Shanks Katrina: Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16092] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill. When I was looking at this bill—and I have been briefed on it a little bit—I asked where the sector actually sits and who is for and who is against it. Not a lot of people are really for this bill. When one goes into the sector and talks to the people in the auction houses and asks them whether they support the bill and whether they think that it is a good idea I must say they are not very hot on it. I have a couple of friends who are artists and who sell a bit of art. I asked them whether they support this bill and whether they think it is a good idea. They were not very hot on it either. They said they were happy to sell their art to get what it is worth on the day then to let other people enjoy their art and onsell or on-gift it if they wanted to. So I tried to figure out why this bill is here and why it is going to a select committee. Then I worked it out. It is because when Helen Clark leaves Parliament and her art is sold at an auction or through a broker she will get 5 percent royalty. That is what this bill is about. It is about protecting her revenue source going forward. It is to protect the Prime Minister’s revenue in the future. 
Eric Roy 
: But she never painted it. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: No she did not paint it. So that must mean that— 
Eric Roy 
: There’s an issue. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: —there is an issue. If Helen Clark’s picture of the Beehive were to go to an auction house and be sold who would receive the proceeds of that auction? 
Eric Roy 
: That’s a good point. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I say to Eric Roy from Invercargill that it is a really good point. Would the proceeds be shared between the person who signed the picture and the person who drew it? I imagine that it would be a 50:50 cut. Say the sketch was worth $500 on a good day 5 percent of that would be $25 and half of that would mean she would get $14.50 from its sale. We need to consider whether it is worth passing this bill for $14.50. One would think the administration costs would be a little bit higher than that. 
National opposes this bill on a number of fronts. We believe there are huge issues in the copyright sector and that this issue is probably not one of the big issues. If we are going to talk about doing something about copyright let us talk about a comprehensive reform so we can look at how copyright should be. To do that we need an energised Minister who can come in here with fresh eyes look at it and add some value to the sector. I believe that in a few months’ time that Minister will be Chris Finlayson who will be stamping his mark on copyright matters for New Zealanders. 
The bill was introduced on 13 May to establish a scheme entitling visual artists to receive a royalty payment each time an original work is resold commercially through an auction house gallery dealer intermediary or professional involved in the business or dealing in works of art. It would not apply to any private sales trading or anything less than $500 in value. So we are talking about a very very small catchment with this bill. In fact I would hate to think how many pieces we would be talking about in New Zealand. As this bill will apply only to those pieces of art that are sold to New Zealand residents or sold in New Zealand the pool will get a lot smaller. 
It will be interesting to see at the select committee how many pieces of art this bill will affect. When we think of the cost of getting this bill through Parliament the cost of setting up an agency or an agency tendering to take on the right to monitor and to distribute funds from a pool to artists will it be worth it or will it be just setting up another agency with just another cost attached? Will it be just something else for people in New Zealand to deal with instead of focusing on what we should be dealing with which is child poverty raising education standards addressing taxes or providing a first-class health system which are the real issues facing New Zealanders? I can tell members right now that those mums and dads who are struggling to pay their mortgages as a result of increased interest rates increased petrol prices increased food prices—and that is without talking about the cost of cheese milk and butter which is just astronomical—are not really concerned about resale rights for artists. We are talking about a small pool of people when our country is facing much bigger issues and those issues will unfortunately get worse. 
The issue of resale royalty rights came about from France in the 1920s. In 1920 a resale royalty right law was passed in France that was known as droit de suite. It came about because of the wife of Jean-François Millet who was an Impressionist painter who lived from 1814 to 1875. He died and his wife was left in poverty but the price of his paintings was spiralling up. The Government at the time thought that that was really unfair and in order to make it fair it brought in a law to allow her to get royalties from the resale of her husband’s work. This law was brought in at a time when there was no such thing as welfare or social security. The law was also brought in to assist the widows of the French artists killed in World War I. So the law was brought in for a reason which was to allow the widows of artists who were living in poverty to get some money. We are in a much different place today in our society than we were back then. 
If we look at overseas schemes to date over 50 countries have a type of resale royalty right. Under a European Union directive in 2001 member countries that did not already have a resale royalty right had to introduce it into domestic law by 2006. Britain implemented the Artist’s Resale Right Regulations in February 2006. In Australia a resale royalty right measure has not been adopted. The Federal Government announced in its 2006 Budget an allocation of $6 million over 4 years to support visual arts as an alternative to introducing the scheme. So Australia does not believe that the scheme would be good and it found another way round it just as New Zealand has for our struggling artists. 
National will vote against this bill for a number of reasons. Artists should be able to sell their pieces of art freely and they do at market price and they are rewarded for that. However when people go to resell that piece of art and there is a resale commission which in effect is an additional tax then the value of the art they bought will reduce immediately. 
We also oppose the bill because it could encourage the exodus of art transactions if the royalty is paid. By that we mean that if someone has a piece of art he or she could sell it overseas and not in New Zealand— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Sorry that was my mistake with the bell. The member still has 2 minutes. I see that the member has finished.