Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill

The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes. It does so for 5 months from the date that a film is first released to the public, and it will do so for only a further 3 years under this bill. The ban applies only to the importing of films for commercial use, and does not prevent consumers from importing films for their personal use.

The ban was originally introduced in 2003 by the Labour Government for a period of 5 years to give cinemas enough time to transition to digital exhibition technology. Again in 2008 the ban was extended for another 5 years, as they had not fully transitioned to this digital technology. The Commerce Committee received and considered 10 submissions, including four accompanied by oral submissions. The committee basically recommended that the bill is passed without substantive amendment. The committee has agreed to extend this time frame, albeit for 3 years, and will allow retailers to parallel import copies of films earlier. So although over 60 percent of cinemas currently have converted to digital exhibition technology, during this period we are confident that the majority of cinemas will convert to digital exhibition technology.

💬 Sue Moroney: Are you sure? Have you got your numbers right this time, Sam?

Yes, we are. Our Government supports that transition, as it reduces the need for delays in film exhibition, giving consumers full access or earlier access to films. Keeping up with this technology is an ongoing challenge, as we discussed in the select committee, and the industry will face this like any other technology-reliant industry. We believe that a 5-month ban will continue to protect the exclusivity of cinemas for a limited period while enabling retailers to parallel import copies of films earlier than is currently possible. It is for these reasons that I once again commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the legislation in front of us, the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this legislation when it was first introduced in 2003, and New Zealand First again supported the principal Act’s retention in 2008. But at the first reading of this amendment bill, we recognised that the cinema community had to a certain extent reinvented itself in many areas to be able to market the cinema, as it once did, as an experience—not just a place to go and watch a film, but a full experience for the consumer. So we were concerned that the industry might not need the protections that are outlined in the bill in front of us.

At the same time we also acknowledged that many of those inside the industry, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, had made significant inroads into the evolution of digital delivery. Matakana Cinemas, the Te Awamutu Regent Theatre, and theatres such as those had made a significant financial investment in screens and projection equipment that are more up to date—again, to enhance the experience.

But we were somewhat conflicted because, at the same time, New Zealand First expressed its concern for the New Zealand film exhibitors and the approximately 10,000 New Zealanders directly employed inside this industry. Last night we heard that there was a possibility of 163 to 165 jobs being lost should this extension not be left in place. However, it is recorded that there are approximately 10,000 New Zealanders currently employed inside this industry directly, and another 21,000 New Zealanders are affected or could be affected indirectly by the possibility that this extension does not take place.

Just to address the word “ban”, which is part of this legislation, it is interesting how language can change the pros and cons of an argument. Perhaps if we were talking about this as a delayed release as opposed to a ban, I wonder how people’s positions might have changed at the beginning of the conversation.

But I go back to the fact that we expressed concern about the negative impact that the removal of such a staggered protection could have on those 10,000 New Zealanders. We had particular concern for rural cinema operators and their employees, as all too often we in New Zealand First find that urban arguments and urban solutions are foisted upon our rural communities, often with a detrimental effect.

It was due to these conflicting concerns that at the first reading New Zealand First withheld its judgment, and we abstained from the vote. Since that time—even though we have not had a member on the Commerce Committee, which considered and listened to the submissions—we have followed the progress of the committee, and we have read the submissions and the report to this House of that committee. What has become clear to us is that this is an evolution, not a revolution. This is a situation that needed to develop, and it was important that this particular industry was given that opportunity to do so.

The financial investment required to step up all cinemas to this digital technology, particularly those in rural New Zealand, is very significant. We feel that it is appropriate to give this final extension, particularly because, again, as we often talk about, we are and have been in a recession. So it is appropriate to give this final extension to these operators to transition their equipment and their business plans through.

I just want to touch slightly upon the minority views placed on the record by the Labour Party and the Green Party. I quote from the Labour minority view in the first instance. It says: “The Labour Party is concerned that if the public cannot legally obtain material in a timely manner through DVDs, subscription TV or online streaming, then they become sceptical of copyright law and use illicit channels.” The Green Party also makes mention of that in its opposition to this bill. The suggestion is that if this extension, this delayed release, were to remain, it would encourage “illegal file sharing in the absence of legal alternatives.”

New Zealand First finds it a very long bow to draw that should these delayed protections remain in place, we will be driving New Zealanders to illegal acts. There is such a thing as delayed gratification. Let us remember that it is a 5-month delay period we are talking about here from the international, the worldwide, release date of a major motion picture. That means that when it is released in California, 5 months from that day you can buy it in a store from the DVD shelf. That is not a great hardship. It is a film. I think this is a First World problem if people are concerned about not being able to buy their DVD the day after a major release. So we think that that is a very long bow to be placed inside the minority reports.

Without taking up too much more time, this is a bill that needs to go through this House before 31 October. This will be the last time it goes through this House. We have no doubt of that. The industry does need to take note. This is very, very likely to be the final extension for the industry. The time has come to step up. It must transition through. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through the House.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I am personally very passionate about watching movies at the theatre. This bill will help the small, boutique cinema halls to upgrade their technology. This bill is extending for 3 years the parallel importation ban on films after their release date, and I commend this bill to the House.

I call the honourable member—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Dr David Clark.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I was getting there, Ruth. I call the honourable member Dr David Clark.

I have been called a lot worse. I want to begin by saying that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga spoke earlier in the debate and I would like to put on record from the outset that I do agree with the bulk of the member’s statements. This has been said already, of course, today. But there are some statements that I struggle to agree with, and I do struggle a little with the way in which he has characterised the debate that has been had. I know that he will be struggling with the outcome that his party has come to on this because he is someone who believes in the value of markets. But there he is. He stands up and he says what he thinks needs to be said in this debate. But as with the debate on housing, and perhaps actually more pertinent in respect of the debate on housing, as my colleague Phil Twyford I think has quipped, no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it is still a pig. That is certainly true with the Government’s housing policy.

But we are here, of course, to discuss the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill, which has been reported back to the House. I sat on the Commerce Committee, which debated this bill. We found that there were arguments in favour of and against extending the protection offered to cinemas around the country. We, as a committee, have recommended in the end to continue with some level of protection, albeit a very clearly signalled final episode of protection and a shorter episode of protection. So the bill reduces the delay for parallel importing of films from 9 months to 5 months after a film’s international release date.

Labour’s qualified support for the 5-month delay rests on the impact on provincial and rural cinemas that have less capacity to show multiple high-grossing movies simultaneously and less flexibility and ability to cut costs to remain competitive. It is fair to say that there are also other cinemas, perhaps arthouse cinemas and the like, in medium-size towns that are vulnerable here. I guess I am a little surprised at the stance the Green Party has taken, knowing that the stance it is taking, if this bill were to be successfully pushed through the House, would mean the loss of about 160 jobs, we are told. It would mean the loss of small community facilities. It would probably mean the wholesale destruction of arthouse cinemas in New Zealand. It seems a peculiar stance for the Greens to take, and it is sad to hear that they are not concerned to look after the educational opportunities that are in cinemas, that they do not value the community that builds around rural and small-town cinemas, and that they do not value the jobs that are in the industry.

We think that the decision to have, essentially, a compromise, a shorter period of time of protection, leading over to a period when the industry must adapt, is the sensible solution. It is a solution that takes the middle path by protecting the industry for a period of time while the adjustment is made. It is not like a very hard decision that means jobs are laid off without a transition period and without the ability to make adjustments. It is showing concern for the industry, for the community facilities, and for the jobs. So that is the point we reached in our deliberations. They were challenging deliberations. I think the discussions in the select committee were good ones, they were full ones, and they really went across all of the issues, so it is a little sad for me to hear that the Green Party does not seem to value those kinds of community facilities. They do not seem to value the jobs or the films that are shown in the cinemas in those smaller communities. However, that is where they stand and they have reached their decision. I am sure it was not easy for them to reach that decision, either, but I do feel it needs to be put on record that that was a different decision from the one that most parties reached.

It is also interesting, when we think back, that this bill was introduced under urgency. It was introduced under urgency in this House. We spent a lot of time debating why that might be, after it had languished on the Order Paper for an inordinately long period of time. The kind of relaxed approach this Government is now taking to it betrays that perhaps it was not quite as urgent as it was first projected to be. The speeches have been very short—very short—and they have contained very little detail or explanation of why this is such an urgent matter. In fact, Government members seem quite dismissive of the prospect of debating the bill. That is a little surprising, but I think it points to the kind of process that this Government is running through. It is trying to rush things through under urgency, as it tries to catch up on the lost time from bad organisation in this House. I think that is clear—I think that is clear.

This bill will expire on 31 October 2016, with the effect that the importing of a film first made available to the public after that date would be allowed immediately on the film being made publicly available. This is a time-limited bill—it is introducing a time-limited measure—and at that point in time we are expecting that cinemas will have adapted. They will have made the necessary adjustments. They will have switched to digital technology, if that is what is required. Also, we are recognising the changing patterns of consumption amongst ordinary Kiwis, who are increasingly looking at other electronic means of gathering these films, this entertainment, and the educational material that goes with it. We recognise that Kiwis and others around the world will find ways of sharing a community experience, as they adapt to online means of sharing and viewing this material. These forums—online forums—are developing all the time, where there is a sense of commonly shared experiences. But not all New Zealanders are there yet, and so in some ways that is why this bill makes a lot of sense, to continue to preserve that community experience for an interim period of time while the industry adapts and while New Zealanders adapt to the rapidly changing technology, and that preserves the opportunity to have those community experiences.

In our previous reading I noticed in many speeches Mr Faafoi’s entrancement with The Smurfs and the Magic Flute, which came into the discussion. That was the first movie he ever went to see. We discussed Star Wars and other movies, but The Smurfs came up again in a speech by a member sitting opposite me here. I think it was Mr Macindoe if I remember correctly. He raised the issue of The Smurfs 2 being released this month and the effects, and some of us on this side would have liked to name some of the other characters in the House in order to highlight, perhaps, the levity with which this bill has been debated at times.

I think some of the frivolousness in the speeches from Government members reflects the fact that for them this is not really an urgent bill. It is a bill that reflects the Government’s inability to organise its time in the House. The fact is that it has come through late, it is now being rushed through after languishing on the Order Paper, and those members are not so attached to it one way or another. It is filling space. It is using parliamentary time, but it does ultimately achieve something that we find difficult to oppose, because it is a transitional measure.

To sum up, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill because we believe it provides an appropriate interim measure whilst the industry and community adjust to the changing nature of public entertainment and education in the film sector. Thank you.

Ni hao, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on the second reading of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. The bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes for 5 months from the date of the film’s first release to the public.

The film industry is in the middle of a large-scale makeover as cinemas across the country convert to digital exhibition technology. The National-led Government strongly supports the transition to digital exhibition as it reduces the need for delays in film exhibition—giving consumers earlier access to films. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a 5-minute call on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill, as it passed the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Act in 2003, which this bill amends. The provisions in that Act are set to expire in October, so this bill continues those provisions. However, the bill reduces the delay for parallel importing a film from 9 months to 5 months after a film’s international release. The bill will expire on 31 October 2016 with the effect that importing a film first made available to the public after that date would be allowed immediately on the film being made publicly available.

The original Act was only ever considered a temporary measure to allow the industry time to adapt, yet here we are today extending that time frame. Labour’s qualified support for the 5-month delay rests on the impact on provincial and rural cinemas, such as the one in my own electorate in Palmerston North, which have less capacity to show multiple high-grossing films simultaneously and less flexibility and ability to cut costs and to remain competitive. Labour also has reservations that this may end up costing Kiwi families more on an outing to the cinema, and that if the public cannot legally obtain material in a timely manner through DVDs, subscription TV, or online streaming, they will simply use illicit means to fulfil their needs. The Government has reneged on a commitment to undertake a wide review of the copyright regime this year and has instead put it on hold.

Labour’s 2011 manifesto stated that we would continue to participate in Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, but reiterated its commitment to retaining Pharmac, in particular, as a bottom line, which must not be traded away. We feel similarly strongly about intellectual property provisions. There is great concern that undue influence is coming from overseas to strong arm New Zealand into accepting intellectual property restrictions, particularly around parallel importing, and that that will end up costing Kiwi families more, whether it be a night out at the cinema, whether it be the cost of medicines, or whether it is being able to buy affordable clothing at The Warehouse, for instance. All of these things are under threat if the ability to carry out parallel importing is under threat. That is certainly one of the concerns that members on this side of the House have with some of the international negotiations that are being carried out at the moment. In fact, in many ways, if the Government is to restrict parallel importing, it is the very opposite of what we would traditionally think of as free trade.

We have concerns about this piece of legislation. We have concerns that the Government has not been able to organise the transition phase, and that here we are extending that transition phase even further. We have concerns that it is, in fact, hard-working, ordinary families in New Zealand who are going to be affected by this with one of those most simple pleasures of a night out at the movies potentially costing more and more and more. Of course, we have seen this in a thousand different ways—the cost of living going up and up and up and wages simply not being able to keep up with that cost of living. This is just one more way in which potentially it is going to be harder for Kiwi families. So our qualified support for this remains firmly based on an expectation that, ultimately, these measures will be phased out.

We expect from the Government a robust defence of New Zealand’s sovereign right to be able to carry out parallel importing right across a range of commodities and products so that we can keep the cost of living under control as much as possible. Of course, that should be balanced with clear efforts to improve wages for New Zealanders so that people have the money in their pockets to be able to buy the simple things in life, like a night out at the movies. Unfortunately, of course, through a suite of legislative changes we have seen this Government working towards a low-wage economy and doing its best to drive wages down. What we saw today during question time was the apparent lack of empathy for people on low wages and a clear view from Ministers and members of that Government that the issue of low pay is nothing more than a joke, and that is not good enough.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Mr Assistant Speaker—

I can hardly hear the honourable member.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: I will make up for that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Good, thank you. I call the honourable member Catherine Delahunty. Tēnā koe, Ms Delahunty. I do not think the speaker was working properly.

I will take a brief call on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill because I was not on the Commerce Committee and my colleague Gareth Hughes did the substantive work on the bill. However, I have got some points to make, and one of them is that the Green Party loves the movies. The world has certainly changed since I was dragged hysterically screaming out of the Laurel and Hardy films and the Marx Brothers films. The world has changed a great deal, and comedy has changed. But we are strongly committed to film and theatre, we love culture in all its forms, and we support movies. But we have some concerns about whether this bill is the right way to go. We have some very big concerns about the need for a proper revision of copyright, and that is where, like the previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, we feel that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is already having very negative effects on our public life and on our debates, in the sense that we cannot have the substantive debate that we want to have about copyright. We can reduce this to a simple issue, but there are actually darker themes behind it.

I live in a rural community, and I love my theatre and I attend my cinema. But I want to make a comment that has not been made by any other parties, to my knowledge. For example, what is the real accessibility of the movies to one section of our community? For example, my partner has paralysis in his legs. There are theatres we have gone to where it is very difficult for him to get into those theatres. There are theatres in rural New Zealand and in urban New Zealand that are not fully accessible. As my colleague in the Green Party Mojo Mathers has pointed out, for the hearing impaired community many films available in the cinemas are not captioned. What has happened is that the illegal download has sometimes been the captioned download. We are not saying that that is right, but we are saying that for that community they never—never—get to go to the cinema in rural communities and see the film if the film is not captioned. I believe we are in a state of transition where we were moving towards digital and we are also moving towards accessibility, but very, very slowly for a very, very limited number of films, and there is a substantive section of our community who, for a range of impairment reasons, are not able to access these films, but at home they can.

So, I guess, the Green Party is concerned that this extended transition is not actually helping the industry or helping the community to get their act together and make sure that we get full accessibility in all its senses. We do not actually support illegal downloads, but we know that they are happening. We know that people are doing it, and we know that they will continue to do that if there are continual limitations. That is not because we believe that everyone should have everything at once and they should not wait, but the reality is that the digital generation—the e-generation, which I am barely part of—has a different view. To some people, 5 months is a very long time, and they will access the stuff. But more cogent is the issue of accessibility for people with hearing impairments. That is a far more compelling argument, in my view.

So although we are not supporting the bill, we do support a full review of copyright, a modern approach to these issues, full support for cinemas to be modern and competitive, and for DVDs to be available to people who cannot otherwise access the culture that many of us take for granted—and we do. With those words, I would like to end my statement. I look forward to a better process, because this was a circus. Honestly, the urgency was a circus, and the whole process at the beginning was not good. We need to make sure that we can have—not constrained by the phantom of free-trade deals that are not about trade or freedom—the proper conversation we need to have. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. Regional theatres are really important to the communities they are in. I was at one of our local theatres—I have got two in my electorate, Whangaparāoa and Matakana. My wife and I were at the Matakana theatre on Monday at a local fund-raiser. It just reminded me of the great experience that a local theatre can give you. It does not matter how flash the home theatre is, there is something pretty special about being able to go to your local theatre.

Are they committed to making the transition to digital? Well, I believe they are, and I can speak only from experience. The Whangaparāoa theatre is currently making the transition to digital and, as my colleague from New Zealand First Tracey Martin stated, Matakana is also making that transition. In fact, of its three theatres, two of them are now digitised, and the third one will be digital within the next couple of months. So it was great to be able to support them and make sure that they continue to exist, and I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.