Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill

This is a relatively non-controversial piece of legislation before the House, but I still think it’s one that is of huge significance to those with a print disability. So I thought I might just take the opportunity, for those who may be listening at home, to run over the main parts or aspects of Part 1 of the bill, because this is the substantive part of the bill, and also to take a chance to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee, who made one substantive change to the bill in the select committee.

This bill will allow New Zealand, who has signed up to the Marrakesh Treaty, to assist those who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print-disabled to access published works. The treaty is intended to make life easier for those people, who are referred to in the treaty as “beneficiary persons”, to obtain accessible format copies of copyright works—and examples of accessible formats are the likes of Braille, large print, or an audio format. The treaty requires parties or countries who sign up to the treaty to provide an exception to copyright legislation. This exception will allow for the production, reproduction, distribution, import, and export of accessible format copies—which I mentioned before—without the permission of the copyright owner. This exception can only be used by authorised entities and persons with print disabilities themselves or persons acting on their behalf. The definition of an “authorised entity” in the bill and in the treaty includes non-profit organisations such as educational institutions, libraries, and charities serving those with print disabilities.

Can I, as I said earlier in my contribution, thank members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, who took submissions and considered this piece of legislation, and came up with three suggested amendments—one which is substantive, which was a change to clause 6, and this was around the removal of what is known as the commercial availability test in the Copyright Act. The report back from the EDSI select committee recommended that clause 6 of the bill be amended to remove the commercial availability test from this bill and also, obviously, from the Copyright Act. The commercial availability test would require authorised entities to make reasonable efforts to obtain a commercially available accessible format copy of a work within a reasonable time and at an ordinary commercial price before making an accessible format copy of that work.

Now, I think it’s fair to say that a number of—I think a majority—those who submitted to the select committee supported the removal of the commercial availability test. But I think a number of members in the House may have had correspondence or contact with the likes of those who own copyright of works and are concerned about the removal of the commercial availability test. I just wanted to take some time to make sure that we allayed some of those concerns from those stakeholders. Those stakeholders who predominantly represent publishers and authors, have raised concerns with members and me directly about the removal of that test, and their main concern is that the removal of the test will reduce sales of accessible format copies and therefore reduce the incentive to create accessible format copies. And, in some instances, they claim that that may increase the price of some of these accessible formats for those who want to get it.

We have asked them for evidence of that in jurisdictions that have also removed the commercial availability test. They haven’t been able to find that, and attempts by officials to try and allay any concerns by looking for evidence of that has so far come up with nothing as well. So I think some of the concerns that they have around the commercial availability test and the effect that that may have on copyright holders might be able to be dealt with in the wider review of the Copyright Act.

My five minutes are coming to an end, but I would just like to again thank the select committee for their work, and if anyone has questions I’m happy to answer them.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Can I just thank the Minister for his comments and can I thank members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for what I thought was a very thorough process in looking at the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill

Of course, you know, the intent of this bill is to enable the possibly more than 168,000 New Zealanders who have difficulty accessing printed material, who have some disability around that, so that they can enjoy and participate in the aspects of life that many other New Zealanders do enjoy, particularly when it comes to university studies and advancing their opportunities. I think the Minister has been very good to canvass the issue, the most substantive issue, which was the commercial availability test. We did have considerable discussion around this, trying to find the balance between the interests of those copyright holders and those people who need to access in a timely fashion those written works, especially when there’s time constraints around, perhaps, university studies.

What we felt was that if we remove the commercial availability test, as many countries around the world who ascribe to this treaty have already done, that in itself creates the incentive for those authors of those works to ensure that they actually do have works available to those people who have some impairment. Obviously, the authors of those works have a commercial interest, and we don’t want to deny them that, but we think there’s an opportunity for them to respond to the needs of New Zealanders, particularly those 168,000, if not more, who have a print disability.

Can I say thank you very much to the officials. This was not a controversial piece of legislation. As we know, the Marrakesh Treaty was concluded on 28 June 2013 and entered into force on 30 September 2016. So we, essentially, do want to advance this through the House in a timely manner in order to create that availability for those people who will respond and appreciate being able to access different formats to copyright works.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I believe that members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee were unanimous in their support of the adoption of this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you to the member Jonathan Young, who’s just resumed his seat. Again, I think the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee did some excellent work, and while it’s a non-controversial bill, I think there’s some tension around the commercial availability test. I think it’s useful that I back up some of the words of the chair of the select committee just to make sure that we do have it on the record that both the Government and the select committee are in complete synchronisation with each other on this, because I still think that there may be some efforts to reinforce the point of some of the copyright holders.

I think that when the select committee looked at this, and also officials, some of the points that those copyright holders made, we—myself and the select committee—do believe that publishers and authors will still be incentivised to create the accessible format copies, whether that be Braille or audio. I understand from officials that producing a book in an audio or Braille format can cost up to tens of thousands of dollars, and this means that authorised entities and print-disabled people would be motivated to seek copies that are already commercially available. Purchasing a copy in an accessible format would likely cost less than producing an accessible format copy themselves. Again, this issue was raised with the select committee, and it noted that most countries, including the likes of the United States and the European Union, have removed the commercial availability test, and, at this stage, no evidence of that being a disadvantage to the likes of authors or publishers or copyright holders has been found to date.

I’d also like to reinforce that the select committee noted that there is a requirement in the bill for authorised entities to take all reasonable steps to notify the owner of a copyright work of an intention to make or import an accessible format, and the select committee also said that this should incentivise cooperation between authorised entities and copyright owners themselves.

Again, echoing the sentiment of the select committee chair, the overall aim of this is to assist the nearly 170,000 New Zealanders who do have issues with accessing accessible formats if they are print-disabled. Without taking any more time of the committee, I think getting through this committee stage will allow them to use the Copyright Act in a way that will advantage them. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.