Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to support most of the deputy chair’s comments on the Indigenous art report. I had the honour to be a member of that committee and in fact chaired the first few days of the hearings when Senator Eggleston was not available. As one who does not have any appreciation of any fine art, I was absolutely blown away by some of the Indigenous art I saw in the course of this inquiry. The committee travelled very widely in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and to some of the capital cities as well.

The report is a good one. It is unanimous. We were privileged indeed to have on our committee, towards the end of it at least, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp who, when he was minister for the arts, actually gave the committee the reference. He ended up, after he retired from the ministry, actually being part of the committee. In answer to Senator Bartlett’s urging that the government respond: I know from Senator Kemp’s comments that the government will respond to this report, because it is a report that the government sought. The government was very keen to get an in-depth look at the Indigenous arts industry.

The range of paintings and art was just sensational to my very inexperienced and uncultured eye. There is a considerable amount of money flowing around the industry. I saw a painting on the wall of a gallery—I think it was in Kununurra; somewhere in Western Australia anyhow—that the gallery said had been sold for $140,000. There were others like that. That is obviously very much at the high end of the scale, but in a number of the galleries we visited I saw very good paintings. There seemed to be an average sale price from $3,000 up to $10,000 to $15,000. So there is a lot of money in it and, as Senator Bartlett mentioned, the committee recognised that even in the desert it is an industry that Indigenous people can do well and in which they can create wealth for their communities. There are not a lot of job opportunities, but good Indigenous artists can bring money back into their communities. It is not just the artist himself or herself; the paintings have to be framed, so Indigenous young people are learning how to frame art. Just packing them up and sending them away is an employment opportunity in itself. There was a lot of very positive activity happening there.

Indigenous art supports not only those communities but also a very big industry around it. There are a number of galleries and a huge number of buyers. I was very surprised just to see what an extensive industry it is. Not all is well in the state of the Indigenous arts industry, however. There is exploitation and fraudulent behaviour. There were some accusations about so-called ‘carpetbaggers’. There was evidence along these lines that buyers would come in, encourage—by deception or by means of alcohol or otherwise—Indigenous artists to mass produce art that they could pay not much more than a bit of alcohol for and then take it away and make big money out of. It seems like a simple proposition to address, but the committee found it very difficult. The majority of dealers and buyers are honourable. There is an organisation with a code of conduct. But there are, as in everything, one or two bad eggs who give that part of the industry a bad name.

We were given evidence that some Indigenous young people who wanted a car or something would take an elderly relative who was a very good artist away from the community, lock them into a hotel room and tell them they had to paint three or four paintings. They would then sell the art to a fraudulent dealer who would have arranged with them that for four paintings they would get a car. There is that bad side to the industry, but I do not want to emphasise that because, while there were some instances, by and large it is a very positive industry for Indigenous people. The report goes through a lot of those particular issues.

I want to mention—I cannot recall the name; I am not sure if there is anyone here that can help me—a community in the centre of Australia that has a fabulous Indigenous arts enterprise. They have their own gallery and centre. I should actually preface this by saying that the federal government does fund many Indigenous arts centres in many communities around Australia, and part of the call in the report is for the government to increase funding to some of those or in some other way support them.

But this group I was going to tell the Senate about opened a new $5 million art gallery just a few weeks after the committee was there. They pride themselves on the fact that they run this whole operation without one cent of government assistance, and they do not want any government assistance. This Indigenous community built this new $5 million gallery themselves, and they run it very well. They have been going for a long time and they know how to do it. Generally speaking, the communities sell the paintings, and around 40, 50 or 60 per cent of the sale price goes to the artists and the rest of it goes to the centre, out of which they pay for all the ongoing costs—and they employ other people. In this particular instance, they also built their own hospitals in their community, without government help, on the back of their share of the earnings from the art produced by this place. So there are a lot of very positive stories. The committee has made recommendations, which I know the government will respond to. It depends on the election, of course—that is going to be a bit of an interference—but there will be a response. It certainly is a good report, and, for anyone interested in Indigenous art, a reading of that report would be very beneficial and interesting.

Question agreed to.