Jones Dail: Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16091] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill is very interesting legislation. It is a new idea. With the way the bill is drafted it is almost a work of art in itself bearing in mind the new concept that exists in it. New Zealand First will be pleased to support this bill’s referral to a select committee. 
New Zealand First is a party that believes in actually doing things. We do not believe in opposing things just for the sake of opposing which is what we have just heard in the speech from the preceding speaker Nicky Wagner. Sometimes we should try an idea send it to a select committee and see what the people of New Zealand have to say about it rather than listen to a member pontificating in a speech that was probably prepared by someone in a research unit rather than one that gives the member’s own viewpoint. We in New Zealand First would much prefer to hear the views of the people of New Zealand—in this case particularly the views of the artists the auctioneers and all of those who are interested in the art field. 
I have a few paintings myself. I have never thought of selling any of them. Maybe they are not very good but one never knows. They might be very valuable for all I know. We seem to collect them at various places we go out to in New Zealand. As a member of Parliament in particular one might go to an A and P show and there is always an art exhibition there of some kind. I have bought pictures to support the local artists. I have bought pictures at Muriwai Beach in the Helensville area and in Nelson. I tend to collect them. Of course one day I might sell them or someone might sell them for me when I am no longer around. 
We in New Zealand First wish to try anything that can be done to support artists who are not terribly wealthy people. We want to do things for people to encourage them to produce more art in New Zealand and if they can get some sort of royalty over the years for the work they have done then why not? Why should a perhaps speculative buyer make all the profit rather than the person who painted the item or did whatever was necessary to bring it within this definition? 
Mention has been made of an interesting scheme set up by one artist and I think it is a very good idea. It is good thinking but the problem that that artist clearly has with the scheme is that he has set it up to do it only once because of problems with assignments and suchlike whereas I would like to see a scheme whereby if something is sold more than once within the time frame set out in the bill then the artist can profit from it. 
Why should artists not make a profit? What is wrong with artists making a profit? I would ask why the National Party is against a profit being made by an artist because that is what we are looking at—artists profiting and making money. It is called private enterprise. It is called the open market. Why are National members opposed to the open market? Why are they opposed to artists making a profit? Do National members have it in their minds that artists are not allowed to make money? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Sounds like it. 
DAIL JONES 
: I say to Mr Woolerton that it sounds like that to me. Mr Woolerton is a great fan and patron of the arts—not quite in the Medici style but in the Woolerton style no doubt. So why can artists not make a profit? 
New Zealand First is all in favour of having a market economy in this area if artists in particular can profit on the open market by some sort of system being set up. New Zealand First wants to see legislation that allows something to happen. We are a party that wants to do things in favour of the arts so we will support this bill going to a select committee. We look forward with great interest to the submissions which I hope will do a lot to continue to improve art in New Zealand.