Swain Paul: Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Swain Paul: Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16088] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was actually quite a disappointing contribution from the member Chris Finlayson. 
Hon Member 
: Come on! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well I am going to come on and talk about it in a minute. The member raised some historical issues. I learnt a few things regarding the French experience which I thought was entertaining. It is the old story: if we keep our ears open we learn something every day. 
The member made the point that this is episodic lawmaking and he wants a back-to-basics blue-sky full review. You see the problem is that in all cases that is usually an excuse for doing nothing. If that member were ever to become a Minister—mercifully it will not happen in my lifetime—the standard old thing would occur. Officials always say: “This is a bit piecemeal. What you need is a full-scale review.” That is code for “Minister you should really do nothing.” That is the point. 
The member knows that the complex area of copyright is difficult. Of course it is. I acknowledge that and that was acknowledged when the last piece of legislation went through the House. It is particularly the case in the area of electronic reform. There is no question that it is difficult. From start to finish a legislative change is probably a 5 or 6-year piece of work. Is the member saying that nothing at all should happen in the meantime? Is that what the member is honestly saying? That could be applied across every piece of portfolio work. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why wasn’t this done in 1920? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In 1920 the French did it but the point I am making is that from time to time issues come up that need to be addressed. I am not saying there is not a need to go back and look at the issue; I am saying that that is a poor excuse for doing nothing now. 
Let me ask the member the basic question: is the fundamental principle of an artist being able to recoup a royalty on resale a fair and good principle? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: No. Did the member listen to the speech? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I did listen to the speech. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Well then the answer is entirely clear. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: So the member is definitely saying no to that. I am acknowledging that there are complexities with the issue that a select committee should look at but is the member saying that artists should not be able to recoup something? [ 
Interruption 
] All right so the member is saying that an artist should have no right at all to recoup any royalty on resale. That is what I take the member to be saying. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: They don’t like creative people. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That leads me on to my next point; the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage has reminded me of it. The member saying that the Government has not done anything for 8½ years is a bit rich. In that short period of time this Government has done more for the arts community than the previous National Government did in its entire 9 years in office. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Prime Minister has put the arts back on the agenda in New Zealand. There is absolutely no question about it. Is the member prepared to acknowledge that the Prime Minister and the Government have done a lot of work for the arts community over the last 9 years? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Political interest in the arts. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well I would like that member to talk to the film industry to the arts industry to the writers to the creative sector and to the music industry. All of those sectors would acknowledge that under the leadership of the Prime Minister and with the hard work done by her hard-working Associate Minister the issue of the arts has come back on the agenda in New Zealand whereas the arts were dead buried and gone under the previous National Government. It is not right that the member does not even grudgingly acknowledge that a lot of work has gone on in the arts community. Maybe he is talking to audiences that are different from those that we talk to. But irrespective of people’s political persuasion irrespective of their hue most people in the arts community will say not only that there has been a commitment to bringing the arts back on to the agenda but that funding has gone into the arts as well. So the argument the member tried to raise that somehow nothing has gone on in respect of the arts is a poor one because in fact that is not the experience of people in New Zealand. We have had a vision to ensure that the arts community the community that promotes New Zealand’s identity comes back as part of our national identity. We have done a good job on that. We should be proud of it and outside this House that member would probably acknowledge that some good work has been done in this area. 
Sandra Goudie 
: And you blew it all with a stupid bill. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member says it is a stupid bill. I come back to the other question: is the fundamental issue an important one? We can argue about whether this bill is the right way to do it but is the principle—which presumably a number of people have been arguing for for some time—the right thing to do? As the member says it has been in place in France since 1920. He raised some other interesting issues which presumably the Government Administration Committee might want to look at but the point is that we have drawn on the experience of other schemes to get to this particular point. 
The bill amends the Copyright Act as the Associate Minister correctly pointed out to establish a mandatory resale right for artists when their artistic works are resold in New Zealand. The bill creates a 5 percent royalty payment and artists will receive the payment when and if the work is resold for over $500. I think that counteracts one of the arguments Chris Finlayson raised. A collecting agency will administer the royalty payments which are an economic right that provides an extra incentive for artists to create works of art in that they will receive ongoing benefit from that art. I thought those were some pretty important basic principles. The Associate Minister has brought forward legislation that encapsulates those principles. That is what needs to be done if we want to do something about the principles. I have not heard an argument against the principles. I have heard a lot about the need to delay to have a holistic review and to talk about these things more and more. The Associate Minister has brought forward an issue that in my view does need addressing. 
The sorts of issues the member has raised are ones that I imagine will be discussed at the select committee. I imagine that some contrary views will be aired at the select committee but in the end it will report back progress after having heard those considerations. If it were the case that we should do nothing until we had done a full review then we would never do anything about anything. We would never do anything about the health system never do anything about education never do anything about labour reform and never do anything about superannuation. We would never do anything about anything. Tragically that was the record of the National Government of 1990-99 apart from a few things around benefit cuts changing legislative law and superannuation. The real problem is that members opposite thinking they can sail into Government by promising to do nothing and to have reviews just will not cut it. 
Some reasonable issues were raised by the member but the point is that the Associate Minister has started from a basic principle which is that artists should have some right to a royalty when their art is resold for a sum over a certain threshold. She has brought in legislation that encapsulates that principle. It will go off to the select committee. I will support it going to the select committee. The select committee will look at the arguments and bring back a report in due course. I urge the House to support the bill going to the next stage.