Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. So I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak at this the second reading of the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. I acknowledge the comments made by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and as she has done the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. I was not a member of the select committee at the time but I've read its report—obviously in conjunction with the bill itself. It seems to me that from the discussion at the first reading and the work of the select committee some significant thought has gone into ensuring that a regime will exist that is as robust and as clear and accessible as possible. So I confirm to the House that National will continue to support the bill and I'll explain some of the reasons for that in the remainder of my contribution.You might be wondering what I'm going to say for another nine minutes about this bill Madam Speaker. I'm wondering the same thing so let's enjoy discovering that together as best we can. I might not speak for a full nine minutes—I won't exceed my knowledge on this one so it could be quite a short speech in fact.Actually I thought the first interesting thing was that it is a new Act—or is a bill to create a new Act; it's not an amendment. That's significant in the sense that this is a new kind of mechanism that we have in New Zealand. I'm not aware of any equivalent regime within this country to treat any other objects—Melissa Lee: Collectables.CHRIS PENK: —or goods or collectables as my colleague and friend Melissa Lee has said. But the point's been well made I think throughout the legislative process so far that equivalent regimes do exist overseas. The legislative statement at the first reading pointed out that some 80—eight zero—other countries have such a scheme in place. I think we shouldn't be so persuaded by the existence of other schemes in other countries that we would do it automatically therefore—not least of all because there must be logically speaking 120 or so other nation States that don't have a regime. However I think it's indicative that this is something that has been at least somewhat tested overseas—there is precedent in that sense.That's actually helpful when we think about aspects such as the impact of the scheme on the secondary art market and in considering what that impact might be. In the absence of information in a domestic New Zealand context we can look overseas to the UK and Australia where reports published in 2014 and 2019 respectively outlined the way that those regimes have been operating in those different countries. Seeing as I'm on the subject it seems that there's been relatively low administrative costs to art market professionals in those countries. So with some degree of confidence based on that overseas experience we say in this country that—or at least in this Parliament; certainly from the National Party side of things supporting the comments of the Minister—we think that the regime will not be overly onerous or burdensome and out of proportion with the intended aims of the bill.So what are the aims of the bill? Well basically the whole thrust of it of course is to provide value to artists who create visual artwork—and we can talk in a moment what that that might actually mean—such that would encourage them in their work and provide a degree of fairness when on-sale takes place such that they would be able to capture some of that increased value. As one would hope that they could over time if for no other reason than the outrageous level of inflation that we have in this country at the moment.Also there's sort of another layer of purpose to the bill which is so that we can meet our international obligations. It's a bit of a quirk of our constitution I suppose that the Government of the day can enter into international treaties and express a commitment in that the country—you know our own country New Zealand—will legislate in support of that. So Parliament sort of has a moral obligation to follow through what the executive Government has done. Of course it would be unusual for an international treaty to be entered into by one side of politics or the other such that it wouldn't be supported on the other side of the House. Certainly we don't find any difficulty here in saying that with the UK FTA and the EU FTA—being the Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of course European free-trade agreement. We support those themselves and we also support the mechanism within those whereby those free-trade agreements indicated that New Zealand would enter into such a scheme or look to enter into such a scheme within two years—that we do so now. So it's a reciprocal scheme. It applies equally I understand on those foreign jurisdictions as it does to New Zealand.The other element I think that's worth commenting on is just how it will work in practical terms. The Minister's given a bit of a flavour of that already so I don't intend to repeat her comments—there'd be no value in doing that holus-bolus. But in terms of the threshold the Minister has mentioned that there will be regulations made to support in terms of the detail. I actually think it's quite sensible to have regulations that set out some of the detail of the scheme. I'm receiving some support for that idea. In my mind it's a good idea because if we're talking about particular monetary value and you know through inflation effectively—whether a significant degree of inflation or just throughout the passage of time—if the dollar amounts become less meaningful or frankly inappropriate then regulations can be made from time to time by the relevant Minister or Government agency that align it more realistically with the economy at that time. Of course if we were to have these dollar figures in primary legislation—the bill that we are engaged in passing now—then it would be necessary to come back to Parliament on each occasion to change those dollar numbers and thresholds and that probably would not be a good use of the House's time.So we see further in the detail and again as discussed at the select committee the resale right will be inalienable which is to say it can't be alienated from the person who it belongs to it can't be separated and it can't be sold or transferred except on the death of the artist. So the estate of the artist will be able to receive the benefit of this resale right. So it's quite a special kind of property right in that sense—possibly not unique but certainly slightly unusual. It can be held jointly or individually—that is to say you know by one natural person or perhaps more than one together.One interesting feature—and again I think it's quite an astute mechanism—is to say that the duration of the resale right will be the same as the copyright period. It makes sense to align those. They are both in a way intellectual property rights associated with the artwork. Actually it's smarter even than saying the current copyright duration is the death of the artist plus 50 years—we say it's going to be the same as the copyright period. So if the copyright increases as is currently mooted to 70 years—seven zero years—then this would likewise extend. So they'll always be matched. I think that's a good bit of drafting. A good bit of thought has gone into that from those proposing the bill in the first instance and as I say with the approval the green light from the select committee on that point.As for what is included in the definition of a visual artwork" it's famously said that art is very subjective. It's a point that might be confirmed if one spills one's coffee in the cafe at an art gallery and finds that one has accidentally won a modern-art prize for example. But anyway there's no accounting for taste—taste of the coffee either I suppose. But if one spills it one can't taste it in that way.So I'll move on and only to note that obviously we're not interested in the subjective value of this so-called art as it probably is in many cases but really what the nature of it is. That's defined as well as can be hoped in the bill and in quite a broad and inclusive way. We don't want to be too restrictive in that way. That would defeat the purpose and the Minister's given some discussion on that.So my final comments are really just to note that there's a certain amount of enforcement that will be allowable mostly through civil proceedings as opposed to criminal. A person would have the right to go to court to enforce their rights under the regime in accordance with the Act but also in a more general kind of way—it might be something contractual or it might be you know a general right to go to a court of law and to say that one has been done wrong. So interesting stuff sort of in an economic kind of way in a legal way and it's a very fascinating idea relatively unique—or unique in fact I should say. National does continue to support it for the reasons that I've said."