10. GARETH HUGHES (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Commerce
What is his response to the United Nations special rapporteur’s report that criticises terminating people’s internet access because it is a violation of human rights?
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) Link to this
It was an interesting read. The Government does not have a response to the report, because at no point that I could see does it mention New Zealand. That may be because New Zealand’s law does not currently permit internet service providers to suspend or terminate internet access for repeated copyright infringements.
Given that the report talks about internet termination, which is on our law book currently in New Zealand, and given that the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011 violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which New Zealand is a signatory, will the Minister now heed the call of the special rapporteur for all States to repeal or amend existing copyright laws that permit users to be disconnected from internet access?
I am not sure that I agree with the assertion in terms of the breach of the international covenant the member refers to, but putting that to one side for a moment, I do not have any intention of revisiting an issue that has taken the best part of maybe 3 years, if we include the last Government’s attempt at it. No, I do not intend to look at it again at this point.
Given the United Nations special rapporteur’s objection, can the Minister explain to the House how our copyright law is compliant with international human rights?
It would not be appropriate for me to give a legal opinion as to whether those particular international covenants are complied with in the way the member seeks, but what I can say is that my reading of the rapporteur’s report indicated primarily that his concern was around termination. I accept there were other matters in the report, but of course the legislation as it currently exists does not have those provisions in an operational state, although they remain on the books, to be brought in by Order in Council if other matters contained in that legislation are not fully utilised for the benefit of rights-holders.
On what basis would the Minister enact internet termination, a power he has under Order in Council with the law recently passed under urgency?
As I have repeatedly made clear, the Government will not bring the Order in Council into effect unless the notice process and remedies in the Copyright Tribunal are ineffective. Officials are keeping in close contact, and will continue to keep in close contact, with internet service providers and rights-holders to determine whether a further deterrent is needed, but at this stage the Government has no intention of bringing that provision into operation.
Will the Minister consider the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a criterion before deciding to enact internet termination?
What I can say from my reading of the rapporteur’s report today is that it was quite a wide interpretation, in my opinion, of the provisions relating to article 19. I am yet to be persuaded that the assertion in that report, that because of that provision this is a human right, is actually the case. I have to say I would take some convincing, is the answer to the member’s question.
Is the Minister aware of recent research from Germany, in Europe, which shows that making content available online is more effective at combating internet piracy without infringing basic rights, and what is the Minister doing to encourage increasing content online?
When will the Minister comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and remove—or terminate—internet termination from our law books, given that it is disproportionate, there is no evidence it works, and it takes away a fundamental modern human right?
As I said earlier, I am not persuaded that the assertion the member makes in terms of the applicability of article 19 carries the weight that he asserts it does.
Clare CurranGiven the findings of the United Nations special rapporteur and its criticism of the “three strikes” copyright laws, which can result in disconnection from the internet, will the Minister support a complete review of our intellectual property or copyright laws in New Zealand?
My reading of the report was that the “three strikes” provisions the member referred to were created in the context of a description of the laws as they exist—I think, from memory—in the UK and France, in the particular paragraph that was referred to. The last Government in 2008 indicated that a review of copyright legislation as it related to digital matters would go ahead in 2013, from memory. The Government is continuing with that plan, and I expect copyright in respect of digital matters to be reviewed in 2013, as the member knows from when my office answered her query.
I seek leave to table the report of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Mr SPEAKER