The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill will repeal section 92A of the Copyright Act, which was introduced in the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008. In so doing, it aims to deter illegal file-sharing, holding individual account holders liable for their actions rather than Internet service providers, and compensating copyright holders for damages caused by illegal file-sharing. At the same time, it aims to educate the public about the problems caused by such copyright infringements.

Labour holds in high regard the right of individuals to have their innovative creations, whether they are in the form of music, films, or other entertainments, protected. Because of the importance that we place on protecting intellectual property, we will do our bit to curb illegal file-sharing by supporting the referral of the bill to the Commerce Committee. But our support for the bill does come with several reservations, particularly around the issue of the suspension of Internet users’ access, the amount of detail in the bill that is left to regulation, and the bill’s general lack of clarity in certain circumstances.

When Labour was last in Government, we recognised the seriousness of the issue of Internet piracy by implementing section 92A of the current Act, which requires Internet service providers to suspend the accounts of repeat file-sharing offenders. This was done, as I think has been recognised across the House, with the best of intentions, just as I believe that it was supported by the National Party on the same basis. Clearly, after widespread public discussion, the House has come to the realisation that that section is particularly problematic. It was referred to on the Net as the “guilt upon accusation”, law because it gave the potential for Internet users to have their access suspended without due process.

This bill seeks to remedy this unjust situation by implementing a “three strikes” system, whereby three notices will be given before an account is suspended. Perhaps this is one occasion where “three strikes” might make a tiny iota of sense, although not in any other public policy area, I say to Mr Garrett. Although this process, hopefully, will give fair time in which to change the behaviour, along with the opportunity for offenders to learn about the damage caused by illegal file-sharing, we still have the issue of suspension, which is problematic. In our view the regime is generally more equitable, and we do look forward to hearing what the public have to say on the provisions at the Commerce Committee.

It is important to note, as I referred to earlier, that Labour sees certain aspects of the bill as being inequitable. A particular example is the suspension of Internet access. The provision in the bill regarding suspension is, as InternetNZ has said, unworkable and unnecessary, as Internet users can simply start new accounts with other Internet providers if they are cut off. It is also arguable that the suspension of Internet access breaches important human rights, such as the freedoms of expression and assembly. It is interesting to note the evolving academic debate on the role of the Internet and the dissemination of information through it in a human rights context. It is important to keep in mind how to protect and uphold such rights in a contemporary context.

Along with the issue of access and the Internet’s relationship to human rights, there are several other reasons why Labour supports the bill only as far as its referral to the select committee. These include the loose definitions of Internet service providers and of what suspension would actually entail, and the amount of the bill’s detail that would be left to regulation. We hope that the select committee process will be able to bring about some constructive development of these rather vague parts of the legislation, and I am sure that the Minister will welcome careful consideration of these issues at the committee.

The bill affords the House an opportunity to get things right in this increasingly important area. We should seize that opportunity and make every effort to balance in an appropriate manner the competing rights and interests that are at stake. I look forward to the Commerce Committee hearing the evidence and reaching what I hope will be, on this occasion, satisfactory and enduring conclusions.