Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to contribute to the debate. As my colleague Simon O'Connor has said on this side of the House we will be supporting this bill to select committee with some concerns that officials who actually signed the free-trade agreement—which we support—have bound this Parliament's hands in having to introduce a piece of legislation that is rather unusual.I know that my colleague across the House—Angie Warren-Clark—said if the rest of the world have done it it must be a good idea. I would not think that she would agree with everything that the rest of the world actually does.But you know in this particular sense this is the same bill that was introduced back in 2008. When this was introduced last night during the urgency motion I decided to have a look at the Hansard debate notes that happened in 2008 and I read the speech of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. Some of the comments that he raised—some of the concerns that he raised—do sound really pertinent in our examination of this bill and that is because this is actually about property rights.This is about the property of an artist who paints the art who actually sells it to someone through an art gallery or a museum and once it's resold there is going to be a 5 percent tax on it. But if it happens to be sold privately that doesn't occur. So the tax doesn't actually get attached if it was a private sale. There's also a threshold between $500 and $5000 which will be set in regulation. [Interruption] Madam Speaker I'm trying to speak and I don't think I said anything that was controversial and there is massive—Angie Warren-Clark: It's not a tax. That's why.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Go ahead Melissa Lee. If we could just let the member give her speech.MELISSA LEE: Thank you very much. Well there is a fee that is being charged that is effectively a tax really. People who are purchasing the art potentially have to pay the art gallery's commission and the 5 percent on top of that. I quote one of the things that Christopher Finlayson said which also gives rise to some questions that I hope the select committee will actually examine: This legislation will encourage an exodus of art transactions to jurisdictions where the royalty is not paid. Art resales will become private and underground in order to avoid resale imposition." I think that is a really pertinent comment that he made during the 2008 debate and I hope the select committee will ask the officials to provide certain evidence.The other thing he also has mentioned in his Hansard is: "The scheme has been condemned by the people it is designed to benefit. Seventy percent of the 50 million francs levied under the French scheme in 1996 went to the families of only seven artists including the heirs of Picasso and Matisse. The same situation has occurred in both Germany and Australia. The scheme will be very costly to administer."I wonder Minister—I guess this is something that we may actually traverse through select committee and also through the committee of the whole House stage—if this threshold is set at $500 for example it is a very low threshold and it may potentially be that the cost of administering the scheme may be higher than the 5 percent levy or the resale right for visual artists that will be returned to the artist or the artist's family for example.One of the things when we look at the bill: it actually talks about visual arts. I think the definition of "visual arts" needs to be quite tight in the sense that according to the departmental disclosure statement I note that the visual art includes a range of artwork sold in New Zealand and they include specific reference to the—and I quote—"cultural expression of Māori and Pacific peoples as well as to the ethnic and cultural varieties of the listed artwork." Does that actually mean that if a tattoo is created—which is cultural and has mana—and that design is sold and somebody else has it it will incur the levy as well? So if somebody designs a tattoo and they resell it and more than one person has that design how does the levy actually work or the tax actually work? Does that mean that every tattoo that the tattoo artist actually works on gets the 5 percent on that resale of that artwork? [Interruption] Well these are questions that we have to actually ask. The obligation of the Government is to make good law and I think when you come to art we enjoy art. And I know that somebody walking past my office actually made a comment about this beautiful painting of Mount Cook which was painted in Korean colours and that was actually done by an amateur artist. Sometimes I go to school fairs and I collect school student art and I pay no more than whatever—I think student art often goes for a maximum I think of $300. So those actually don't hit the threshold. I don't ever resell those; I bought them because I love them. But the thing is that should I ever resell those—if I actually sell it for more than the $500 threshold; potentially it could be the $500 threshold—does it mean that for a piece of art that I bought 30 years ago I have to go and start chasing trying to remember which market I bought it from? These are some of the questions that will have to be asked during select committee I think.I do realise that this is a piece of legislation that we do need to pass because of the free-trade agreement with the UK and the EU. But I think there are major concerns that this side of the House actually does have. I think these are questions that need to be put to a select committee and the officials and we look forward to the submission process where the public the artists and the industry involved can query answer or raise their concerns about this bill. I commend the bill to the House."