SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Like the previous speaker Rachel Boyack I myself am also a musician but I don't think anything I produce would quite make the cut on the low end of the threshold so no personal gain from this I suspect. ACT will continue to support this bill. We support free trade and the free-trade initiatives that the Government has explored and is exploring. We do also understand the frustrations of artists where they see their work they sell it initially for a set price—it might be a low price in context—and then in future seeing that being sold multiple times for much higher prices as value tends to appreciate hopefully and the frustration that you know where's their slice and you know they actually created the work. So we do certainly understand that.We do also hope this does provide proper remuneration in the sense that it does actually have an impact for those artists because that has been another one of the core purposes of this bill to make sure that that funding is there that they are supported but I do suspect with the bureaucracy which could cause some financial impacts but also with the infrequency of creating art that the individual impact the benefit on artists may not be as grand as we hope. None the less the framework is there so we'll see how it goes. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage herself stated that compared to the European Union and the UK sale prices here are not as high typically.I do query the impact on galleries themselves because this is an incentive to sell privately. Galleries are already quite an expensive way to sell artwork. Some of them take cuts of around 30 percent give or take and so this is an additional fee on top of that. So you can kind of see that this may actually have an incentive to not use galleries and therefore more artwork is exchanged—not under the table not in the grey market; it's still official but none the less less tracked.The bill as we've just discussed in the committee stage does go a bit above and beyond and I appreciate the Minister explaining the thinking behind that. It's not purely identical to the schemes in the UK or the European Union but none the less appreciate that New Zealand has had the opportunity to do something a little bit differently.One concern I guess is the ongoing accountability of this fund particularly when artists cannot be found or their descendants cannot be found. We've got a committee that has almost an—and I wouldn't want to make any accusations but an incentive to almost not find the artists because if they don't find the artists then they've got the option of keeping that money and putting it in the fund and using it for you know wider community work in the arts sector whatever it may be which is another issue of accountability. But none the less you know the proof will be in the pudding on that to see just how well that's administered how well they go about seeking and finding artists to make sure that money's passed on. If they cannot find someone does the person who paid that fee have the option of a clawback? Yes I know that option is in the legislation but is it up to them or is it up to the committee? It seems like it's up to the committee so will there be some sort of fairness or monitoring of that?Although I wasn't in the Social Services and Community Committee I don't believe there was extensive discussion on some of the unlikely but none the less possible issues around income tax and tax across jurisdictions—also the issue of money-laundering which can come unfortunately into the art space now and then. As I raised just then in committee stage the issue of making someone ineligible based on conduct—that's not an option in this and I just you know urge future Governments to have a think about that.With that ACT will continue to support this. We do have concerns; I've laid a few of them out. It is a bit of bureaucracy but we do get it and we do support free trade so with that I commend it to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.