Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) Link to this
I move, That the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill be now read a second time. This bill will establish a public lending right scheme to replace the New Zealand Authors’ Fund, which is currently administered by Creative New Zealand under section 31 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994.
The Authors’ Fund exists only because of the action of some members of Parliament to insert the Authors’ Fund into that Act, but I am delighted to say that this legislation repeals section 31 of that Act, disestablishing the New Zealand Authors’ Fund and establishing a public lending right scheme for New Zealand authors in stand-alone legislation with greater transparency for the scheme’s purpose and operation. Like the New Zealand Authors’ Fund, the public lending right scheme recognises that authors deserve payment in compensation for the ongoing use of their works in public libraries.
The provisions in the bill have been developed in response to calls from authors and stakeholder groups over time. In particular, in response to this, a review of the Authors’ Fund in 2000 by Creative New Zealand made eight recommendations for reform. I am confident that this legislation will substantially implement the recommendations of stakeholder groups, and of authors, of course, to deliver the arrangements they seek.
The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I understand that owing to time pressure the committee was unable to report back on its deliberations on the bill. I would like to acknowledge the comments of those who made submissions. I found them very useful and insightful, and, as a result, I intend to move some amendments to the bill in the Committee of the whole House. These amendments are mainly concerned with definitions of key terms to ensure that there is clarity about eligibility for payment. They also clarify the membership of the advisory group.
The Government believes that this bill, with the amendments specified in the Supplementary Order Paper, will provide a firm foundation for the administration of the public lending right scheme. I commend the bill to the House.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
As the Minister in the House, Judith Tizard, knows, National will support the second reading of this bill. I look forward to the Committee stage, because some interesting definitional matters will need to be dealt with, and I will explain the rationale for those in a moment.
This legislation has been a long time coming. I was chair of the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand, and was responsible for organising the report that was written by Geoffrey McLay, then a senior lecturer in the law faculty at Victoria University. He came up with a number of recommendations for reform of the Authors’ Fund. It had been a cause for concern, and I must say a cause of dissension, on the part of the Society of Authors, whenever it met with the Arts Board or with the Arts Council of Creative New Zealand. Its members were always concerned about the way in which the Authors’ Fund was run and, frankly, I think they had some reason for that because I do not think that the administration of the fund by the Arts Council was always all that flash. That is why I was so pleased when this legislation was introduced and referred to the Government Administration Committee.
The Minister is quite right that because of pressures of time and the need to deal with the resale royalties legislation, we could not report this bill back to the House with a report as one would have hoped, and therefore it comes back to the House without any proposed amendments. As the Minister has said, she has a Supplementary Order Paper that will make a number of changes.
What is the rationale for those changes? Both Mr Dail Jones and I, in our first reading speeches, expressed concern about the breadth of the regulation-making powers set out in clause 10 because, as drafted, the fund was replaced, the public lending right was established in New Zealand, the scheme was established, the purpose was stated, and that was about it. Everything else was to be left to regulations, and essentially an advisory group was to be appointed that would do all the work and prepare some draft regulations. They would be passed by the chief executive of the department of State that the Prime Minister designated would have responsibility for the regulations and the administration of the fund—and that was it. Both Mr Jones and I, as students of Professor Geoffrey Palmer, as he once was, thought that that was entirely unsatisfactory, and that the statute ought at least to say something about an author or a book, even if it did not descend into a lot of minutiae. So we invited Sir Geoffrey to come along to the select committee, because we thought that his views on regulation would coincide with ours. Indeed they did; he thought there needed to be a little bit more in the statute than there was.
As a result of that, parliamentary counsel, the officials, and the members of the committee had a bit of a discussion, and we decided that we would insert the definition of an author and the definition of a book. However, it is very easy to say that it must be almost a primer 1 exercise to define a book, because everyone knows what a book is, but it can be imagined that in the digital age it is not quite as straightforward as that. Although we have a definition, none the less—and this will be dealt with in the Supplementary Order Paper so I will not detain the House now—regulations may need to add conditions to the definition of “book”, and also to the definition of “author”, as it was not an entirely straightforward exercise to define those two terms. As I say, when we come to the Committee stage I will have a good look at those terms, because a number of issues arise. I was very grateful to the Minister a few days ago: I referred a couple of queries to her and her officials came back with a number of answers, which I will respond to in detail during the Committee stage. So that is the reason why there will be a Supplementary Order Paper and why there is no report.
This is a reasonably straightforward piece of legislation; none the less it is very important to the authors of New Zealand. They should be very grateful to the late Rt Hon Norman Kirk, who established this fund in 1973. Following that, as the Minister has told us, when she was on the equivalent of the committee in 1993 at the time the Arts Council was being reformed, she and a number of others managed to insert reference to the Authors’ Fund into the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act. Perhaps on reflection I think it may have been better if it had been placed somewhere else, although I admire her desire to work for authors. Whether the administration of this kind of fund sits happily in an arts development agency is perhaps a difficult question. It probably does not, in my view. None the less, the intention was very good, and I have to say that it probably meant that the Authors’ Fund was kept alive for the time that it was. But consistently with other jurisdictions it is now time to put the Authors’ Fund on a more permanent basis, recognising a public lending right that has been recognised in many other jurisdictions. Once we tidy up this legislation we can get it passed as quickly as possible, and the authors will have what they have been yearning for for many years.
As I say, National supports the second reading of the bill. The great thing about a public lending right is that if one believes in property rights, one can support a public lending right. If one is a socialist and believes in welfare, one can support a public lending right. So there is really no one in this House who should be opposed to a public lending right, and it is one of those strange things that should result in unanimity. So there we have it—National supports the second reading, and I look forward to the Committee stage tomorrow.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou.
“Ka tangohia tētahi aikiha hīraka, ka keri ai ki ngā ringaringa kau he oneone, kia kī tonu te kapunga o te ringa. Ka huna anō te aikiha me te oneone ki tana pūkoro. Ahakoa ki hea, ahakoa māhea, ka haria tēnei oneone kia maumahara. Tērā ka mate au ki wāhi kē, he mea atu i tōku kiko hei whakawhanaunga, hei rāhui i whenua kē.”
Ko wērā ngā kupu a Kēri Hulme, nāna te Booker Prize; ā, e 1.4 miriona āna pukapuka te bone people i hokona huri noa i te ao. He kupu kōrero e pā ana ki te iwi Māori me te whenua, e whakamārama ana i tētahi take hei whiriwhiri mā te Whare, he take e ahu mai ana i tēnei pire, the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill.
Ko te kore o ngā ture whakamaru i te mātauranga tuku iho, he take nui e whakararu ana i ngā iwi taketake o te ao i ngā tekau tau maha nei. Ahakoa mātou e whakaae ana, ka whakamaru tēnei pire i ngā tikanga o te hunga kaituhi kōrero inā utua rātou mō te tukutuku i ā rātou pukapuka i roto i ngā whare pukapuka, ko tā mātou whakapae me uru mai anō hoki ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei tētahi pire tiaki i te mātauranga tuku iho. I a au e kōrero ana, ka mahara ake ki a Kāterina Mataira, a Meretā Mita, a Apirana Taylor, a Keri Kaa, a Hinemoana Baker, a Patricia Grace, a Rowley Habib, a Witi Ihimaera, a Hone Tūwhare, a Hīrini Moko Mead, a Ranginui Walker, a Apirina Ngata, a Pei Te Hurinui Jones; a Te Rangi Hīroa Buck; a Ngāhuia Te Awekōtuku, a Paul Diamond; a Roma Pōtiki; a Donna Awatere; a Charles Royal; a Saana Murray; a Alan Duff, a Mihipeka Edwards, a Maria Bargh, a Linda Smith, ko ērā ētahi kei te mōhio au, kāore he mutunga ki te hunga nei.
Mēnā ka haere koe ki te pae tukutuku a Huia Publishing, ka kite koe, e kotahi rau, e iwa tekau mā rua ngā kaituhi Māori kei reira anake. Ko rātou mā ngā kaituhi, kaipupuri i ngā taonga tuku iho ā ngā mātua tūpuna i ngā tau tekau e hia kē nei. E ai ki a Ahorangi Hīrini Moko Mead, “Ehara i te mea, he reo Māori, he reo Pākehā rānei ā mātou tuhinga kōrero engari, he pai rānei, he whakahihiko i te ngākau o te hunga kōrero, whakarongo rānei.” Mā te tuhituhi i tō rātou mātauranga tuku iho e whakahihiko ana i ō mātou kaituhi Māori i te ngākau o ngā whakatupuranga. E tika ana me whakapūmautia ō rātou tikanga tiaki i te mātauranga tuku iho, arā, aua tikanga e ai ki a Wai 262 i whakaritea, i whakaaetia ki a rātou i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi.
He take tāku mō te whakamaru i ngā tikanga o te iwi Māori kua tuhia nei wā rātou kōrero engari, kua kite au, kāhore ngā ture mō te mana pupuri me te mana pūkenga e hāngai ana ki ngā tikanga Māori, ki te ao Māori rānei. He tikanga i ruia mai i Rangiātea, he tikanga ā-iwi, ehara i te tikanga ā-tangata. Ko tērā take anō mā mātou o te Pāti Māori, kia taea e ngā rōpū kaituhi Māori, rōpū Māori pupuri mātauranga, rōpū tā pukapuka Māori, te whakaputa whakaaro ki te komiti wherawhera, arā, ngā rōpōu pēnei: Te Rōpū Whakahau, te huinga tōpū o ngā kaitiaki Māori i ngā pukapuka, i ngā puna mātauranga, i whakatūria i te tau 1992 ki te manaaki, ki te tautoko i ngā tāngata Māori kei roto i ngā whare pukapuka o te motu e mahi ana; Te Wānanga o Raukawa, nāna ngā tohu mātauranga mō te tiaki puna mātauranga; Te Hā rāua ko Ngā Pou Kaituhi Māori, ngā komiti ā-Toi Māori Aotearoa mō te tuhi kōrero; rātou ko ngā kaitā pukapuka Māori, ngā etitā Māori me ngā kaituhi Māori.
Hei whakakapi i taku kōrero me mihi au ki te kaituhi Māori nō Ngāpuhi, a Hēmi Hōri kua eke ki te taumata mō te Tohu Kaituhi o ngā Whenua Here ki Ingarangi mō tana pukapuka Ocean Roads. Engari ko tāku pātai, mēnā ka taea e ia te whiwhi i ngā utu ā-tau i te mea, ka kōrero te pire nei mō ngā kaituhi whai pānga engari horekau he kōrero, he aha taua pānga, kei a wai taua pānga, ā, mā wai e kī, ka whai pānga, kāhore rānei.
E tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire me te tono anō rā, kia whakarau te komiti i ngā take pēnei i te tiaki i te mātauranga tuku iho me ngā tikanga e whai pānga ai te kaituhi Māori.
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou e te Whare.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us all.
“She takes a silk handkerchief from her pocket, and with her bare hands, scoops up soil, enough to fill the hollow of her palm. She secretes handkerchief and earth back in her pocket. Wherever I go, however I go, I carry this earth for memory. And should I die in a strange land, there is a little more than just my flesh to make a friend and sanctuary of alien ground”.
Those are the words of Booker Prize winner Kēri Hulme, whose book The Bone People sold over 1.4 million copies throughout the world. They touch on the importance of the relationship between Māori and the land, and highlight one of the key issues this House needs to consider in respect of this Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill.
The lack of legal protection for traditional knowledge has been identified as a significant problem by indigenous people all over the world for several decades. Although we support the fact that this bill may help protect the special interests of our people by making annual payments to New Zealand authors for the use of their books in libraries, we would also point out that legislation providing legal protection for traditional knowledge should also be brought before this House. In making these comments, I think of people like Kāterina Mataira, Meratā Mita, Apirana Taylor, Keri Kaa, Hinemoana Baker, Patricia Grace, Rowley Habib, Witi Ihimaera, Hone Tūwhare, Hīrini Moko Mead, Ranginui Walker, Apirina Ngata, Pei Te Hurinui Jones, Te Rangi Hīroa Buck, Ngāhuia Te Awekōtuku, Paul Diamond, Roma Pōtiki, Donna Awatere, Charles Royal, Saana Murray, Alan Duff, Mihipeka Edwards, Maria Bargh, and Linda Smith; and those are just some of the ones I know. The list is endless.
In fact, if we go to the Huia Publishing website, we will find 192 current Māori authors on their books alone—people who, along with many others, have been writing and preserving our cultural heritage for decades. As Professor Hīrini Moko Mead says, “It’s not whether we write in Māori or in English, but that we write well, and inspire our readers and listeners.” Māori writers have been inspiring readers and listeners for generations by putting their traditional knowledge into print, and their rights in respect of their mātauranga Māori deserve to be protected, rights that the Wai 262 claim says are guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi.
One of the issues I wish to raise is the ongoing and urgent need to protect the interests of Māori in print, and in doing so I note that copyright and other intellectual property laws do not lend themselves easily to the protection of the interests of peoples such as Māori, whose world view spans centuries, and does not necessarily insist upon individual ownership. The other issue for us, the Māori Party, is to ensure that Māori who have an interest in writing, in library and information management, and in publishing are able to bring their views to the select committee. I refer to organisations like Rōpū Whakahau, the collective of Māori librarians and information specialists formed in 1992 from a need to provide professional and cultural support to Māori who worked in libraries throughout Aotearoa; Te Wānanga o Raukawa, which delivers Māori information qualifications; Te Hā and Ngā Pou Kaituhi Māori, the literature committees of Toi Māori Aotearoa; and, of course, Māori publishers, Māori editors, and Māori writers themselves.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge Ngāpuhi writer James George, who has just been shortlisted for the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for his book Ocean Roads. But I would also ask whether he would be entitled to annual payments under this bill, because it refers to eligible authors, but leaves open the question of eligibility, the criteria for eligibility, and who actually gets to determine that eligibility.
The Māori Party will support this bill, but we would ask that issues such as legal protection for traditional knowledge, and eligibility criteria, be fully considered at select committee level. Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us, the House. ]
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
I am delighted that we have the opportunity to support the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. As a huge fan of libraries and books, I think it is a wonderful opportunity to support our authors. I just note that this payment will not be made to all authors; it will be made just to those who meet the eligibility criteria that are going to be set by the advisory committee.
If we look at clause 13, “Establishment of advisory group”, we see that the advisory group will set the regulations that have been identified in clause 10—and they are quite substantive—and that includes being able to determine the definition of “author”. One of the problems raised with us was the fact that one might pay an author of a book that meets the eligibility criteria, but there is not just an author; there may also be an illustrator. How to define that, and how to work out who gets what, will be left up to the advisory group. So not all authors will receive some payment; only those who meet the eligibility criteria will receive it. I think that point needs to be made quite clear.
It is interesting to note that 28 public lending right schemes exist internationally, and that the underlying principle is to pay authors for the public benefit derived from the recurrent use of their works in a public library. I think that is a pretty sound principle, but it does have to meet the criteria that the advisory group set. International practice has excluded non-book material held in libraries, such as CD-Roms, videos, audio tapes, music scores, and other online services. The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill reflects that principle by paying creators for the public benefit derived from the current use of their works, and that is an eminently sound proposition.
The bill is a very short bill. There was considerable debate about the fact that in clause 10 substantial reference is made to regulations needing to be set—quite substantial, in actual fact—but there did not seem to be a way of avoiding that, because it will be people who have the experience in this field who will be on the advisory group that will be able to determine the parameters of each of those regulations that are being referred to.
Suffice it to say, National is supporting this bill. We look forward to seeing the conclusion and the positive results in support of our authors, and their wonderful contribution to our many libraries throughout New Zealand.
DAIL JONES (NZ First) Link to this
New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. I thank the National member Chris Finlayson for reminding the House of the comments we both made at the first reading stage. The bill has been referred back from the Government Administration Committee—[ Interruption]—I tell Mr Harawira, and no doubt he will be making submissions at the Committee stage on what should be done.
The bill is still not satisfactory, of course, because no amendments have been made to it, at all. However, some suggestions have been made, which will be considered in the Committee stage. It is still not satisfactory, because those amendments are relatively small. One would have hoped that more could be done, but I guess if we want to try to get this bill through as soon as possible, then we will be leaving it to the authors to decide the ultimate conclusion.
Mind you, I do not really believe that people who are authors, and who have very liberal views on issues, might necessarily be able to agree on what should be done, and we do not want a situation where there can be no agreement. Sometimes a body like a parliamentary drafting office needs to be involved in the drafting of the legislation, rather than leaving it to numerous third parties to try to reach a decision. Literary people and artistic people have a bad habit of not being able to express themselves as well as they might, because they are too liberal minded. Sometimes the real rigour and discipline of a lawyer is needed in order to come to a conclusion and have decisions made. We will see what happens, and I wish them all the greatest amount of luck.
I also make the point that New Zealand First supports this bill because it supports the views of all religions, all creeds, and all races. We do not enter into this House with just a one-race viewpoint of how things should be done. We work on behalf of all the people of New Zealand, and wish that when the regulations are finalised, all the people of New Zealand will benefit. We do not come to this House with a one-eyed view on the matter. This is a short bill, and the sooner we can get it through the House, the better.
NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
I rise to support this second reading of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. National welcomes this bill. We believe that this issue should have been looked at a very long time ago. We support authors, who have wanted this legislation to secure their genuine property rights for a very long time.
As has been mentioned, the bill is short and simple, although it will need some more work and some Supplementary Order Papers. It will establish a stand-alone, statutory framework for the Authors’ Fund, and it obliges the Government to pay authors for the use of their books in our libraries. That is the right thing to do. Authors should receive fair compensation for their intellectual property, and National welcomes this commitment.
It is difficult for creative people to make a living in New Zealand. National is always keen to see creative people get fair compensation for their creative endeavour, preferably through a simple, cost-effective structure, and as of right. Legislation that pays creative people fairly for their intellectual property must be supported. It is always preferable for creative people to be paid directly for the value of their work, rather than to have them always seeking grants and having to go regularly, cap in hand, to beg a living from the Government or other arts-funding organisations. Too often we see our artists, writers, and performers having to put time, energy, and effort into applying and lobbying for grants rather than actually delivering their creative work. In this case, the argument is simple: the public lending right provides for authors to receive annual payments in recognition of the fact that their books are available for use in New Zealand libraries. If their books are of value to libraries, and to the public who borrow them, authors should be paid for the recurrent use of their work.
New Zealanders are avid readers and we have one of the highest rates of book borrowing and use of reference works, so we should be paying authors for the use of their intellectual property. A public lending scheme is a common arrangement around the world, with 28 countries having similar schemes. Of course, this was the argument behind the setting up of the original New Zealand Authors’ Fund, which was established in 1973, and which was a good first start. But there have been ongoing problems concerning its effectiveness in recent years. The fund is now administered by Creative New Zealand, and there has been vigorous debate over the level of funding, the process for determining payments, and the way the fund is administered.
In reality, the Authors’ Fund has been neglected by this Government. There has been a lack of certainty around funding, because the fund does not have direct-line funding. That means that although authors’ books continue to be borrowed in libraries, the income stream to authors is not guaranteed. Funding comes out of Creative New Zealand’s budget, and so Creative New Zealand has discretion over the total amount of funding. And there have been no increases since 2002. In real terms, the returns to authors have decreased dramatically over the last 5 years, because the amount—$500,000—allocated by Creative New Zealand has remained static, and the numbers of books entering libraries has increased. The payment rate per book has dropped from $2.78 in 2002 to $2.09 in 2007, so authors have gone significantly backwards in real dollar terms, and even more dramatically so in value terms. We all know how much the cost of living has increased for New Zealanders over the last 5 years, but the return to authors has decreased. In good faith, the authors have supplied their intellectual property to our libraries for the enjoyment and edification of New Zealand readers, but the value of that intellectual property has been underestimated and underpaid by this Government.
Authors have waited a long time to see these changes. A promise to review the Author’s Fund was made in 1999 in Labour’s manifesto. Now, 9 years later—9 long years later—something is finally happening. As members have already heard, my colleague Christopher Finlayson, National’s spokesperson on arts and culture, commissioned a review of the Authors’ Fund in 2000 when he was the Arts Board chair. This bill is a result of that review, but it has taken 8 years to get here. The bill was promised in 1999, and had the work done on it in 2000, so what has stopped Labour from delivering on it? It is a little sad that the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill is finally being read for the second time, under urgency, on the last day of the last term of the Clark-Peters Government. Do Government members really think authors will reward them for this belated vote-catching ploy?
National will support this bill going to the Committee stage. We support the right of creative people to be rewarded for the use of their intellectual property. We are embarrassed that this Government has allowed the gradual erosion of authors’ property rights over the years, and we look forward to the time that they are paid a fair return for their work. New Zealanders are avid readers, we are proud of our writers and illustrators, we delight in borrowing and using their books in our libraries, and we want to make sure that they get a fair go. We want to make sure they get fair payment for the public enjoyment and benefit that we all derive from their work. Thank you.
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) Link to this
I am really pleased to be able to speak in the second reading of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill, and I must declare to the House straightaway that I anticipate being a financial beneficiary under this legislation, just as I have been a beneficiary of the Authors’ Fund, which is run by Creative New Zealand. Who knows what books I may have inside me in the future! There could be a really interesting one, I guess, about the last 3 years.
I am very, very grateful to Creative New Zealand for administering the Authors’ Fund; I have always found it to be very fair, helpful, and efficient to deal with. From the point of view of an author, it is always nice, particularly if one’s work is out of print, to receive a cheque from Creative New Zealand—and in future years it will be nice to get it in a different form—because it is a little message that people are still interested in what one has written and are still reading it. Speaking as an author for whom this cheque is not my sole means of income, it is not—
Hon Dr Michael CullenWell, I can tell Dr Cullen that actually I have done quite well out of my writings. He will have some time on his hands next year, no doubt, and may like to have a try at writing something himself.
The cheque comes and it is nice. But the sad thing is that on 31 March the rapacious Minister of Finance has his hand out for his share of it. If we are really serious about improving the position of authors in this country, in addition to passing this bill, maybe it is time to have a look at the taxation rates. Like everybody else, authors will benefit from the very, very significant tax cuts that are planned by the future National Government.
It is interesting that the barrage that met me from the Government side of the House last night is going to continue. I welcome that because, as I said to some of the gentlemen over there last night, I had some success in life before I came into politics. I have not come into politics as an alternative to being successful. Part of that success has been being able to write stuff, in the form of books and articles for journals and magazines, that other people actually find worth reading and enjoyable to read. That is one of the points.
When an author writes something, that is his or her intellectual property, and a lot of people do not actually appreciate that. There are people who think I keep stores of books in my car boot and elsewhere in my car, and that they are there just to be given out at will. Those things have value to an author, and this bill acknowledges that value. I for one welcome the announcement in Dr Cullen’s—no doubt—last Budget as Minister of Finance of an increase of $2 million in funding for authors over a number of years. Although that is minimal, at least it is a start.
Hon Trevor Mallard
Sue Moroney
The ASSISTANT SPEAKERI could begin to feel a little intimidated here, but I will not. It is only Mr Mallard. Everybody knows that Mr Mallard is the last person I would be intimidated by. Anyway, to come back to the bill, which really is important, frankly, I think the authors of New Zealand deserve to be treated with a bit more respect, when we are debating this bill, than the members opposite are displaying.
I was talking about—
Hon Judith Tizard Link to this
Most authors do not have a large public salary to subsidise their writing.
Those are the dying gasps of a dying Government. I just stress the importance of acknowledging the property right that authors hold. If we look through the history of this House, and if we look at the members who have been successful authors, we cannot help but reflect that that crowd over there pales into insignificance when compared with the greatest author to sit in this House—and he sat with Labour—John A Lee. Of course, John A Lee was a pretty upfront, honest sort of a guy. One of the great privileges in my life was to meet him in the late 1960s at Canterbury University. Those members do not want to know about authors like John A Lee, because in his book Simple on a Soapbox, a magnificent book, he exposed the reality of the inner workings of a socialist government. I certainly want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of members of this House who themselves have been authors, and who were not fortunate enough to benefit from the funding that is available to today’s authors.
There is another point that needs to be made, too.
Hon Lianne DalzielIf the members opposite would just listen for a moment, and stop being so negative and critical in their comments, I would tell them that New Zealand is beginning to develop a significant literary tradition. It is only just coming.
Madam Assistant Speaker, I comment to you that in your final days in this House, presiding over a bunch of fourth-formers is probably not what you need. I will do my best to ignore them and stick with the bill .
I make the point that as New Zealand develops its literary tradition, the establishment of the public lending right is a significant step in the recognition of authors. Whether they are writing fiction or non-fiction, they contribute to New Zealand and what it means to live in New Zealand, and to an emergent literary tradition. On behalf of all authors, I acknowledge the importance of this work. [ Interruption] The fourth form does not give up, Madam Assistant Speaker.
It is very tempting to have a real crack at Mr Mallard, Madam Assistant Speaker, but he will keep.
I will pull together what I have been saying. On this side of the House, we are supporting the bill. We are a little disappointed, when we look at the history of it, that it has taken so long to get to this point. It is one more bill that is being rushed through under urgency, when I think we could have shown the authors of New Zealand a little more respect than to do that, but at least it is happening. I for one am delighted to support the bill. I am looking forward, as I say, to becoming a beneficiary of the legislation. I say to members that, who knows, the next book just may tell the truth about people like Trevor Mallard.