Sepuloni CarmelSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just settling in for a good few hours on this bill—only kidding only kidding.Hon Scott Simpson: There's lots to talk about.SIMON O'CONNOR: There is actually. At one level there is a lot to talk about. But I mean look by and large this—as I said in the second reading speech and as the Minister knows better than I do and the officials to acknowledge them—is part of a free-trade agreement.Look a couple of questions Minister. One is actually picked up from a speech by one of your colleagues just earlier about the using in this case of a Māori artist's imagery. Just to be clear this bill covers the artworks itself not if you will the aspects of that artwork and that in many ways relates to the purpose too when we look at clause 3(b)(i): acknowledges and respects the role of Māori as tangata whenua" etc. etc. which is absolutely appropriate. I suppose the underlying question is there's the physical particular visual artwork—the question is will aspects of those artworks if someone chooses to use a particular moko in their artwork be covered here? Are we creating a little bit of an issue particularly with—is it Wai 262?—the use of what is Māori or Pacific or another culture's imagery; is that going to be caught up in some way? Will that German artist that was referenced earlier have to pay part of a royalty to the New Zealander because they used an aspect of cultural art rather than the artwork itself? I hope I'm being clear on that—just the difference between concepts and the physical artwork.Second question is around—oh yeah that's right—the amount of royalties. We're going for 5 percent—so this is clause 16. Just for the Minister if she were to address the concerns of some within the reselling space who would see this ultimately sort of as an imposition and a tax that's going to be passed on to consumers in some way that's going to be ultimately quite a bureaucratic—sorry potentially could be quite a bureaucratic system. Does she have concerns there? Something I raised in select committee I'm now looking at clause 20; it's around the collection agency. There's a little concern certainly on my side that the agency could almost become too big as it sort of self-generates a lot of work to if not justify itself but also an ever-growing desire to try and garner further information. So I suppose the question there is does she have any concerns that the collection agency could become too large? And if not what does she see as some of the ways to fence that in? And final question which you'll be delighted to know is I think—well not think; I know because I read it. The department's regulatory impact statement said we're going to pull in about $700000 a year which is—that's OK. But does she think that's going to be chewed away by just again the process of running the collection agency? Does she have any findings from officials or otherwise to give us a bit of an indication of all we're collecting is less than a million a year? And let's be clear the artists themselves love it but less than a million a year less the costs of running the system do we think this is going to be value for money? So just a few quick questions there.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): So there are a few questions in there; I'll do my best to respond to them. Firstly with respect to imagery that may be used without permission by an artist by a business or by someone else there are separate copyright rules and laws around that and so that's not part of the legislation that we're passing today. However I do recognise the concern of the member that raised that in her second reading speech. Also with the royalty 5 percent is where it's being set. This seems to be consistent with other countries who have similar schemes certainly consistent with comparable countries that we work a lot with. So we're happy with where it has been set. There will of course be the deduction for the collection agency that helps to support the ongoing costs of having a collection agency in place. This seems to work well also with other countries. I think the one advantage to being behind as such with respect to putting this in place is that we have had the opportunity over the course of at least a decade—more than a decade really—to observe other people's schemes in relation to this and so have seen what their experience has been. So we don't have any levels of concern with that. We're also able to observe their experience with collection agencies. So again no level of concern there. Obviously that will need to be set up and then run. It will be monitored. We have made sure that the Official Information Act can be applied to the collection agency. That was the good work of the select committee in actually interrogating the legislation and how it would be implemented and what the collection agency would look like and what powers we would need to be able to continue to hold the collection agency accountable as well. So we do not have concerns with respect to what that will look like once it's established."