Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

At its essence, this bill is about empowering artists to create and do what artists all over the world do every day, without the threat of being sued because of an archaic law. Art is a powerful tool for social and political change. There’s a lot going on in the world right now, and so we must lean in to art to help us make sense of the world. Oh, what a grey world it would be without our artists. Thank you to all the artists, academics, and politicians who have championed this bill to finally make it to Parliament.

I mihi to former MPs who have worked to modernise this law, like in 2011, when Green Party MP Gareth Hughes first put this bill in the biscuit tin. More recently, in 2018, National MP Simeon Brown introduced his own bill, seeking to introduce a similar parody and satire amendment within the pre-existing fair dealing exception for criticism and review.

This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to clarify that a fair dealing within a work does not constitute an infringement of the copyright of the work if it is for the use of parody or satire. This amendment follows the common-sense approach taken by Australia’s Copyright Act 1968, section 41A, which explicitly recognises that parody and satire are legitimate exceptions to copyright infringement. Let me make it crystal clear: this bill does not provide a free pass to use copyrighted material without considering originals, nor does it override protections for Māori cultural work. Instead, it brings clarity to the law, ensuring that fair dealing applies to those who use existing works in a transformative and critical manner. This bill clarifies what fair use means: the right to critique and create in ways that strengthen our democracy and contribute to public discourse.

Parody and satire sits at the cornerstone of any democracy. It holds power to account, challenges social norms, expresses views, and encourages creativity, prompting us to reflect on the world around us. Satire and parody is the tool that so many of our beloved artists and commentators have used to highlight these very things, encouraging discussion and its use.

Currently, it’s hard to quantify what art hasn’t been created or shared due to the threat of costly legal bills and repercussions posed by the current law. Over the past year, I have met with artists, comedians, academics, digital creatives, and legal experts, and the message has been clear: this change is long overdue. We have wide support across the arts and legal sectors, and a special thankyou goes to meme creators like The Whakataki Times, Cindy With Sign, Jordan Rivers, and Political Editing 2.0; satirists like Christchurch’s Andrew Gunn; comedians and artists like Kura Forrester, Courtney Dawson, Keisha Castle-Hughes, Joe Daymond, and Thomas Sainsbury, who have used satire to define their art and create creative voices in Aotearoa; and academics like Professor Graeme Austin, who have provided their insights on the subject. Thank you to all of you—thank you.

Many have spoken about the effect of the current legal uncertainty, where fear of litigation has stifled creative expression. From small-scale content creators to established satirists, there is widespread support for a more modern and balanced copyright framework. This bill responds to that call, ensuring that New Zealand’s creative community can continue to challenge through their art and make us laugh. You only need to scroll through Instagram to see the success of our comedians and content creators on the world stage, proving exactly why we need to even the playing field.

This bill is about balance: balancing the rights of copyright holders with the fundamental freedom of expression that is essential in a democratic society. It is a small but important step in modernising New Zealand’s copyright framework. The UK, Canada, France, and Belgium already have these laws in place, showing why it’s time for us to make this move—and, you know, Australia has it too, and you know that we hate trailing behind the Aussies.

Our copyright laws, which were created three decades ago, do not reflect the changes since then in our media landscape. Emerging artists, in particular, have described the financial and emotional toll of navigating a legal grey area. In an age where digital content spreads rapidly, the law must be clear, accessible, and fair to our artists, the content they make, and its reflections on our society.

This bill would be in alignment with article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, specifically around tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake, to help promote and advance Māori storytelling and perspectives. Māori have a long tradition of using satire as a means of social commentary. From waiata ngahau to pūrākau and whaikōrero, the delivery of pointed but light-hearted banter is felt on the paepae, whether you understand te reo Māori or not. Teanau Tuiono’s dad jokes hit just the same in te reo Māori.

Māori artists and commentators often face significant financial and institutional barriers in their creative endeavours. By clarifying that parody and satire are legitimate forms of expression under copyright law, the bill provides greater access and equity for Māori creatives to share their perspectives without the burden of prohibib—prohibitive—

Hon Member: Yeah, I think we’ve got it.

KAHURANGI CARTER: —legal constraints. I think we’ve got it—hey, there’s a meme idea, everyone! It is also important that we uphold protection for Māori intellectual and cultural property.

This bill offers an opportunity to reinforce protections and include the Wai 262 recommendations through the select committee process, ensuring that tikanga Māori remains central to how we approach copyright and artistic expression in Aotearoa. We encourage submissions and conversations to ensure we’re achieving this.

This Green Party bill is a narrow, carefully considered change to the Copyright Act 1994. It provides certainty for our creative sector, aligns us with international best practices, and strengthens the foundational principles of democracy and freedom of expression. Now I will quote Jeff Bromski: “Art has always been a powerful tool for social and political change. From the earliest cave paintings to contemporary Street Art, artists have used their work to express their views on society and the world around them. Typically created in response to social or political issues, protest art can take many forms, including paintings, sculptures, murals, posters, and street art.”

I urge the House to support this bill so we can move it to the select committee, where we can hear submissions and refine it further to ensure our laws are fit for purpose and reflect our society. New Zealand is a modern society, and we need our laws to reflect that.

For all our artists out there: thank you for making the world a brighter place, thank you for continuing to create art to get us through tough times and to help us shape the conversations around us. I’d love you to send me your memes. Now, I might not understand them, but I promise I’ll try. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Good evening, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: It’s a pleasure to stand and represent National on the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill in this first reading. National will be supporting this to select committee.

Arena Williams: Yay! Good stuff.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah, it’s great. This is the second time I’ve got to be the person from National who gives the good news. I did think about drawing it out, but I thought that’s a bit—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Oh, mean!

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah. But I won’t. I won’t hold you in suspense.

There was only one way that National could go with this because this is a bill about freedom of speech. Also, previously, the speaker Kahurangi Carter mentioned that the Hon Simeon Brown had a very similar bill in the ballot, previously; it was, I believe, drawn and voted down. This is something that goes to the fundamental values of our party. Freedom of expression is an absolute requirement for democracy in our country—for democracies everywhere.

This is a very small bill. It does make one small amendment to the Copyright Act 1994, by inserting new section 42A, which allows those “fair use”, copyrighted materials to be used for the purpose of parody and satire. That exempts them from having an infringement. So that will, hopefully, take away any chilling effect that not having that provision under the law may have held. Now, it’s a little bit hard to prove that because there haven’t been any cases brought to trial about this in New Zealand; however, there are international cases where these kinds of things have come to the fore and highlighted the issues where there are no exemptions. However, New Zealand is just coming into line with most other countries that we like to compare ourselves with, like Australia, the UK, and many countries in the EU. Like you say, in Australia, their Copyright Act was from 1968. That shows you just how far we are behind. We’re just bringing ourselves into the 20th century—let alone anything else.

In this day and age, how fast things can be transmitted through electronic means over the internet is completely outside of what anything would have been imagined when our laws were first being drafted—although, the Copyright Act does allow for some software and other digital products to be protected, in some ways. So we already have some provision, but it didn’t go far enough to see the extent of what the internet has become.

When we think about what satire is and what parody is, we often think of them almost as the same thing together, but they actually are two quite distinct things. Parody is where it’s making fun of the original work in some way, or the original statement, or using that original statement or artwork to highlight something. One example of a visual parody that’s often used is of the very famous photo of The Beatles walking across the crossing, and people often put themselves into the same situation, or they might then dress up in funny clothes or in cosplay, even, and be crossing a crossing. That has enough of the reference to the original photograph that people understand what the reference is. That’s parody.

Satire is actually using a situation or a real-life event or an artwork or a work to highlight a social issue or a political point or just to make fun of people. A good example of satire is some television shows that we all may have watched—especially political geeks who like things like Veep or—you’ve never heard of it, Madam Speaker? You should watch it; you would love it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll take a note.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: It’s one for the watchlist. Or one of my favourites is Utopia. Maybe one that you would know, Madam Speaker, is Yes Minister. [Madam Assistant Speaker pulls a face, resulting in laughter from members.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Actually, I do know it; I’ve actually got the boxset!

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Ha, ha! That’s all right, Madam Speaker. I thought I was sailing close with that one!

There are lots of examples, and people can understand what they’re saying. It’s interesting with things like some of those satire programmes that we watch, many of us will get the impression that “Gosh, we could almost be watching a documentary. This is so close to the reality of what we are living and things that we’re experiencing.”

In this day and age, where we have AI-derived material, we’ve got deepfakes of people making comments, of politicians making statements, even. It becomes quite difficult because we have some real-world politicians making statements at the moment that it’s hard to believe is actually truly what they’re saying. For example, some of us might struggle to know, at times, whether the President of the United States has actually said something, or if somebody has created a deepfake and put this out as a satirical moment, because it’s so hard, often, to believe what we’re seeing on TV. This is one of the issues that, I think, will come up in select committee, that we will drill down quite hard into, to discover what the boundaries are around this and what some of the danger areas are that might come up where there’s quite a broad interpretation of what both parody and satire are.

It’s really important to make sure that we keep the intellectual property rights of the artist and original whakapapa that things come from protected. It is absolutely fundamental to the continuation of art that the original artists have the ability to have some control over their work. This is not a means by which somebody can say, “Oh, well, it’s just parody.”, but that they’re clearly using artistic material as, say, for a basis of an advertisement or something that they’re going to gain commercial benefit from. Absolutely, that would be a different test under the law.

This particular provision, while it’s still quite narrow, would still involve quite a bit of interpretation. I think we’re going to have a good time at the select committee really thrashing this one out. I look forward to all of the submissions that, I’m sure, we’ll get on this. I hope that this is going to be one of those really entertaining and informative debates that we have. I do hope that people will come forward and bring their perspectives on this.

For me, the most important thing is that we are opening up and maintaining ways of having critique and debate that is a really constructive and informative part of our democracy. Everything that we can do to strengthen our democracy, I think, is important for our Parliament to take on. Recently, we had a forum on, basically, democratic resilience across the world—and in New Zealand, in particular—that was held here in Parliament. I think that was a good start to how this Parliament can work to strengthen our own democracy. Having bills like this supported across the House—or at least widely supported across the House—I think, is a good thing for us to be able to debate it. It also shows that where things are important for our democracy, where they make sense—nobody’s really got a mortgage on good ideas here—we should all support those that are good ideas, not because of what colour of party the person comes from. Members’ days give us an opportunity to really do that: to explore these ideas and to be able to debate them on their merits.

As the deputy chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee—which I’ve got to hope that maybe this is coming to? No? Oh.

Arena Williams: Sorry.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: No? Oh. OK, well, that’s a shame.

Tim Costley: Where’s it going?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: I thought it might be coming to us.

Tom Rutherford: Well, we can vote for it. Yes.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Well, we can still vote for it.

Dan Bidois: Send it to EDSI. They’re not doing anything.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah, exactly. Anyway, this is a bill that I look forward to seeing the process as it goes through the House and through the committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Good on that member for what I’m sure will be a debate about this bill which is light-hearted and which acknowledges that all of us have an interest, as politicians, to see a thriving public discourse that includes taking the mickey out of us. It’s in our DNA; part of the Kiwi approach to our politics is that we can have a bit of a laugh and enjoy a robust debate as well as, at times, taking the mickey out of politicians as a form of legitimate discourse.

It will be very surprising to most New Zealanders to realise that there is not a carve-out in our law for that kind of free-spirited debate already. We should have been there many decades ago, but here we are trying to find a way forward on this in a member’s bill. I congratulate Kahurangi Carter for having this drawn and for taking it through. Well done to you. I know behind the scenes you have done a lot of work to ensure that there is a level of cross-partisan consensus on this. That is the best of us when we can get together and make sure that we can find a way forward that everyone can agree on.

Madam Speaker, when I think about what I would like to see more of, because of this bill, do you remember when I was growing up in the Helen Clark years—and I thought Helen Clark was really my auntie for quite a long time—that we would have these ads on ZM and mainstream radio of Helen Clark singing to an Eminem song and later John Key doing the same? Satire was a real part of the discourse of my generation growing up with politics in our everyday lives.

Tom Rutherford: We don’t do Eminem on this side.

Dr Tracey McLellan: They don’t talk about Eminem.

ARENA WILLIAMS: You were listening to—well, let’s talk about Eminem. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry—legitimate discourse; legitimate discourse. But part of growing up in New Zealand and engaging with politics was about satire; was about being able to laugh at our leaders Helen Clark and John Key. Now, for instance, there is a play about Helen Clark on—the Auckland Theatre Company is running Helen Clark in Six Outfits, which will also be funny and poignant. But being able to have that as part of our culture is absolutely essential to a thriving political discourse. It’s not all about the cost of living—although most of it’s about cost of living, isn’t it? Housing, health, jobs, got it? But also it’s about seeing politicians as people; seeing people who are part of our communities who we can laugh with and at.

This is a bill which helps that along. Good on the member for bringing it, and I hope we pass it into law.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m glad you can remember who I am. No—maybe that’s a bit of a parody. Look, I rise on behalf of ACT. I consider myself probably the most famous arts, culture, and heritage spokesperson in the New Zealand Parliament. But I also have some background in intellectual property and, of course, I probably am one of Parliament’s greatest free speech advocates. I want to congratulate Kahurangi Carter on having her bill drawn from the ballot. It’s great. It’s very exciting, isn’t it? I know I’ve had one of my own bills drawn—it’s very exciting.

I can indicate, straight up, ACT will be supporting this through the first reading because we actually do believe in free speech. If you hadn’t had this bill in the ballot, it’s quite possible an ACT MP would have, so I do want to congratulate you on getting it drawn. I think it’s going to be a really interesting discussion because, as some of the other speakers have talked about, there are some legal issues to kind of tease out. How far does the fair dealings go? What is parody and satire? I think it’s going to be really interesting.

I’m a bit sad it’s not coming to the great Justice Committee, but it is coming to the Social Services and Community Committee. My colleague Laura McClure is on there and I think she’s going to really enjoy being a part of the select committee discussing this. Again, members will know Laura has her own interest in, obviously, technology—in fact, we’ve heard already about deepfakes. Again, she’s very interested in these issues. As Kahurangi Carter said, we have had a lot of changes in our media landscape and what technology can and can’t do, and what it can deliver.

I also think it’s quite fun that it’s April Fool’s Day when we’re actually talking about this bill—I just thought of that as I sitting here. I haven’t actually checked out every political party’s, but I’m sure every political party had a little gag before lunchtime today. Maybe later on, I’ll be looking around to see—oh, the Labour Party didn’t? Well, you had better go and check out ACT’s gag about giving—

Hon Mark Patterson: It’s hard to tell with your stuff, Todd.

TODD STEPHENSON: You’ll have to yell louder—giving cows the vote. You’d be all in favour of giving cows the vote down there, Mr Patterson, wouldn’t you?

But I did think that’s quite fun about it being April Fool’s Day. Maybe The Office, Madam Speaker, is something you’d be more familiar with? Yes Minister—you’re way too young to have watched Yes Minister—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, Mr Stephenson.

TODD STEPHENSON: But, I mean, again, everyone will be familiar with The Office—you’ve got the UK and the US versions, which are a great kind of parody of office life. I think this is going to be a really interesting discussion to have.

I would also note that what we like about this bill is it is narrow and is going to do something to actually protect free speech and artists’ rights as they are undertaking their work, which is great. But I think we also all need to think about what we can do to do other protections in relation to free speech. In fact, today we’ve had what I would call quite an outrageous decision by the Broadcasting Standards Authority to actually try and police the internet. Again, that’s quite a bit of overreach there and, again, it fits in where we’re looking whether some of our laws and our bodies are now fit for purpose in this new age. I do think we just need to be very careful, but I think this is great the way this bill is constructed because it’s going through something very specific. The select committee will be able to get some really great submissions on what this is actually going to mean for people in the community, and then they can make sure that actually how the law is drafted is fit for purpose. I think it’s going to be really interesting to talk around the issues of fair dealings and “fair use”—what that looks like.

As Kahurangi Carter so eloquently outlined in her opening, we’re wanting to protect artists’ rights here, but we’ve also got to think about other copyright implications. But I think they can all be ably managed by the very capable Social Services and Community Committee. ACT looks forward to supporting this through its first reading, hopefully—I think we’re almost there, actually, getting it to the select committee already, but I do commend this to the House. Congratulations again, Kahurangi Carter.

Thank you. Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege always to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to a bill and in particular a member’s bill. I’d just like to congratulate Kahurangi Carter for having her bill for the first time in the House this evening. It’s been a bit of a joke getting it to the House because it’s been on the Order Paper and back off and on and on. It has taken a bit of time, so it’s great that we’re here this evening to speak to the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill.

Copyright applies automatically when something’s published or created. It’s a form of intellectual property right. It gives the person who creates that original work exclusive rights. Copyright balances the right of the authors and creators to choose how they want their creations to be used, and also it balances that with society’s interest in allowing people access to use those works of intellectual creative endeavour. The basic premise of copyright law is that the creator of those works has the right to decide how their work will be used. I think that’s a really important concept to be held at top of mind through the course of the discussion if, in fact, this bill goes to select committee—which it appears to be doing so based on the indications of support from across the House.

This bill will introduce a copyright infringement exception for fair dealing with literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works for the purposes of parody or satire. The question I have to ask, though, is: what is the problem that we’re trying to solve here? There have been no specific guiding court cases in New Zealand that have established a clear precedent or defence for copyright infringement based on parody or satire. Legal experts, actually, have noted there is a distinct lack of litigation in this area.

Quickly looking at what is satire, it’s the art of making someone or something look ridiculous. It raises laughter in order to embarrass, humble, or discredit its targets. In fact, Arena Williams said that taking the mickey out of politicians is part of our social discourse; it’s been going on for years. In fact, it was even recently with us last year with a billboard that appeared in Wellington saying “Defund da Police”. Actually, the Green Party complained to the billboard company, asserting copyright breaches—hmm, curious.

In terms of satire, Kiwis are very familiar with satire on TV: Fred Dagg’s shows, A Week of It from the 1970s and 1980s, Eating Media Lunch,bro’Town, Wellington Paranormal,7 Days. Now, one that actually challenges social norms as satire, as the member in charge of the bill, Kahurangi Carter, has stated in her opening address, I all recommend you go and look at Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby. That absolutely addresses the social norms. It’s actually doing a bit of a re-tread at the moment on YouTube.

Parody, on the other hand, copies the original artwork. It transforms it through creative processes to create something brand new. Radio, of which I was a member for 30 years in my broadcasting career, uses parody quite a lot. Radio Hauraki was one of the proponents of radio or music parody—parody songs. Back in the 1980s, there was a song which featured in the top of the charts for many, many years, 27 weeks. It was called “The Bridge”. The pirates on Radio Hauraki turned it into a parody song called “The Fridge”. It was all about electrical appliance love. That song, the parody of that, there was no court case. There was no legal component. They weren’t attacked for the parody of that. In fact, there’s been a whole bunch of parody songs across the years: “Rugby, Racing and Beer”, “Puha and Pakeha”, “Stole My Car”, a parody song based on that very popular hit song, “How Bizarre”. Any court cases about parodies? No, not one.

The only other thing I’d like to quickly mention is that this bill does not address moral rights. It’s silent on moral rights. How will moral rights be assessed? They are personal, unassignable rights which vest in the author of the work the right of attribution to be identified as the creator, the right of integrity to object to derogatory treatment or alteration of the original work, the right against false attribution—to not have a work falsely attributed to them. They are primarily focused on protecting the creator’s personal and reputational connection to their creation.

New Zealand First, for these reasons of moral rights not being identified in this piece of legislation, does not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, I just have to put the question, which is that the motion be agreed to.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Tēnā ra koe, e te Pīka.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just remind the member of the dress code for the House.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei, i tēnei o ngā pire nā Te Pāti Kākāriki, otirā te mema o Kahurangi Carter. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe mō te kawe mai i tō pire ki tēnei Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to us all in the House. I stand to give voice to the Māori Party’s comments this evening regarding this particular bill from the Green Party; indeed, from the member Kahurangi Carter. Many thanks to you for bringing your bill to this House.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori tonight to talk to the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to provide the fair dealing of work that does not infringe copyright if the purpose is for parody or satire. This amendment allows for a much wider interpretation of current copyright laws in favour of the public wishing to use copyright works through parody or satire to promote an issue freely.

Parody and satire are among the oldest forms of criticism and play an important role on making light of an issue members of the public may feel strongly about. This bill would protect artists from being sued by large companies if they use copyrighted works for parody or satire purposes.

Within our policy platform, when we look at Mana Ōrite, we support this bill on the side of small creators, regular people rather than big companies. Mana Mokopuna supports the importance that our mokopuna are able to express themselves freely without the fear of being sued.

Ko ētehi o ā mātou nawe, ētehi o ā mātou āwangawanga ki tēnei o ngā pire [Some of our issues, some of our concerns regarding this particular bill]—some of the concerns we do share, though, is that we must be mindful of the relationship between this parody and satire expectation and when we look at the Wai claims, such as Wai 262 and the protection of taonga. We do live in a future and world of artificial intelligence, and I also just want to say, along these lines, supporting the bill from Laura McClure of deepfakes is also the opportunity that we can bring to the House when we have members’ days like this and members’ bills, to see how we can make changes to laws or bring in bills like this one.

So within the Wai 262 claim, just the protection of taonga and cultural appropriation—that’s what we’ll hear from the select committee. Then, also, I’m relieved and excited to hear that the National Party and ACT Party are supporting this member’s bill. Tēnā rā koe Kahurangi mō ō mahi. [Thank you, Kahurangi, for your work.]

So, the protection of artists and, also, freedom of speech. I runga i tēnā, e tautoko ana a Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā pire ka kawea mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō. Tēnā koutou. [With that, the Māori Party supports this particular bill that has been brought before this House of Parliament tonight. Thank you, all.]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and take a call on this Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. I would like to add to the congratulations in the House tonight to the member Kahurangi Carter for bringing this bill into the House.

Now, some of us grew up, not with Yes Minister, but with McPhail & Gadsby. In that era, the creation of parody content was significantly different and a lot harder—took a lot longer than it does today for people to make memes or to make parody or satire content. I, myself, was very lucky to work in an industry where we made a lot of parody and satire content on a show called What Now, and I wanted to acknowledge also Andrew Gunn, who skirted a very fine line around what you could get away with in the world of parody and satire, and did it masterfully.

I think what we all know is that the world has changed significantly since 1994 when the current Act was drafted. This amendment in this member’s bill does a lot to bring the Copyright Act up to date to be able to include parody and satire in it.

Now, a couple of things I just wanted to take note of that have been referenced in earlier speeches tonight. The first was an ACT MP saying to a Green MP—this sounds like a meme, right? An ACT MP says to a Green MP, “If you hadn’t done it, one of us would have.” It’s not often that that happens. The other was a member of New Zealand First being in opposition because they claimed that meme and parody and satire makes someone or something look ridiculous. Fair point, New Zealand First manage to do that in this House every single day, of themselves, so they don’t need a change to the Copyright Act for that to happen.

The main reason I think it’s so important to progress this is because—and that we support this—it does strengthen freedom of expression. It also means that unintentionally funny things like people claiming they can do their weekly grocery shop for $60 can be immortalised in a meme, and we can watch that over and over and over again. So, Madam Speaker—

Tom Rutherford: What about someone asking 12 questions of the Minister of communications?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Madam Speaker, when that member has finished, I’ll take this time to commend this bill to the House.

It’s a great pleasure to rise in support of the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill’s first reading, in the name of Kahurangi Carter. The interesting thing is that this is not the only bill that’s been pulled from the biscuit tin under the name of Kahurangi Carter; there’s been a second one since that. Some MPs spend decades in this House and never manage to actually get one drawn. This member has struck gold early in the parliamentary term.

I tried to calculate the odds. It’s actually very rare to be able to get two pulled, but, actually, she’s not the only member in this current Parliament that has had two bills pulled. I would mention that Catherine Wedd has also had two drawn: one for a three-day maternity stay, and then the other regarding a social media ban. I was lucky to get one of my bills drawn earlier this term, which was about fairer taxation on ACC payments, which actually ended up being part of a Government bill. Anyway, I’d better get back to the substance of the bill. I see you looking at me, Madam Speaker.

The purpose of this bill is to introduce, into New Zealand copyright law, the authority to use copyright work for the purpose of parody or satire. This does bring us in line with other countries, such as Australia, the US, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany—I could go on. Currently, our Copyright Act, from back in 1994, is a bit of an outlier. This amendment ensures that creators and commentators have legal breathing room to use works for a bit of comedy or for critical effect without the fear of infringement.

I actually thought it was already the law—if you see some of the Green Party’s social media—however, it turns out that’s not parody or satire; they’re actually being serious. Of course, I joke, but, as they say, many a true word is said in jest. Better to try and fail than never to try at all. I believe that, in some quarters, this has already been coined the “meme bill”. While it sounds modern, the reality is that this is not really a new idea. We have been trying for many years to finally address this gap in our law. It has been left open for nearly two decades.

It’s worth noting the history of this bill. Back in 2008, a then Labour-led Government considered a fair dealing exemption for parody and satire, yet it never saw the light of day. In 2011, a former Green MP drafted a member’s bill to do exactly this. He argued that it was essential for protecting free speech and reflecting realities of internet accessibility and technology. However, that bill fell by the wayside. Then, in 2018, Simeon Brown introduced his own bill to seek a very similar thing. What we’re debating today is, in effect, the resurrection of these early efforts, updated for the modern age.

It is ironic, perhaps, that it has taken this long to protect the rights of a good joke. We New Zealanders, as has been mentioned, do like to take the mickey. There is more colourful kind of language that can be used to express the same thought, but I think it’s important to note that defamation or offensive misuse and other rules will still be enforced.

The Copyright Act hasn’t been updated for a number of years. I think the last time was in about 2008. A lot has changed since 2008. Technology has changed. Our consumption of media has changed. Nobody in 2008 would probably have envisaged watching videos that now dominate social media or the internet. YouTube was only three years old at that stage. Streaming services weren’t a thing. iTunes definitely wasn’t a thing. Some of my colleagues were still in primary school. These advances are impacting the way we create, distribute, consume, and adapt material. Who would have even thought of TikTok back in 2008.

I think it’s important that we also have a wider review of our intellectual property laws, which I think the Minister is looking at. I think what we have here is a very simple carve-out, a small change to the Copyright Act, which I think will have a good effect on humour, comedy, and also free speech. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take what will be a short call on this bill. Can I, firstly, just acknowledge my colleague and friend Kahurangi Carter for having this bill drawn from the biscuit tin. She certainly is starting to have the touch in terms of having bills drawn from the tin. I want to acknowledge the hard work that she has done in bringing this bill to the House. It looks, from the contributions of members thus far, as though its trajectory is on the way to a select committee of her choosing. I want to acknowledge the work that she has done.

This is a bill that will provide an update to reflect what is, I think, a modern approach to the way in which we all go about our lives; in particular, being able to debate and participate within a democracy and as part of a democratic process. Ms Carter herself talked about the fact that we don’t want to stifle creative expression. We certainly don’t want to do that. As someone who is a child of the 1980s, believe it or not, I reflect on and remember The Billy T. James Show. At the time, actually, when you’re growing up and you’re watching that and you’re experiencing that, to know that aspects of that particular show now would perhaps be questionable, based on the behaviour of people, perhaps, in this place, I think lends itself to a further conversation.

Whilst this will have a broad applicability in terms of journalists, those involved in social media, creatives, and others, I think the actions and the contributions of members in this House will naturally provide some fodder for content. I look forward to seeing the progress of this bill, and we’re very happy to support it.

It’s a pleasure to round off, from the Government’s side, the first reading speeches for the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. I certainly echo the sentiment of previous speakers in welcoming Kahurangi Carter and congratulating her for having her bill drawn. As my colleague Hamish Campbell said, the odds are certainly in your favour, so maybe consider buying a Lotto ticket this Saturday!

Also, I do wish to indicate that I too am a 1980s baby, so I do remember fondly the Billy T satire, who was whanaunga, actually, if you think of those who are from the mighty Maniapoto area. He’s buried just outside of Ngāruawāhia. If you’re going along State Highway 1, you’ve got a lovely hill up near Ngāruawāhia—that was where he was laid to rest. I certainly acknowledge his contribution.

There are bills of consequence in this Parliament, bills where you think, “This is why I came to this House.” Sadly, this is not one of those bills, but I do wish to acknowledge that it is an anon-nomoly.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Phenomenal.

Tom Rutherford: This’ll be the first one they use!

DAN BIDOIS: Ha, ha! There you go. I think it is worth tidying up. It’s no disrespect to the member, but thank you for raising this issue in the House.

When I think of my own experience with satire, of course Billy T. James comes to the fore, but in nearer times, actually, looking at the regime that they have in America—I spent a few years living in America and follow closely a lot of satire shows that are in America. One particular show is Real Time with Bill Maher. I don’t know if anybody on the other side—

Simon Court: How good is Bill Maher.

DAN BIDOIS: He’s good. He’s a good centrist. He’s a Democrat, but he doesn’t mind criticising the Democrats, and he also gets the Republicans in. He is, I think, probably one of the most well-known satirists, who has fallen afoul and gotten on the wrong side of presidents. I think Donald Trump has had a massive run in with him in the past. It is so important for the functioning of a free and liberal democratic society that we enable these satirists to contribute to the public discourse in a way that connects with the public. That’s why people like Bill Maher and The Daily Show and Yes Minister and The Thick of It and Veep. I don’t know if anybody remembers the show Veep. That’s a great satire show—also American. I think they have a huge role to play in helping to engage a wider audience with public discourse.

It is on that basis that this side is going to be supporting this piece of legislation. I just want to do a plug: if the member does want to send it to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, we will have a bipartisan approach on that bill, or the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, as my colleague Vanessa Weenink suggested. Look, we look forward to the submissions on this bill and to tidying up the piece of legislation. It is well worth reviewing this, after what has become an outdated piece of legislation.

My colleague Hamish Campbell again indicated the history that this bill has been through. I look forward to following with interest the submitters that may come, and I wish to do a call to all two viewers at home that are tuning in, that if you feel strongly about this piece of legislation, submit on the bill and you will be heard as part of the select committee process. On that basis, it is a great privilege to commend this bill to the House.

Well, it’s been an engaging and fun debate. I’ve enjoyed hearing about the other members’ bills that have been pulled from the biscuit tin in this term and in previous terms. Thank you to everyone who contributed to this debate, inside and out of the Chamber. I’ve really enjoyed working across the House and getting to know lots of you better so that we could get almost full consensus across the House for this really important bill.

I want to reaffirm why this bill is necessary and to talk about some of the ideas that were raised. There was a lot of talk of 1980s babies as well, so I just want to say, shout-out to the 1984 babies—that’s right.

As we close this first reading, I want to affirm why this bill is necessary. This Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill has been coined the “meme bill”. When memes first came out, I actually used to call them “me-mes”. It was about a couple of years later that someone said, “You know they’re not called ‘me-mes’, right? They’re called ‘meems.’ ” So for everyone out there still calling them me-mes, they are memes.

At its core, this bill is about balance and fairness. It ensures that fair dealing applies to parody and satire, while maintaining protections for copyright holders and for Māori cultural works. Internationally, similar provisions exist and function effectively without undermining creative industries.

Now, National talked about the importance of our parliamentary work and the importance of taking on this bill and how important the select committee process will be. National also talked about this post-truth era that we are living in and how it will be important to modernise this bill and to really needle in at select committee to make sure that it is fit for purpose. ACT supports the bill and that is not satire, everybody. In fact, it’s not even an April Fool’s joke. There we go. The self-coined most famous arts and culture spokesperson—Todd Stephenson—said that we need to look at that “fair dealing” and really solidify what that means in law, to provide clarity to artists and to our legislation.

We heard from Labour—thank you very much—around how taking the mickey out of ourselves is part of the fabric of our country and is in our DNA, and talked about shows that we’ve all grown to love, like The Billy T. James Show and Yes Minister. Actually, our lovely colleague Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke said, “Yeah, bro’Town!”, and I said, “Were you born when bro’Town came out?” So, yes, we all have had that parody and satire touch our lives.

Simon Court: South Park!

KAHURANGI CARTER: Ha, ha! Now, New Zealand First did talk about intellectual property rights and spoke about the lack of litigation around this bill and why we actually need it. I just want to say that it is hard to quantify how much art has not been created or shared due to the fear of massive legal fines.

I would like to say, ultimately, this bill is necessary and is a carefully considered step forward. It provides clarity and supports creative expression and upholds democratic freedom. I urge the House to support this bill, and now we get to voting and I guess we will see if National and ACT indicating support is the ultimate April Fool’s joke or not.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 115

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 8

New Zealand First 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee