McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to continue to support the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill but I will note a few comments and highlight some concerns along the way. As Melissa Lee has pointed out Parliament's hands are somewhat tied with legislation like this and hence as a party that supports free trade we continue to support this. But it does put us in a bit of a tricky situation and I do think with a bill like this if it was coming into this House in isolation and not having to support a free-trade agreement the outcome might be slightly different.One comment on or reflection on something the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Hon Carmel Sepuloni said in her first speech—that this will do great things and it will benefit artists on an ongoing basis—I would question that as to how much of an impact this will have because a lot of art is not sold very often and a lot of artists don't produce a wide range of work. So on an individual basis I do question whether this will have a significant monetary benefit for those artists. I don't think it's going to be as great as it's perhaps touted to be. We feel this law is going to be complex more complex than people are possibly saying because even though there are models overseas with any new bureaucracy—an agency like this with all its costs—comes complexity.A few comments on the bill as it has come through and been amended by the Social Services and Community Committee: it refers to a New Zealand citizen having the same meaning as in the Immigration Act—again this is something that possibly would have been better with the Citizenship Act. I'm not entirely sure why that was used.With regards to who is eligible the eligible artist is a person domiciled or resident in New Zealand"—so we're referring to citizens and New Zealand residents as was the commentary in the select committee—and the Minister said this deals with the issue where an artist or perhaps their descendants might have no connection to New Zealand. There are many artists here in New Zealand who make for instance Māori artwork who are on temporary visas—who are migrants. You know we purchased a piece of artwork from one recently and took it on a trip to Taiwan to gift to an official over there. Now they eventually may leave New Zealand and suddenly this piece of New Zealand heritage no longer comes under this framework.Looking at the definition of visual work I think this just highlights the complexity—the various definitions; the vast array. This is going to be a minefield and perhaps open up a bit of a cottage industry for lawyers having to work through the definitions.We're glad that it covers galleries and museums for instance publicly funded or otherwise though I do wonder how all galleries will feel about this because again there is another slight distortion in the market. There is a disincentive for instance for someone to sell. They may just go and become a private seller. They may say "I'm not going to go through a professional gallery because that's going to be an extra cost." So I think there are some unintended consequences there that may unfold.In terms of the rights held by the artist I think there's perhaps a question of the fact that these rights continue no matter what. While it may be a small percentage there are situations where someone may be involved in criminal activity; they may be charged—and people can lose their knighthoods over this stuff. So the question is: if someone commits serious criminal offending and they go to prison what is actually excluding them from benefiting from this? They still get the 5 percent while they're in there and when they get out. You do have to wonder perhaps if that's something that does need to have a little bit of attention to and reflection on.Again this could be a bit of a minefield with regards to the rights of successors who they are and where they are in the world. Again I think if you're a lawyer this would be a wonderful piece of legislation.The last comment I'll make is regarding the collection agency if they cannot find a person or they cannot find an artist. They have to take that money and they can decide themselves what they would like to do with it. They could transfer it to this new cultural fund that's been created and I'd question the transparency of that fund and what it's used for but most importantly I'd question the decision of the collection agency and whether or not they decide to put it into that fund themselves or return it to the person who paid the royalty. Does the person who paid the royalty have a say in this? Looking at the legislation it appears that they don't.So like I said we're in an awkward situation where because of a free-trade agreement Parliament has to pass this piece of legislation. Again if it was in isolation—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!Dr JAMES McDOWALL: The final comment I'll make Madam Speaker—thank you very much—is that in isolation I think personally I would not support this bill proceeding any further. I think it is a lot of bureaucracy but unfortunately sometimes we have to do these things. So with that I commend it to the House. Thank you."