it is something that is generally not a good use of House time, and it is an abuse of process.

There is not much doubt now that this bill needs to get through by a date in October in order for there not to be a gap, although I am not quite sure what the massive problem would be if there was a small gap between the current law and the new law. That is something that the Minister, who has the ability to have a reply in this particular debate, might want to explain when it comes to his reply. But I think I can accept that it is logical to have this bill, when it becomes an Act, coming into force at the time that its predecessor goes out. Therefore, having a shortened select committee process is logical.

But I say again to the Minister, who has got the chair of the Commerce Committee, I think, sitting behind him—is Jonathan Young the chair of that committee? I say to the Minister that compared with a number of the chairs, and certainly compared with one that I have experienced recently, he is exceptionally competent. The member, especially when he has got support of the major Opposition parties and, I understand, other parties as well, could have called for submissions over a short period, had hearings over a day or two, and got the bill reported back inside the time that we are currently obliging the committee to have now. Jonathan Young knows that when one works in a cooperative manner, things can go through pretty smoothly, and especially where there is legislation that is widely supported within the House, the process can be truncated. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that says that a bill has to take 6 months or 4 months or whatever to get back. If there is cooperation within the committee, there is no reason why it could not have been back in 5, 6, or 8 weeks anyway, with plenty of time to have it passed before the due date, without this sort of oppressive motion.

I must say that it is important that the bill is looked at pretty carefully. There are certainly some doubts from the people within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as to whether the bill should be passed or not, although I think it is fair to say, given the current direction or, on occasions, lack of direction—the wild, free-market approach of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—I am not sure that we should rely that heavily on a regulatory impact statement that it has made. But it will be an interesting part of the select committee process to have the officials interrogated on that and to see whether there is any deeper rationale behind what they are saying than what has come out in the regulatory impact statement. Frankly, it sort of reeks a bit of ideology—the sort of ideology that permeated through Treasury in the 1980s and the 1990s and appears to have spread into parts of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, I think it is fair to say. It has not spread into all parts of the ministry, but it was certainly the sort of free-market approach that has caused problems for our economy and problems across quite a wide range of areas.

I hope that the select committee in its hearings has the good sense to call in the New Zealand Motion Picture Industry Council. It is an organisation that is an industry group of both the major and the independent exhibitors and distributors. It is fair to say that it is almost like we are back where we were when I was a kid, when the local theatre was run by someone locally, it was not part of a massive chain, and it was not a big multiplex with 17 theatres, most of them with uncomfortable seats. We are now getting back to the relatively small and local approach, but there are still some of these big ones, even though they are failing. [Interruption] If I were that member, I would just be quiet on this particular subject. I think it is not one that he should interject on. I think it is fair to say that most movie theatres, the more modern ones, are relatively small. In fact, one that I have spent some time in, in Taupō, I think had only 11 seats in one of the theatres, and one of them was on the other side of a pillar. So it is fair to say that there is a range. Bringing together these different groups in a group like the New Zealand Motion Picture Industry Council means that you can get a united voice and one that I am sure will be interested in talking to the committee.

I think it is probably fair to say that it will tell the committee that this legislation does not go far enough, that it would like the sunset period to be further away, and that it would like the 5 months held at 6 months or 9 months or some figure closer to that. It will be interesting to hear the logic. But, having said that, I do accept that the Minister in bringing the bill to the House has worked a compromise. He has shown that he has been able to listen, and I hope that the select committee process is such that that continues to be the case. Thank you.

Tēnā koutou anō. Tēnā tātou e huihui mai ki roto i te Whare.

[Greetings once again to you collectively. Acknowledgments to us assembled in the House.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Tēnā koe.

It is a source of some regret for me that I was not able to speak in the first reading of this debate, because I would have loved to reminisce about Flipper and Dr Who—some of those films that I saw in my youth.

💬 Hon David Parker: Back when you had hair.

I did have hair at the time, Mr Parker, yes. I rise now to express some thoughts from my colleague Holly Walker on this debatable motion around the shortened period for select committee consideration. Our decision to abstain on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill itself notwithstanding, the Green Party will support this motion, but not because we are happy with the 7-week select committee process on a piece of legislation like this. Rather, we are supporting this motion because the alternative was for the Commerce Committee to have only 4 weeks to consider the bill—something we consider to be totally unacceptable. A 7-week process, although far from ideal, is better than a 4-week process, which is why we requested that the Minister of Commerce extend that as much as possible. It is, I guess, a source of further regret that this bill has been introduced under urgency, which is a further abuse of process in our view.

As Holly Walker noted in her substantive contribution to the first reading, we can see no reason why the select committee process needs to be this short, given that we have until the end of October to pass the legislation required before the provisions of the current ban lapse. We certainly recognise the Minister’s concern that ensuring that something is passed before then is important, because if the ban were to lapse in October, followed by a period of unrestricted parallel importation, it could be that that could give rise to problems that may be difficult to reverse. But I am mindful also of Trevor Mallard’s comments about that, and I am not sure. I would like to know what those possible unforeseen consequences might be. I guess if we knew what they were, they would not be unforeseen. It is likely that some form of shortened select committee process was always going to be necessary, but we in the Green Party do not see why it should not be 2 or 3 months, rather than a matter of weeks only.

It is a good innovation in this current Parliament that we now have debatable motions when the process for select committee scrutiny is being curtailed. That greatly increases the transparency of parliamentary decision making and requires Ministers to actually justify their decisions to curtail the level of parliamentary scrutiny—or, rather, it should require Ministers to justify that curtailment of parliamentary scrutiny. On this occasion I notice that the Minister has not yet taken a call, and I look forward to him doing so to explain the reason why that shortened scrutiny is necessary.

It still seems to be increasingly common for members to be dealing with bills that have a curtailed process, such as this one. Recent examples include the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill, which was given an extremely short select committee process of only 2 weeks, yet has then languished for months since the Government Administration Committee reported back; and the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, which currently stands before the Social Services Committee.

Very often the consequence of shortened select committee scrutiny is a worse bill that actually needs this House to go back and repair errors that were made and could have been avoided in the first place if proper process had been followed. What might not be so apparent to members when we make these rather arbitrary decisions to approve shortened select committee processes is that this puts the staff and officials who serve the select committee under incredible pressure. This includes select committee clerks, report writers, and administrators, as well as the officials who are appointed to the committees as advisers, and staff from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who are faced with the often mammoth task of producing revision-tracked versions of bills with substantial changes in a very short period of time, sometimes only days. This is often invisible to members but very apparent to the staff affected. It is not appropriate unless vitally important, which it does not appear to be in this case, or, indeed, I would say, in the other cases that I have mentioned already in this contribution.

Shortened select committee processes, of course, also constrain the ability for members of the public and affected stakeholders to have their say on legislation that affects them. This should also be avoided wherever possible and should be used only as a last-resort measure. In this case it very clearly is not a last-resort situation. In this case 7 weeks is too short, but it is a lot better than 4 weeks, so the Green Party will for that reason support the motion. We wish, however, to have our concerns about the whole process surrounding this bill noted for the record. Nō reira e te Whare, e huihui mai nei kati au i konei, tēnā koutou katoa.

[And so to you the House who have gathered, I end here and thank you all collectively.]

Thank you.

As the Hon Trevor Mallard has said, we will be opposing the motion, in part because the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill has been introduced under urgency. I just wanted to state some of the principles that lie behind why it is that we generally have longer select committee processes than will be provided for with regard to this bill if this motion is passed. The Standing Orders were changed in this Parliament because there is recognition across Parliament that one of the few protections that we have against unwise legislation lies in having a proper and fulsome select committee process—a select committee process that is long enough for the issues that are, or might be, of concern to be thought about properly by submitters who could have time to reflect on complexities and submit, and then there should be time for select committees to properly consider the issues that are raised by submitters.

Let us take this case in point. In this situation we are dealing with a conflict involving monopoly rights of copyright holders, some of whom want to restrict the parallel importing of films, and who say that that is, in part, because they want to protect the local cinemas. I for one am a believer in copyright. I believe that it is important that we protect the rights of the creators of creative content to get an economic return on their creativity for a period of time.

If we did not have copyright, we would be worse off as a society, because the creative work of authors, film makers, painters, and sculptors would be less. They would not be able to get as much of a return for their creative efforts, because someone else would be able to just rip them off the next day and produce a copy that could be sold at a cheaper price, and that would not enable the salary or the profit to be paid to those who produced the creative content. Therefore, you would have less creative output in society.

These things have to be founded on their underlying principles. The other side of that—and we see this issue coming up in the Trans-Pacific Partnership at the moment—is that if you extend the term of copyright beyond a fair period, then the disadvantages that accrue to society of having conferred monopoly rights to a monopoly property right in respect of copyright are extended in a way—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Could I remind the member that when we are debating motions such as this, it is a very restricted debate. It is not a debate on a much wider subject; it is actually restricted to the special powers on the instruction of the Committee of the whole House to have a truncated report-back period for the Commerce Committee. Standing Order 286(3) applies. I ask the member and other speakers to just be mindful of that. Although you can certainly canvass other things, debate must be restricted to the special powers or instructions that this motion is about.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I am just about coming to the end of this point.

The point I was trying to make is that some speakers have said that this is a simple bill, that there is only a small number of clauses, and that, therefore, there is no difficult principle involved and we can have a truncated period. I was trying to illustrate that this tension between length of copyright and the interests of protecting creative content compared with not extending copyright periods beyond the period that is necessary to generate or to encourage that creative content is where the policy tension arises. It is quite proper for other parties like the Green Party to say that they have not made up their mind on this yet, and they are abstaining in the vote on this legislation at its first reading. They have not yet got to the position that they know whether this legislation should be supported or not, and neither has New Zealand First. That shows that there are some complexities that surround this legislation, which means that a fulsome select committee process could be necessary in order to tease out the issues.

I do not actually understand properly where the tension lies here. Is it really the copyright holders who are saying that they want there to be a restricted period free from parallel importing? If that is the case, then I am quite sympathetic to that view. Some of the parallel imports may actually be in breach of copyright because the right to copy and distribute DVDs might have been constrained in their agreement with the original copyright holder. I am not sure whether this is being driven by the copyright holder of the film or whether it is being driven by the cinematic industry, and I think that that is a very relevant thing that the Commerce Committee should have time to explore.

I thought that the comment made by the Hon Trevor Mallard in his contribution was valid, too. Why is it that this legislation is so late as to be introduced now, when, according to the Government, it has to be passed by 31 October 2013 to meet the expiry date of the existing legislation? Well, the answer is that it is up to the Government to introduce legislation in sufficient time for it to be properly considered in advance of deadlines like this, and I am surprised that it did not introduce the legislation earlier so that it could have a decent select committee process.

The second point that follows is, given the reality that the Government is now where it is—and if you had a normal sort of 6-month period from now, you would go past 31 October. Well, Trevor Mallard made two good points. Firstly, with a relatively simple bill like this, you would expect that the select committee would clear this off its agenda and bring it back to the House well within that 6-month period. The Government controls the majority on the Commerce Committee. It could ensure that there was a fair, not overly prolonged, period and that it could get the bill back pretty promptly. Would that be by 16 August, in a way that enabled the new legislation to be passed by 31 October 2013? Well, it would be then or thereabouts, and if it were a bit late, what would be the great harm caused by a hiatus? Does anyone really think that for a hiatus of a 1-month period the industry is going to change what it does and bring in parallel imports in respect of films that might be released overseas during that short window? I do not really think that would be likely to be a big problem.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: If so, what’s the problem? And, if so, is the world going to fall apart?

No, that is right. If there were a slight detriment from that occurring in the occasional case, the world is not going to end. As a consequence, the more proper principle to be given primacy is to not override the normal select committee process, which this Government has got into the habit of doing, and is doing often. We have had it in respect of not only this bill but other bills. We have had it done under urgency. We have had bills pushed through all stages under urgency, with no select committee process, as was the case, I think, in respect of the ouster clause ousting the jurisdiction of the court in respect of family members who provide care for disabled members of their families. That was an even worse example of an abuse of power, but this is somewhere in that spectrum. It is not nearly as bad, but it is still bad.

We have had other things done through poor process in respect of Supplementary Order Papers being introduced that did not go to a select committee but that introduced new concepts. We saw that in respect of the truncation of the right to protest at sea, which was done by way of a Supplementary Order Paper that did not even go to a select committee. So there is a habit forming with this Government, which is abusing the proper processes of the New Zealand democracy.

I commenced my contribution by saying that in New Zealand we have very few protections against hasty or ill-considered legislation because we have but one House of Parliament, and as a consequence the protections that are to be found in select committee processes are all the more important. One of the most important processes is allowing time to enable people who might have a contrary view to that which is espoused in the legislation to understand the issues, to get others who are in support to back them, and to get the fourth estate on their side. Members of the fourth estate might have a view on this, but they will not really have much time to get their heads around this bill because the report-back period is so short. What this effectively means is that to have a report-back period ending on 16 August, the advertising period has to be much shorter than that, so there will not be much time for the public to make submissions on this bill.

Having said all of that, I do not want to say that this is as bad as those other examples where we have had ouster clauses ousting the jurisdiction of the court or truncating civil liberties through a Supplementary Order Paper, but I do think this is poor process. For that reason, amongst the others that Mr Mallard has articulated, we will be opposing this motion.

I move, That the question be now put.

Tēnā koe. I join other members of this House who have acknowledged the unveiling of the commemorative plaques that now adorn our Chamber. I acknowledge the service that the men and women of our Defence Force and our Police Force have had in those three theatres, and, obviously, I pay tribute to those who paid the ultimate price in those areas, and also to their families, some of whom were here earlier tonight for the unveiling.

As has been said by our two previous speakers to this motion, the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon David Parker, the Labour Party will not support this motion to truncate the select committee process. The process around this bill, the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill, actually started before it got to this House. The discussion document was put out to the industry by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and it is dated February 2013. There was a relatively good period of time when those who wanted to have their say got to have their say as part of the agreed document. The process went horribly wrong today, when, 1 minute before we started debating this piece of legislation, we got to see the legislation.

Then the process got even worse when the Minister in charge of the bill, the Minister of Commerce, said he wanted to truncate the period in which the public and members of this industry will have to give their submissions to the bill, and also for parliamentarians to scrutinise the details of this bill. Another member on this side of the House—I think it was David Parker—said that this is a relatively simple bill. Reading it, we certainly would agree with that, and that is why we have agreed to support its referral to the select committee.

We are not going to support this referral motion, because although it might be a simple bill, that does not mean that the process can be thrown to the wind. The process cannot be thrown to the wind so that you can start playing around with the time for the report back and also when the select committee can sit. At the moment, the Minister would like this bill to be reported back on 16 August, which is slightly shorter than the usual time, but also he wants permission for the select committee to sit when the House is sitting and also to sit on Fridays.

We questioned the need for such a simple bill—a bill that we have seen for only the last maybe 2 or 3 hours—to go through that select committee process and not receive the scrutiny that other bills would receive. This is becoming a growing trend with the Government. I understand that the Government asked to truncate the select committee process on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill, which is going through the Law and Order Committee. That is anti-democratic. It does not give the right amount of time to those people who want to come and give their submissions on those bills and have their say if parliamentarians have that extra scrutiny.

They are two very different bills. One really does change the way that the Government can access telecommunications companies and the information that they have, and this bill simply looks at changing the way that parallel imports, and the ban of parallel imports, are administered here in New Zealand. But the Government is using the same roughshod process to try to get things through quickly. Also, I failed to mention that the House is under urgency, and this bill has been introduced. The Hon Craig Foss is the Minister in charge of this bill. I thought he might have learnt his lesson with Novopay. Taihoa a little bit. Do not rush things too much. Do no rush things too much, because if you rush things, you can find that things get bungled, and that certainly was the case of Mr Foss’ experience with Novopay. So we do not want that to be the experience with this bill. The Minister wants it to be reported back earlier than usual, and also to change the way in which this bill is considered by the select committee.

I would like to borrow some words from Gareth Hughes. What we have seen in the last 2 or 3 hours is a shocking process. This is a simple bill, but we do not need to see it treated this way through what the Government hopes to do through the select committee process. I do hope that maybe some people who own the 120 cinemas around the country will be able to make some submissions during this shortened select committee process if the Government gets its way.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Dick Werry.

Dick Werry, the owner of the Light House Cinema in Pētone and also the Light House Cinema in Pāuatahanui and the Light House—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Central Wellington.

—in Central Wellington, would certainly be one of those people who would like to submit—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Wigan Street.

—on this process. Thank you very much for those exact details. He certainly is someone who is showing movies, and if there were parallel imports of those movies, he would have an issue with that because of the competition. He does show a lot of arthouse movies to very specific audiences, and if those movies were to come in pretty much straightaway from their introduction in other parts of the world, that would certainly close down his window of availability to get those movies shown at his cinemas.

Of course, there are other big multiplex cinema operators around the country, and most of them, I am sure, would love to have had a bit more time to consider this bill, particularly the regulatory impact statement, which is not redacted—a change for this Government. Around 57 percent, I think it says, of those operators have gone from the old film technology into the digital technology in showing their films, which is a big change from the time when Trevor Mallard started going to the movies.

I just want to go back to one part of the process, which has been mentioned earlier during this debate, and that is the fact that—and if people are watching Parliament TV tonight as a form of entertainment, as opposed to watching a movie, credit to you—we were given only 1 minute to have a look at this piece of legislation.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s why you’ve got to be careful about the process later on.

That is why you do have to be careful about the process later on. Because we had such a short period of time to be able to mull over what we thought about this bill, we should have the standard amount of time to look at this bill through the select committee process. Someone who wanted to come and submit to the select committee—who went to Parliament’s website and looked at the Hansard to get some more information about what this bill is about—might not get as much information as they wanted to because on this side of the House we did not have enough time to think about the legislation. We got only 60 seconds to think about some of the ins and outs of it.

Thankfully, though, we have had plenty of opportunities to talk about this bill through this referral motion. This bill could have been treated a different way. As has been mentioned, there could have been a much better collaboration process if, as per usual, the Minister had given us a confidential copy of the bill much earlier, and then this bill may not have been put through this urgency process. Then, as many speakers on this side of the House said, we would not have created such a fuss over this, because it would have been what we understood to be a normal process where we would have the time to mull over the details of the bill and then give a considered approach to it. Also, I do not think we would have had to have a change in the time that the select committee can give this scrutiny.

As I said, we hope that some of those local cinema operators can come along and give their opinions about this. Many people during this debate have given their first and favourite movie options. The first movie for me—it is unfortunate that this is to be put in Hansard—was The Smurfs and the Magic Flute, and my favourite movie would be Crimson Tide.

I would like to reiterate, just to finish up, that we do oppose this motion for the fact that the process has been dodgy from the beginning—since this legislation has been put forward to the House. The public and the industry should have the full time available to them to make submissions, and if the Government can just take the warning from this side of the House that if it did it collaboratively, then we would not be doing this through such a roughshod process. Thank you.

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 the case, 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 up The 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 import The 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.

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 that The Smurfs and the Magic Flute, which Mr Faafoi might wish to watch today, might become The Kiwi and the Magic Flute of tomorrow? Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.