Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately for visual artists in Australia, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, and of course the government’s handling of the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008, bring into question just how committed the minister and the government actually are to this legislation. This was demonstrated originally when the minister brought the legislation into the House of Representatives in March before he had responded to the recommendations from the parliamentary inquiry, an inquiry he requested from the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts to examine the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008, the bill I am speaking on today.

I am a member of that committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we were asked to examine whether the bill would achieve the stated aims and objectives as outlined in the minister’s second reading speech and supporting documentation as stated in the chairman’s foreword of the subsequent report tabled in February 2009. After extensive consultation the committee made a number of bipartisan recommendations based on a range of issues. But the two issues that were most prominent throughout the inquiry process, as noted in the foreword, were the issues of whether existing artworks should be included in the scheme from day one, and whether individual artists should be able opt out completely and have the right to collect the royalty themselves. Given the evidence received by the committee and consideration given to and provided in the recommendations, I expected the minister to respond to these, certainly prior to rushing the introduction of the resale royalty legislation into the parliament in March. It took the minister until the end of May to respond to the standing committee’s report and recommendations.

I am aware that more than 30 countries have resale royalty schemes including New Zealand and members of the European Union. The resale royalty bill deals with the complex issue of establishing a resale royalty right for visual artists that will endure both for the life of the artist and for 70 years beyond that time. It will entitle visual artists to a royalty payment on the sale price of any commercial resale of their original works of art over $1,000 or works acquired after the legislation takes effect. Effectively this bill is not retrospective and will only apply from the second resale after royal assent of the bill.

The scheme will apply to Australian citizens or permanent residents, with foreign nationals covered on a reciprocal basis. The aim is to allow visual artists to share in the commercialisation and value of their work in the secondary market, benefiting visual artists who currently derive their main creative income from the initial sale of original works, who do not have the same range of opportunities as other artists and creators such as writers and composers who can continue to earn through licensing reproductions, public performances or broadcasting of their work. This is the droit de suite of the Berne convention, literally translated as the ‘right of follower’, something very important to the majority who gave evidence and provided submissions to the inquiry.

The coalition supports the need to provide our visual artists with appropriate recognition of their intellectual and creative property rights. However we are debating this bill without the shadow minister, the standing committee, or artists and affected groups being advised of the Solicitor-General’s advice on the constitutional issues contained in the contentious clause 11 of the legislation. Why hasn’t the minister released this advice particularly given that, to my understanding, the eligibility of at least 1,600 artists is contingent on clause 11 and effectively over $30 million of potentially eligible royalties from 1997 will now be excluded as a result? The artists have every reason to request the advice that the minister received—they are the ones most affected by this decision.

Under this legislation as it has been presented, the resale royalty right will only apply upon the second resale of a visual artist’s work after this bill takes effect. The retention of the contentious provision, clause 11, in practical terms means that many artists will now have to wait one or more decades before they, or potentially their estates, see a return from the scheme. The Arts Law Centre of Australia and Viscopy both indicated in evidence to the inquiry that the average turnover of artwork is nearly 20 years. It was noted in the standing committee report that it is likely to be around 40 years before all artists will benefit from the resale of their artwork, and further that the uptake of the royalty and the benefits flowing to artists would be very slow under the proposed prospective scheme.

I note that in a Sydney Morning Herald article of 25 May, Tamara Winikoff, executive director of the National Association for the Visual Arts, is quoted as saying:

For most living artists there will be no benefit in their lifetime—

and that—

This legislation has alienated all sides of the arts sector. It is a pale shadow of what we were led to expect prior to the last election.

The standing committee recommended that:

In the event that clause 11 remains in the Bill, the Minister provide a full explanation as to the reasoning behind this decision in any revised Explanatory Memorandum and at the resumption of the second reading debate on the Bill.

And the committee chair seriously urged this consideration in her foreword of the report. The minister has very bluntly and directly ignored these recommendations by failing to include a full explanation in the revised explanatory memorandum or in his resumption of the second reading debate. Given the conflicting legal advice and evidence presented by two lawyers, Mr Robert Dearn and senior ANU law lecturer Dr Matthew Rimmer, there are very genuine reasons for the minister to provide that advice.

As a direct result of the minister’s failure to respond to this recommendation, release the legal advice on why the first resale may be unconstitutional or provide a detailed explanation in the explanatory memorandum, it is not surprising that the bill has been widely criticised by all corners of the arts sector. Katrina Strickland confirmed in the Financial Review that the scheme proposed by the minister would be next to useless for decades as this would represent the time it takes for most works to reappear on the market. Katrina also stated that even those supporters of the principle of this bill have argued the Rudd government’s current scheme is unworkable. Artists and vendors have serious concerns with the bill as presented by the minister.

Unfortunately, Australia’s arts community is becoming all too familiar with the conflicting decisions of this minister. Last year the minister attempted to close down the Australian National Academy of Music, and we have seen $9.5 million cut from Screen Australia in the recent budget in spite of the Labor government’s record debt and deficits. This is one third of Screen Australia’s total funding.

The committee’s recommendation 9 is a very important one, and states:

Given the very tight reporting timeframe for this inquiry, the Committee recommends that the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts undertake a review of the scheme within three to five years of the commencement date.

Given the mechanics of the collection, the conduct of the collecting society in administering the collection of royalties must be delivered in the most cost effective way possible so that royalties are directed back to the artist or their families.

Mrs Helen Ablett from the Featured Wood Gallery and museum in Australind in my electorate expressed her concerns about the scheme and how it will be administered. With the resale royalty scheme operating during the life of the artist and for 70 years beyond for his or her heirs, the ongoing role of the collecting agency, vendor and collector in the second and subsequent sales of an art piece, the tracing of transactions royalty will be difficult. I have concerns also where galleries and retail outlets purchase artworks to onsell basically on consignment. How and when the royalty is payable under this legislation needs to be very clear to all parties.

I have serious concerns for the information, education, administration and review processes in relation to Indigenous artists and Indigenous artist communities. I also refer to recommendation 4 of the committee:

In the event that indigenous visual artists do not make a will, the Committee recommends that clause 15(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following words after ‘rules of intestate succession’ – add ‘and in accordance with Aboriginal customary law.’

The government has not agreed to either this recommendation or recommendation 5 regarding Indigenous community ownership. The review is therefore an extremely important recommendation by the committee, and, thankfully for the artists, one of the few recommendations that the minister actually agreed to include in the legislation. The minister also included the committee’s recommendation that artists retain their right to elect whether or not to take part in the resale royalty scheme. This was an issue that was also raised strongly during the submissions and hearings of the standing committee by artists such as John Walker.

Given the minister’s handling of this bill I can well understand the reactions of all those in the art world. I have some extremely talented artists in my electorate. I am committed to the principle of ensuring the rights of visual artists, not only those in my electorate but around Australia, are appropriately recognised.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. The bill addresses the key issue within the operation of the Australian art market, namely the question of a royalty for the resale of visual artworks. The measures put in place by this bill will have the effect of giving visual artists a residual financial interest in their creative works. This is a step forward that has been under consideration for a long time and that the arts community has advocated for a long time. With the implementation of this measure, Australia will join more than 50 countries that already have some form of artist royalty in place. The introduction of a resale royalty will allow the art market to operate in a way that produces a fairer outcome because it will ensure that the creator of artistic value can continue to receive a small, but appropriate, financial share of any commercial value derived from the resale of their visual artworks.

It has been said in the past that fairness is not a proper imperative of the market. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. As I have observed in this place before, markets are not natural phenomena. Markets are not ruled by physical laws like gravity, even if the global financial situation appears to indicate otherwise, and they are not in any sense elemental. A market is a mechanism created by humans. It is a regulated environment that shapes, and is shaped, by human behaviour and by human values, both good and bad. Markets take many forms and can produce varied outcomes. Those varied outcomes can sometimes be produced out of identical conditions. A market is by its nature dynamic, both in its processes and in its capacity to adapt over time to changing external conditions.

Unfortunately, the term ‘free-market’ carries with it two associations that are not accurate or useful. The first is that markets are somehow natural; that they arise naturally, and, like nature, should be left to exist in their natural state. The second is that markets and regulation are somehow inimicable to one another. While preparing to make my contribution to this debate I reflected on the incisive and even iconoclastic thoughts of a Fremantle constituent, Gary Burke, who I met earlier this year. Mr Burke is a musician and arts entrepreneur of note in Fremantle with a background in economics, a passion to which he has now returned out of a fundamental conviction that the frames through which we regard and analyse public policy have become fixed through a kind of normalised faith in a set of all powerful economic precepts. Gary Burke calls this fixed view, or orthodoxy, ‘economism’. I think he is right that certain assumptions about what is, and is not, good public policy spring from a kind of economic political correctness that has gone unquestioned for too long. A market and its framework of assumptions and regulations are not antithetical, they co-dependent. The truth is that markets are entirely defined by regulation and by the laws and institutions that underpin them, including the right to property, the laws of contracts and an established national or international means of exchange.

This bill adds a design feature to the Australian secondary art market that responds sensibly to the idiosyncrasies of that particular market. The secondary visual art market trades in a product whose value has the following more or less specific characteristics. The value in a work of a visual art is not empirically quantifiable and its true value is commonly revealed or determined over time and through a series of transactions. The value in an art product grows with the development of the artist creator’s own reputation. It is a value that accrues over time to single works of art, but is in fact a product, or outcome, of all artists’ work.

In addition, the value of visual art is chiefly derived from the artistic or creative spirit that gives rise to it. Though a work of visual art is therefore made valuable by its creative concept and design rather than by the material or even the labour that forms it, the design value or intellectual property is almost entirely vested in the physical work or object itself. So, unlike musical performance or literature, there is little scope for visual artists to receive any ongoing reward for the growing popularity and value of their work.

It should also be noted that in the Australian art market, as in so many areas of Australian life, Indigenous artists have often fared worse than non-Indigenous artists when it comes to having their work acquired at less than its true value. ‘Struggling artist’ is a tautology, so the joke goes, and Indigenous artists, like Indigenous Australians across the board, generally stand at a comparative disadvantage to non-Indigenous Australians. It is a truism of the market that the strength of your bargaining position depends to some degree at least on your financial position and on your market knowledge. Artists, especially young and Indigenous artists, commonly make their bargains from a position of financial weakness and sometimes from a position of market ignorance, relatively speaking.

There is nothing efficient or reasonable about that and there is certainly nothing fair about it. There is no larger economic benefit to having certain art market dealers profit in their dealings with artists simply because they know more about the business or because they are bargaining from a position of financial strength with a person who may be desperate for a sale at any price. One might say that the unfairness that results, in such circumstances, is just part of the rough-and-tumble of the free market, and that may be so. But that is no argument against the change that is made by this legislation, a change that will partly remedy those situations where an artist is gulled out of their work at an unfair price only to see it subsequently change hands for many times that amount. For all these reasons, it is appropriate that this legislation create an ongoing financial interest for the artist and their heirs in transactions that involve their works of art.

This legislation gives to Australian artists a right that is already recognised and in practice in more than 50 countries. The right to a resale royalty has existed in Germany, which is the EU’s third largest art market, since 1965. By joining those countries that already have a resale royalty for artists, we are acting in a way that is entirely consistent with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. So, by introducing an Australian art resale royalty, this government is doing three very important things: we are honouring another election commitment, we are honouring the spirit of international treaties and conventions to which we are a party and, as a result of honouring those obligations, we are giving our artists reciprocal access to the resale provisions that exist in other countries.

Under the Berne convention, Australian art sold overseas has not attracted a payable resale royalty in those countries for lack of an equivalent scheme here. It is a matter of national pride that art from a country as small in population as Australia nevertheless has a place of significance on the world stage, but really it should come as no surprise that a country whose Indigenous heritage includes the oldest known works of art in the world, and whose Indigenous culture is with us now as the longest continuous strand of human civilisation, should produce art and artists of such quality, power and magic. For artists, however, while recognition and national pride are important, financial security and wellbeing are absolutely essential. The passage of this legislation will mean that Australian artists will be appropriately rewarded for their international success when their art is resold in countries that have an equivalent resale royalty scheme, and this is long overdue.

The Fremantle electorate is an important centre of activity in the Australian visual arts. It is home to significant galleries like the Moores Building Contemporary Art Gallery; to arts organisations like Artsource, which provides advice, advocacy, administrative support and studio facilities; and of course to many individual artists, including Indigenous artists. As this bill has been under consideration, I have been contacted by artists and arts organisations in the Fremantle electorate who welcome the introduction of a scheme that will give them a lasting financial connection to their creative work. The arts community in Fremantle and in Australia as a whole has campaigned for the introduction of a resale royalty for many years, and I commend their persistence on this important issue.

This creative piece of market design adjustment brings about a small but significant change to the way that the secondary visual art market will operate. The bill will deliver a financial benefit to many visual artists, and it is a benefit that is well earned and overdue. This is a case of refining a market so that the market operates more fairly, though no less efficiently. Indeed it will operate more efficiently in that it will direct more of the financial benefit from the developing value of an artwork to the creator of the artwork’s value. It will in turn mean that many artists receive a financial return from their work as their creative reputation matures. As noted in an opinion piece in the Australian last month by David Hetherington, Executive Director of Per Capita, the progressive think tank:

… markets are a means rather than an end. They’re an effective mechanism to harness in support of our society’s development.

This is indeed legislation that harnesses the market in support of our society’s development in the visual arts area. This is legislation that effectively helps artists to help themselves. It gives them an appropriate stake in their own artistic development and improvement. I welcome it and I am confident that it will provide greater financial support to many Australian artists, particularly in the latter stages of their lives and careers.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to speak again so that I can complete my speech.

Leave granted.

The second key issue raised by the committee was whether individual artists could be able to opt out completely and personally and have the right to collect royalties. Clause 33 states that the resale royalty right is absolutely inalienable. This is in line with article 14(2) of the Berne convention. Clause 15 allows an artist to transfer this right to a charitable institution that works for the benefit of the community. The intention is to create not a right that is tradeable as a commodity or to be held by a commercial entity but one that can be passed to natural heirs or to not-for-profit organisations. Clause 33 provides a safeguard for artists being pressured to give up their rights to obtain a royalty for the resale of the artwork.

However, clause 23 states that artists can exercise their right to say no to the collecting society to collect the royalties or to enforce the right on their behalf. This clause appears to give artists the ability to collect the royalty themselves or come to some other arrangement with an auction house or art market professional. The concern for the committee was that even if artists were able to collect the royalty themselves the collecting society would still be required to publish details and monitor upcoming auctions and sales where they believed resales would attract a royalty payment. This administrative cost would be borne by the collecting society. This means that artists or resale royalty holders who choose to have their rights administered by the society would bear these costs, which are applicable to all resale royalty holders.

The current opt-out clause seems to be at odds with the desire to establish one collecting society as per clause 35. Therefore the committee recommended that clause 23(1) be redrafted to give artists the right to opt out of the scheme on a case-by-case basis. But if they elect to receive royalties from future resale of artwork then this must be done through the appointed collecting society. However the government is confident that, although clause 23(1) allows an artist to opt out, clause 35(3) prevents an artist from establishing an alternative collecting society.

Although not all recommendations made by the committee were agreed to by the government, the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 will allow visual artists to benefit from the commercialisation of their work in the secondary art market, and I commend this bill to the chamber. In passing, I would make mention of the fact that I think this is a very good example of a House of Representatives committee doing something to get what we think is workable legislation into place.

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. The bill creates a right which will entitle visual artists and their heirs to a five per cent royalty on resales of original artworks which sell for $1,000 or more on the secondary art market. The right will apply for the same period as copyright—for example, for 70 years after the death of the artist. Royalties will only be payable on resales of works of art which were acquired after the legislation takes effect. The bill creates a statutory scheme to enforce the right and collect royalties. A single collecting organisation to manage the scheme will be appointed by the government through a competitive tender process.

Historically, the achievements of our visual artists have not been recognised to the same extent as those of our composers, authors and performers, who are able to earn copyright and performance fees from their work and thus have an ongoing financial interest in their creative efforts. Visual artists, on the other hand, have very little ability to earn income from their work other than through its initial sale. When a work sells for a large sum on the secondary art market, the artist receives no direct financial benefit from that sale. The scheme will have a positive economic impact on artists and their families, including the families of deceased artists, who may receive royalties for up to 70 years as beneficiaries of an artist’s estate. Royalty income over the medium term will contribute to the economic wellbeing of the Indigenous artists, their families and their communities, although it is possible that this could also place additional pressure on artists to support their extended families. The scheme will not, however, provide an income support mechanism, as the majority of funds will go to successful artists.

Australian visual artists and their advocates have been campaigning for the resale royalty rights for at least a decade. They have emphasised its importance both as a significant statement of the esteem in which Australia holds its visual arts culture and as an economic reward and incentive for the creators of high-quality art. As the resale royalties scheme grows throughout the years, Australia’s artists, like artists from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and a growing list of other countries, will share in the proceeds of the trade in their works on the secondary market. The bill has the support of my colleagues as it implements a Labor election commitment.

The government’s resale royalties scheme addresses an inequitable situation by creating a right of visual artists to a royalty payment each time their work sells on the secondary art market. This is a right that has now been recognised by over 50 countries around the world, and it is long overdue in Australia. The scheme that the government has developed delivers the rights for visual artists. It also, very importantly, introduces the right in such a way as to ensure minimal impact on the Australian arts market. The scheme is administratively simple and straightforward to understand. The flat five per cent royalty rate is fair to all artists, with no cap on the maximum royalty which may be earned on an individual resale. Joint creators of artwork will also be recognised under the scheme.

The royalty will apply for the current period of copyright, as I have already said, which is 70 years following the death of an artist. That is very important as it can often be the case that the artists only achieve recognition and success late in life, having spent a lifetime developing their creative skills with modest means. Resale royalty rights are not just about raising additional income for artists; they introduce a right that will significantly increase the transparency of the art market, which is particularly important for Indigenous artists, who have, sadly, continued to be exploited by unscrupulous people. I have often spoken about the need we have for a really close look at how art is sold and who is making money on art, particularly Indigenous art. The bill requires sellers to notify the collecting agency each time a work is resold on the secondary art market. This means the collecting agency will keep detailed records of all relevant sales occurring and will need to publish key data in its annual report, which will be tabled in the parliament.

Importantly, the royalty right will only apply to resales of art that is acquired after the right comes into effect—in other words, after this bill is passed. This is to ensure that purchasers of artworks are aware at the time they make their purchase that a royalty may be payable to the artist if they choose to resell the work. It will also allow the art market to adapt gradually to the new right. It is important that the resale royalty right be introduced in such a way that it does not have a negative impact on the art market, which, in the end, would not help artists.

I recently had the pleasure of attending the 26th Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award. It was a great occasion. It is an important annual survey of the abundant and varied expression of Indigenous artistic practice, and this year’s award exhibition demonstrates the ever-widening range of artistic endeavour.

At the national art award, the Director of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory said:

It is surprising, challenging and indeed splendid. The award encourages participation from across the country, and it is exciting to witness the continued participation of artists from remote communities.

It was a truly memorable night for the artists involved.

In my electorate we have quite a few artists who have become renowned around Australia. Kenny Reid is a local Larrakia man, a traditional owner of Larrakia through his grandmother. He also has family ties to Alice Springs. He is an artist and a carver and does both very effectively. Joe Raymond is another Larrakia artist from the Darwin area.

Christine Christophersen was highly commended at the prestigious 2004 Telstra awards. She received an Australian arts council grant in 2005. Her paintings are in the permanent collection at the National Gallery and the Darwin Museum and Art Gallery.

I have a painting of another Larrakia artist, Dorothea Fejo, in my office. Aunty Dottie Fejo is a Larrakia mother who has lived in Darwin all her life. She started doing art in 2000, specialising in painting on canvas. She picked up a brush because she was bored and since then she has not stopped. She was taught painting by her father and uncle, who are known for their carving and art within the Larrakia community.

Pedro Wonaemirri from Goose Creek on Melville Island, born in 1973, is a very well known practising Tiwi artist. He is also a traditional dancer. He first performed a Tiwi ceremonial dance in public in 1981, when he was only five years old, for the opening of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory in Darwin. During his secondary education his favourite subject was traditional dance.

They are just a few of the artists in my area, the Top End. The Northern Territory has a very strong history of art, in particular Indigenous art and people leading the way in it. This bill further supports them in earning a livelihood from their talents, and I fully support and commend the bill to the House.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. This bill establishes a scheme that allows visual artists to claim a share of the proceeds of each successive commercial resale of the original artwork. It also maintains the artist’s interests in the ongoing sale of works for 70 years after the death of the artist.

This scheme, which was an election commitment by the Labor Party more than 18 months ago as part of the Labor election platform, has taken an extraordinary time in incubation, and sadly the minister still has not got a great outcome. Other countries in Europe and the UK have developed such schemes. It does not seem, however, that the Labor government has selected the best elements of these other international schemes or learned from their mistakes. For example, the bill will only apply to the resale of artworks acquired after the bill comes into effect. The works will attract a five per cent royalty, with no maximum cap. The scheme applies from the second sale of eligible art over $1,000 or more in value, including GST but excluding any other charges. The government plans to establish a collection organisation; however, individual artists can choose not to use this organisation or not to receive a royalty at all.

Unfortunately, the bill limits the scheme to artworks only sold a second time after the effective date of implementation of the bill. Real auction data provided by Viscopy, or the Visual Arts Copyright Collecting Agency, for the period between 1998 and 2008 shows that only six per cent of artworks were sold a second time. This would provide an income of $460,000 for artists over the 10-year period. This is in stark contrast to the government’s exaggerated projected income figure of some $34 million for artists.

The payment of the resale royalty is further complicated as it lists four possibilities of persons who are jointly and severally liable to pay the royalty. Allowing artists to collect the resale royalty right themselves may reduce the capacity of the government’s collection organisation to sustain its operations, particularly if Australia’s top artists choose to collect their own royalties, leaving only the more difficult to locate—for example, impoverished Indigenous artists—with the collection agency as part of their responsibility.

The growth in the value of the Australian art market, particularly the rapid rise in value of Indigenous art, and the growing tendency of international art trading markets to operate royalty schemes mean that Australia should have a much better, more comprehensively thought through scheme. I am very concerned that our most vulnerable and exploited Indigenous artists may not receive royalties owed through this scheme. Traditional Indigenous artists living in remote places often do not have a will or final testament that identifies which family members or others they wish to receive future royalties after their death. This means that the benefit of the 70 years royalty flow is likely to be lost to the family or the next of kin of the people that the artist chose to be the beneficiaries.

The coalition funded a program to send legal officers into remote communities to help artists write their wills and place those wills in appropriate storage. This was a great success and greatly appreciated by the artist communities. In the 2008-09 budget the Rudd Labor government chose not to renew funding for this Artists in the Black program. This travelling legal service also provided legal advice and support as well as the preparation of the wills and testaments for Indigenous communities, so it is sadly missed and should be reinstated. This Labor government is not serious about Indigenous artists, it would seem. Through Labor’s defunding and neglect, many Indigenous artists will continue to be exploited. Sadly, anecdotal evidence is that the exploitation is growing even worse, not diminishing.

The coalition had a very strong record of investment in the Indigenous arts sector and we are very concerned that the carpetbagging and exploitation of Indigenous artists will not be diminished in any way, it would seem, by any Labor strategy or policy. In 2006 the then Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp, asked the Senate to investigate the Indigenous arts sector to identify future opportunities and threats in the sector and what assistance governments could provide to assist and protect Indigenous artists’ rights. There was widespread discussion within the industry around many remote communities about the difficult situation of remoteness, the exploitation and the unhelpful practices that were found throughout, in particular, Northern and Western Australia. The Senate was asked to investigate these types of issues. The report was finalised in June 2007 and the coalition gave unqualified support to the vast majority of the recommendations.

A number of those recommendations have not seen the light of day since. They have been overlooked by the Labor government of today, but they still deserve special attention as they will enhance the outcomes for Indigenous artists into this century. In particular, I would like to refer to recommendations 17 and 18 of that inquiry. They referred to the setting up of an Indigenous art commercial and government code of conduct. Many commercial organisations representing the interests of Indigenous artists already have a code of ethics or conduct in place which members of those bodies are expected to follow. This is to ensure they act with fairness, honesty and integrity and they know precisely what is expected of them.

This bill does not directly protect the intellectual property rights of Indigenous artists’ work. However, there is some protection under the Copyright Act and the Designs Act 2003. The Designs Act provides for particular designs to be registered, while the Copyright Act covers original artwork put into a material form. However, there is no rule allowing the copying of artwork without permission if there are a certain number of changes made. This leaves Indigenous artists exposed to the possible reproduction and imitation of their style. We have all been to the tourist shops and seen the tea towels, the bush caps, the blankets, and wondered whether the Indigenous artists who put together those amazing designs have ever been acknowledged, much less paid.

Indigenous notions of intellectual culture and property are sometimes different to non-indigenous notions of personal intellectual property. Indigenous cultural and intellectual property refers to the rights of Indigenous Australians to their heritage. Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights entrust the ownership of material representing Indigenous heritage to the particular Indigenous group it emanates from, emphasising the maintenance of the culture from generation to generation. This, of course, makes it different from the artist working alone in mainstream Australian society.

The Arts Law Centre of Australia has identified some of the major concerns in relation to Indigenous cultural intellectual property, including the lack of copyright protection for art and craft works produced by Indigenous communities. While Indigenous artists are employed to produce artistic works, there is a question about who owns the copyright: is this person an employer or the Indigenous artist? The government has had the opportunity, through this bill, to recognise Indigenous cultural ownership of visual arts but has failed to address this complex question.

Authenticity of art works is another issue that has not been addressed in this bill, yet the bill is to assign some royalty payments to a particular individual. Some art works by Indigenous communities are the result of communal participation, perhaps with one community member signing the work as the artist on behalf of all of the others. This will become an issue when it comes to the sale and the resale of artwork as prospective buyers may be concerned about the legitimacy of the artists’ role in the work and, indeed, who should receive ongoing royalty payments. This situation also raises the issue of style copying and the infringement of Indigenous cultural intellectual property rights.

Australia’s Indigenous art is one of the great cultural assets of our nation. It is unique not only in style but also in its importance in maintaining the history and continuity of Indigenous culture. The majority of international tourists visiting the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Northern Queensland seek out some Indigenous art to purchase, or they seek to see a performance of music or dance. Over two-thirds of domestic tourists who visit those same places, go to Indigenous art centres or experience the unique Indigenous culture in some form. In the Northern Territory, the Indigenous art industry is estimated to produce $28 million in sales. Australia’s Indigenous art sector has grown exponentially since it was first studied in the 1980s. In 1979-80, the industry was estimated to be worth some $2.5 million. Ten years later, its estimated worth is $18.5 million—more than a sevenfold increase. By 2002, it was estimated that the value of the industry was somewhere between $100 million and $300 million.

Although the value of the industry has increased, there is no evidence that the number of artists has increased or their individual wealth or wellbeing has benefited from the popularity of their work or the prices paid after they sell their product, often wholesale. In 2006, the main bodies representing Indigenous artists indicated they served about 6,000 Indigenous artists in over 80 remote Indigenous communities. Indigenous artists continue to be the most disadvantaged artists in Australia. The genesis of Senate recommendation 4 was to ensure appropriate art centre facilities across remote Australia to enable Indigenous artists to have a place to store art and supplies, to stretch canvasses, to display their completed works and to allow those places to become centres of learning and great cultural pride. The inquiry found that art centres in remote communities provided not only important safe places for women—typically, women are the majority of Indigenous artists—but also an important community reference point when the art centres were functioning well. They assisted visitors and tourists to locate artists and the work they wished to sell.

I have to say that this bill is disappointing in that it does very little to acknowledge the difficulties of paying resale royalties to Indigenous artists or to groups of Indigenous artists in communities who together produce and own the work. It is an unfortunate situation that an opportunity has been lost, while Indigenous artists themselves appear to be even more exploited as the days go by. I am afraid to say that Indigenous arts, like arts in general, have been forgotten by the Rudd Labor government. We have to hope for better things from future governments. The coalition remains committed to ensuring that artists and the arts sector are strong and treated in a fair and generous way.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to speak today on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. The introduction of this bill is a great day for Australia’s visual artists, who will now, for the first time, have the right to an ongoing economic interest in their works in Australia. Other creative professions—composers, authors and performers—are able to earn copyright and performance fees in some form from their work and have an ongoing financial interest in their creative efforts, whether it be theatre, music, films or other forms of professional arts.

The achievements of our visual artists have not been recognised to the same extent as those of the other types of artist that I spoke about. Visual artists have had very little ability to earn income from their work other than through its initial sale—in other words, through the first sale that is made of the painting or work of art. When a work sells for a large sum on the secondary art market, the artist receives no direct financial benefit from the sale. We have seen this, as we heard earlier from other speakers, with many, many Indigenous artists who create some work, sell it and then that particular piece of art is on-sold in the future for far more than it was sold for at that first point. Indigenous artists in particular stand to benefit from the introduction of the resale royalty scheme.

Minister Garrett has raised the example of a Johnny Warangkula Tjupurrula painting which was called Water Dreaming at Kalipinypa. It originally sold for $150 and was resold in July 2000 for $486,500. That is a huge difference. This highlights what has become a very common situation in the Indigenous market, usually with the Indigenous community and Indigenous artists being the ones missing out after there has been a resale for an enormous amount that could have contributed quite a bit not only to that particular artist but to the entire community.

It is clear that the situation faced by artists in general is that they often struggle to make a living. A 2003 report on artists’ working conditions called Don’t give up your day job: an economic study of professional artists in Australia found that 50 per cent of artists earn less than $7,300 from their art in a year. The situation is arguably worse for Indigenous artists. The government’s resale royalty scheme addresses this inequitable situation by creating the right for visual artists to receive a royalty payment each time their work sells on the secondary art market. It implements an election commitment made by the Rudd Labor government. This is a right which has now been recognised in over 50 countries around the world and is long overdue in Australia.

I will provide an example of how it will work. Suppose that, in July 2009—which is the date from which the resale royalty right legislation takes effect—a gallery owner negotiated with an Indigenous arts centre the outright purchase of a range of works and one canvas was purchased for $10,000. The gallery owner puts the work up for sale at an exhibition in December 2009 and the canvas is purchased by an investor for $16,000. This means a royalty payment to the artist of $800, less administration costs, is automatically triggered, as the gallery owner acquired the work following the introduction of the resale right.

The scheme the government has developed delivers a right to visual artists but also, very importantly, introduces the right in such a way as to ensure minimal impact on Australia’s art market. The scheme is administratively simple and very straightforward. A flat five per cent royalty rate is fair for all artists, with no cap on the maximum royalty which may be earned on an individual resale. Joint creators of artwork will also be recognised under this scheme. The royalty will apply for the current period of copyright—that is, 70 years following the death of the artist—so that artists can pass on their right to their families and heirs. This is important, as it can often be the case that artists achieve recognition and success late in life, having spent a lifetime with modest means developing their creative skills, or after they are long gone.

The royalties will be collected by a single collecting organisation, which will be appointed by the government through a competitive and transparent tender process. The collecting organisation will be vested with the powers necessary to access the information required for it to determine quickly when and to whom royalties are payable. Importantly, the right will apply only to the resale of artworks that are acquired after the right comes into effect. This is to ensure that purchasers of artworks are aware at the time they make their purchase that a royalty may be payable to the artist if they choose to resell the work. It will also allow the art market to adapt gradually to the new right. It is important that the resale royalty right is introduced in such a way as to not have a negative impact on the art market, which in the end would not help artists.

The resale royalty right is not just about raising additional income for artists. Introducing the right will significantly increase the transparency of the art market, which is particularly important for Indigenous artists, who have sadly continued to be exploited by unscrupulous people. We have seen many examples of this in years gone by. The bill requires sellers to notify the collecting agency each time a work is resold on the secondary art market. This means that the collecting agency will keep very detailed records on all relevant sales that occur. It will need to publish key data in its annual report, which will be tabled in the parliament.

Australian visual artists and their advocates have been campaigning for a resale royalty right for at least a decade. They have emphasised its importance; they have emphasised how significant this is. It is a significant statement of the esteem in which Australia holds its visual arts culture and it is an economic reward and incentive for creators of high-quality art. As the retail royalty scheme grows throughout the years Australia’s artists, like artists from the United Kingdom, France and Germany, to name just a few—as I said before, there are over 50 countries that have similar schemes—will share in the proceeds of the trade in their works on the secondary market.

The government’s response to an inquiry into the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 was tabled in parliament on 28 May. In its response the government agreed to review the scheme within five years and expand the definition of an artwork to include forms of fine art textiles, installations, fine art jewellery, artists’ books, carvings and multimedia artworks. Again, these are areas where there is usually no benefit to the original artist when the work is resold. This bill finally provides for the rights of artists, giving them a fair go.

This government values the work of visual artists. We are committed to enlarging the creative endeavour and recognising artists’ contribution to our culture and to our economy. The decision to introduce a resale royalty right for visual artists has been a long time coming. Australian art is a great asset. It forms part of our culture. As I said earlier, in theatre, film, music and other art industries there is some acknowledgement in monetary terms when that art is passed on. Unfortunately, for visual artists that has not been the case. Our Indigenous artists are the most disadvantaged artists in this area, and this bill will go a long way towards assisting them. I commend the bill to the House.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise today to support the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. For too long, our visual artists have not been recognised in a way that enables them to earn a sufficient living from their trade. This bill seeks to put in place legislation that will enable visual artists to receive the same financial recognition that other artists receive, whether they be composers, conductors, musicians, actors, recording artists or authors, so it is a very important piece of legislation.

The passing of this bill will deliver on another Rudd government election commitment. We made a commitment to introduce this legislation and, like all of our other election commitments, we are delivering on it. This bill will enable visual artists to earn income not just from the initial sale of their work but from ongoing sales, as is the case for other artists. At the moment, visual artists sell their work and earn some income from that, but if their work is resold they get no cut of that resale. This legislation will change that. The resale royalty right will entitle visual artists and their heirs to a five per cent royalty on the resale of original artworks which sell for $1,000 or more on a secondary art market. The right will apply for the same period as copyright—that is, for 70 years after the death of the artist.

While an important benefit of this bill is the extra income royalties will bring to artists, another clear benefit that should be highlighted is the improved transparency it will bring to the art market. The right will be inalienable and unable to be waived, protecting artists from potential exploitation, which unfortunately is more common in Indigenous communities. Sadly, many have been exploited by unscrupulous people over the years. As a member who comes from Far North Queensland, from tropical North Queensland, and represents large numbers of Indigenous peoples I am very passionate about ensuring that they have greater rights and greater economic opportunities into the future, and art provides them with a real opportunity to not only protect and promote their culture but also earn an income to support them and their families.

The bill requires sellers to notify the collecting agency each time a work is resold on the secondary art market. This means the collecting agency will keep detailed records of all relevant sales occurring. Key data will be published in its annual report, which will also be tabled in parliament.

The Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. The committee did good work, and the government agreed to make some minor amendments to the bill as recommended by the committee in their February report, to further clarify its intent and to ensure the smooth operation of the scheme. The definition of what constitutes an artwork has been amended. The change is consistent with the existing policy intent of the bill but will clarify the situation for stakeholders. This gives more certainty for both artist and art market participants. The commencement date of the scheme will also be altered. July 2009 was initially set down as the start date but, due to the bill’s referral to the committee for inquiry, the date has been revised to allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate the passage of the legislation and the appointment of a collecting society. The provisions will automatically commence at the end of six months from the date of royal assent if they are not proclaimed.

So we are putting in place good legislation that is going to support visual artists. We are also doing it in a responsible way that recognises that those people working in the sale of art and the purchase of art need certainty and time to adjust to this new framework. The work of the committee and the subsequent delay of this legislation will enable it to be put in place in an appropriate way.

This bill is delivering an election commitment, as I said earlier, and will be warmly welcomed by artists all across the country but particularly artists in tropical North Queensland where I come from and which I seek to represent. Some of Australia’s best contemporary art comes from tropical North Queensland. We who are fortunate to live in this part of the world are very lucky to be surrounded by such a diverse natural environment. While we have the reef, beaches, rainforest, outback and savannah all at our doorstep, on top of this we also are lucky enough to live amongst a hugely diverse mix of cultures. I believe this remarkable diversity is a real gift and is part of the reason why art in tropical North Queensland is so vibrant, innovative and exciting.

Last month the inaugural Cairns Indigenous Art Fair was held at the Tanks Art Centre, bringing together and showcasing the incredible talent from the Far North Queensland region possessed by Indigenous artists. Artwork from our best known artists as well as emerging new artists was on display at the fair. Galleries from across Australia and Indigenous art centres from Cape York and the Torres Strait, studios, collectives, arts organisations and book and magazine publishers were all represented at the fair. The fair was opened by the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, and the Australian government is working in partnership with the Queensland state government in support of Indigenous artists in the tropical north.

Indigenous art and culture offer many opportunities for local Indigenous people. One that warrants further consideration and investment is the tourism potential of Indigenous art products. Our local Indigenous culture is very rich and with the region already a major player in the nation’s tourism industry this avenue offers great economic development potential for local Indigenous people and their communities. We are already known for the Great Barrier Reef and the wet tropics rainforest. Cairns is the gateway to the Cape York Peninsula and the Torres Strait. This is home to some fantastic Indigenous culture, some fantastic Indigenous artists, and we are developing and building on what is already good work happening in that area. This bill will provide further incentive for artists to do good work and to see the rewards of that. There are real opportunities for us to continue to build links between the arts community, and in particular the Indigenous arts community, and our tourism sector, and I certainly encourage that.

There are also a number of social benefits which can flow from this. Art is a platform by which to engage Indigenous youth. Elders possess extensive knowledge and experience of their culture and this is a means by which their tradition and history can be preserved and passed on to younger generations. I have been to a number of art centres in my electorate where you see older Indigenous men and women working, doing and developing visual art, and you see young people with them, learning the skills and about their stories and about their culture through the work that they are doing in developing art. It is a fantastic area to engage with Indigenous young people and ensure that they are given new opportunities to learn about themselves and their culture and also, through this legislation, opportunities in the future to earn an even greater income from the production of visual art.

There is a plethora of artistic talent in the region and we are fortunate to have a number of strong local organisations that have the force and ability to harness this talent. Arts Nexus is a leading arts organisation in Cairns which facilitates strategic sustainable development across the cultural and creative industries in North Queensland. They have recently been involved in the development of a cultural tourism strategy for the region, a strategy that recognises that we need to strengthen the links between the tourism sector and the cultural sector in tropical North Queensland.

KickArts is a great contemporary visual arts organisation based in Cairns that is dedicated to facilitating and promoting contemporary arts and extending the experience and cultural life of Northern Australia. It seeks to support local artists but also to run exhibitions that demonstrate and provide an opportunity for artists to showcase their work in Cairns to visitors from all across the world and the country as they come to visit Cairns.

We also have a peak Indigenous art organisation in Cairns, UMI Arts. UMI Arts is a not-for-profit company that is managed by an all-Indigenous board of directors. Their current board consists of Leo Akee, from the Torres Strait; Priscilla Major, from Kowanyama; Henrietta Marrie, from Cairns; Roy McIvor, from Hopevale; and Alberta Hornsby, from Cooktown; and their chairperson is Lisa Michl, an accomplished young artist from Cape York. I have seen Lisa’s work being presented at a gallery down here in Canberra. She was showing her Story Places of Pinnarinch exhibition at the local Helen Maxwell Gallery, and it was great to be able to go down and see Lisa’s work. She is a young Indigenous artist and leader in Cairns and tropical North Queensland and she and the board of UMI Arts are doing a fantastic job, as are KickArts with their director, Rae O’Connell, and her team, and Arts Nexus. We have some fantastic organisations in Cairns and tropical North Queensland that are looking to support the arts community, and I am very proud to be part of a government that is introducing the legislation that provides the support they need to support their artists towards having an ongoing income from the work that they do. We have some fantastic Indigenous artists also in the Far North. I have mentioned Lisa Michl but we also have Thancoupie Fletcher and artists like Arone Meeks—great people who are doing good work.

The Rudd government is supporting visual artists through this bill and that will be very welcome. This has been a long campaign and one which has been strongly supported by the visual arts community. We are also supporting arts, particularly Indigenous arts, in my electorate through a range of other mechanisms. As I have said, Indigenous arts need support. They need some initial support and funding from the government. We have done this through delivering on commitments and strengthening our support for the Australian arts and cultural sector with an investment of $62.3 million in the 2009-10 budget. This includes boosting support for Australian Indigenous artists—a key source of Indigenous employment—and developing opportunities for young emerging artists to build sustainable careers.

Locally, in recent times we have been able to deliver over $90,000 to UMI Arts, an organisation I spoke about earlier, to help with operational costs and to allow them to deliver professional development and advice on best practices to artists and art centres in the region. This was under the National Arts and Crafts Industry Support program. I know they are looking for further funding. I am looking forward to working with them and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Peter Garrett, to continue to build their capacity, ensuring that there is long-term support for the organisation going forward. We have also been able to provide support to the Aurukun and Lockhart River arts and cultural centres—$174,840 for Aurukun and $124,000 for the Lockhart River arts centre. This has been a significant funding boost for these centres in their training and development of local Indigenous visual artists. It was also funded under the National Arts and Crafts Industry Support program.

Recently I was in Hopevale and visited their arts centre up there after it was officially opened. Unfortunately I could not go to the official opening because I was travelling in the Northern Territory as part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry into remote Indigenous stores, but they are doing a fantastic job up there. Roy McIvor, the chair of the board, is a well-known Indigenous artist and does great work, and I managed to purchase a piece while I was at the Hopevale arts centre. So we are supporting centres like the Aurukun centre, the Lockhart centre and the Hopevale arts centre in my electorate.

In an effort to promote and maintain the traditional languages of Pormpuraaw and surrounding outstations, we committed $32,000 in a grant last year to the local council under the Maintenance of Indigenous Languages and Records program. This is not directly for visual artists, but language is particularly important to Indigenous communities and supporting and strengthening language in Indigenous communities will indirectly lead to local people strengthening their culture. They will represent that and deliver that through visual art. That will directly benefit as a result of this bill. Combined with a strong commitment from the Queensland state government, particularly through their Backing Indigenous Art program, we are building a strong Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts industry. I have travelled through the Torres Strait over an extended period of time now, not only as the member but during campaigning. I have been to the Kubin arts centre up in the Torres Strait, to the Gab Titui arts centre on Thursday Island and out to other arts centres in the outer islands. They are doing fantastic work. Really strong visual artists exist not only in the cape but in the Torres Strait and in Cairns.

This legislation will be welcomed by non-Indigenous artists. After this legislation is passed, it will enable visual artists to get an economic return from their artwork. They will also get a five per cent return through subsequent sales. We have seen people in other areas—the recording industry, authors, conductors and the like—continue to make money out of their work long after their work is first published. It is appropriate that visual artists are rewarded in a way that enables them to get a return from their work after it is sold the first time.

This bill will be welcomed by the arts industry and by visual artists. It is further good work by the Rudd government, which is again delivering on an election commitment. This legislation is something I know the Prime Minister is very committed to, as are all members of the government. I strongly commend this bill to the House and I look forward to talking about it with local artists in my community.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Leichhardt for his contribution to the debate on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. Having spent some time up in Cairns on various family holidays, I certainly know the importance of Indigenous visual art to that community. I believe that the legislation will be very important in strengthening the culture of Indigenous communities, enabling them to continue to tell the Dreamtime and to derive a lasting economic benefit from their work. So I congratulate the member for his contribution and particularly recognise his Indigenous community and the significant contribution it makes to the visual arts community in Australia.

It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. When I was first elected to parliament I anticipated that bills would be of a much more mundane nature and of a much more concrete nature. Today, we are speaking on a bill that is about recognising and rewarding people’s talents and creativity. That, of course, is very important in our civilisation. Rewarding creativity and providing encouragement are the base values that we as Australians instil in our kids. We encourage people and the unique talent that everyone undoubtedly has. That is what we teach our children and we should continue to do that. But this bill is also about people’s livelihoods and the worth of their livelihoods and the significant creativity that particularly reflects upon our Indigenous friends. These people do have a story to tell and visual arts can play a very significant role in telling that story and they ought to be able to derive a lasting economic benefit in the telling of that story.

I believe this bill is groundbreaking because it opens the way for us to provide lasting economic benefit for many creative artists in our communities. We are extending the formal, legal recognition of, and the recompense for, a much broader range of art than was previously the case. In doing that, this bill goes to the fascinating question which is always fraught with danger and difficult to answer, and that is ‘what is art?’ Many people say that that question is unanswerable. In my view, there are some answers—even if they are not of a complete or definitive nature. I think this bill has got some of those answers right—some of those answers that we as a community continue to seek.

This bill has got the principles right, and it has done that by providing important recognition and reward for our visual artists. The rights bestowed by this bill will entitle visual artists and their heirs to a five per cent royalty on the resale of original artworks which sell for more than $1,000 on the secondary market. This right will apply for the same period as copyright has provided for, which of course is 70 years after the death of the artist. The right will be unwaivable in its application. The right will apply to many types of artworks but will exclude buildings and plans and models for buildings and circuit layouts and manuscripts. The right will acknowledge artwork created by more than one artist.

Not surprisingly with a bill of this nature, its development has been a bit of a trial. The Resale Royalty Rights for Visual Artists Bill 2008 was introduced to parliament and then referred to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. The committee’s report was released on 20 February 2009. In response to the House of Representatives standing committee, the government has agreed to make some minor amendments to the bill to further clarify its intent and to ensure the smooth operation of the scheme as envisaged by the bill. The government has partially agreed to a number of the committee’s recommendations for amendments to the bill. The amendments relate to two areas—the definition of what constitutes an artwork, which is spelt out in clause 7, and the commencement of the scheme, which is spelt out in clause 2. The first amendment addresses the government’s acceptance of the committee’s recommendation 1, to broaden the definition of what is an artwork to include further examples that were previously listed in the explanatory memorandum, such as batik, weaving or other forms of fine art textiles, installations, fine art jewellery, artists’ books, carvings, multimedia artworks—

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that he will have an opportunity to speak to the amendments when we go into consideration in detail, so it would be good to stick to the bill.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that. The change also requires some consequential amendments later on, and we will deal with those in due course. The government has spent some time talking to stakeholders in order to understand which artworks qualify for the scheme. That is very important, and the committee has spent a lot of time working through some of these questions. I know that there are some traditionalists who say that getting some of these things right is a very difficult challenge. I am positive that the actions of the government with respect to this particular bill have struck the right balance between the rights of artists and the rights of those who may wish to acquire art from future generations.

I would like to conclude with this particular point: for a long time our traditional Indigenous artists have not been recognised to the same extent as the European masters. I think this bill will go a long way towards providing recognition for those Indigenous masters who have contributed significantly to maintaining Indigenous culture. It will go a long way towards enabling our Indigenous communities to become economically sustainable in the work that they undertake. This bill is important in terms of its process and its implementation.

The second amendment, which I think is very important, will deal with a number of very important recommendations that did come out of the standing committee and I certainly look forward to seeing further developments on this. Royalties for artists will be collected by a single organisation appointed by the minister following a competitive process. The government has committed $1.5 million over the next three years in the 2007-08 budget for the establishment of this scheme to enable its operation to continue.

I believe this is a landmark day for the people’s artists. I believe that this day will very much encourage our arts communities to continue their development. I believe that on this day we can celebrate the worth of many of our artists, particularly our traditional artists, and it is a day on which we bring back to the arts community the equality that has long been sought. This is another strong Labor bill and I certainly commend it to the Main Committee.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. I am pleased to be able to speak on this ground-breaking legislation that fundamentally alters the way that visual art is bought and sold in Australia. Currently, any economic gain by an artist from a piece of art is limited to proceeds from the original sale. Once the item is sold the original artist cannot receive any further financial benefit from that item. This legislation proposes that artists receive a flat five per cent of the sale price every time a piece of art is resold. It recognises and continues to reward the intellectual property that is part of all pieces of visual art. The resale royalty right is to last for as long as copyright currently lasts, which is life plus 70 years. This will provide a benefit not only to the original artists but also to their families and heirs.

Resale royalty rights are to apply to all commercial resale of original works of over $1,000 from when the legislation takes effect. This is to moderate the administrative costs involved with the system. To be eligible, a potential right holder must be an Australian citizen, a permanent resident of Australia, or a national or citizen of a country where a reciprocal agreement is in place. The government has recognised that there will remain an administrative cost implicit in the system. Therefore, $1.5 million has been allocated to fund the implementation of the resale royalty scheme. There are significant options open for reciprocal agreements with other countries that have resale rights in place for visual artists. Many countries have already recognised the value of resale royalty rights and more than 30 countries have schemes in place, including the UK, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France and New Zealand.

There are controversies that exist with any piece of legislation, and discussions on the resale royalty rights for visual artists in Australia on previous occasions have been controversial. Opponents have argued that the main beneficiaries will be popular artists, that the scheme is inherently difficult with administrative costs, that art is often owned for a significant length of time, that the system differs from accepted notions of property ownership, and that collectors may hesitate to purchase works where resale rights still apply. That said, in my electorate of Forde we have amazing community and cultural groups, including Indigenous groups, and a developing art community in places like Tambourine Mountain. The implementation of resale royalty rights for visual artists will bring to fruition another 2007 election policy that I stood proudly behind as a candidate for Forde. From the rainforests of Lamington National Park to the sweeping mountainous views of Tamborine Mountain, if you can get the imagery, to the picturesque farming lands around Beaudesert, the beauty of Forde has long attracted visual artists to the local area—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ciobo interjecting

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and from where the member for Moncrieff sits in his office I am sure he can look across at the Gold Coast hinterland and wish that he could have his core food not only on the coast, on the beach, but also on Tamborine Mountain. Tamborine Mountain holds a regular quality arts market, which I have enjoyed attending for a number of years, at the Tamborine Mountain showground. Numerous art galleries adorn areas like Eagle Heights and attract significant numbers of tourists each year, as does the well-known Gallery Walk, which is part of the Tamborine Mountain experience. Many visual art, hobby and social art groups can be found across Forde, including groups like the Beaudesert Camera Club, the Beenleigh Craft Group, the Beenleigh Lapidary Club, Logan Artists Association and Tamborine Mountain Creative Arts.

The Scenic Rim Regional Council, once known as the Beaudesert council, takes an active role in supporting artists and has an appreciation of the arts in the southern parts of Forde. Among other services, the Centre for Scenic Rim Arts and Culture at Beaudesert provides a modern hub for local artists. In 2008, the centre launched an open art studio trail for the Scenic Rim, featuring many local artists and craftspersons operating in the local area. The open studio arts trails were so successful that they are planned to be an annual event. The Scenic Rim Regional Arts Development Fund, Scenic Rim Regional Council and Queensland state government partnership is currently seeking applications from local artists, and funding is available for professional development workshops and the arts and cultural research projects.

Of course, one of the benefits of this legislation—and other speakers have spoken about it—is that it will assist the Indigenous community, the culture that has developed around them and their art, which explores and explains their Dreamtime in a visual sense. In my electorate of Forde, the Yugambeh nation and other Indigenous people have a very strong, rich and wonderful cultural history to be told. They talk about the Dreamtime and reflect that in some of their sculptures and paintings in areas like Tullamore, which has the Dreamtime stories of the sleeping Ilbogan serpent. If you ever go to the Beaudesert Race Club you cross an old bridge called the Ilbogan bridge. The serpent and lagoon are a very significant part of their Dreamtime.

The Scenic Rim Regional Council has been involved for many years in the rural sector’s industry. I must reflect my experiences in growing up in Queensland during a period of interesting political times at the state level. We had a Premier who was once challenged on his understanding of culture. He was asked, ‘Do you understand culture?’ and of course he said, ‘I have, we have, we do have lots and lots of culture—we have agriculture, aquaculture, horticulture.’ In jest, the reality is of course that he was reflecting on the fact that Queensland is an interesting place and our arts history and our culture are very strong. Areas of Beaudesert in the old Beaudesert shire show that there is a need to capture that visual history either in art form or in other forms.

I am pleased to see the member for Moncrieff here because I believe that he is very supportive of this bill. The government prior to ours, the Howard government, could never quite get to the point of resolving the issue, and I am very pleased that we have now brought it to this chamber. I will be very keen to hear the member for Moncrieff’s input on this particularly important piece of legislation.

This is not directly related to the bill, but, with the draft redistribution, the seat of Forde is going to lose many parts of this beautiful Scenic Rim area. I hope that those who follow after I move to the new boundaries, if so elected, have just as much input into, concern for and resolve in the area. If a conservative member takes on the area, I hope that they also understand the importance of the legislation that we are putting in place. Members in this chamber for this debate certainly support what the government is trying to achieve with this particular legislation.

In conclusion, resale royalty rights are a positive move forward for artists in Australia. These changes will provide a tangible benefit to artists, particularly those whose works sell for low prices initially or who are only recognised later in their career. It is a very important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.