Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that and appreciate it, but I want to put on the record that artists will be waiting, in some cases, up to 50 years to get any benefit under this legislation, and if it is not mutually recognised overseas then it is even worse. I put the government on notice that in the future we will be coming back with amendments pertaining to this issue, because we really cannot bring in a scheme that is so substandard it is not mutually recognised for the benefit of artists.

Question negatived.

I note that both the government and the coalition opposed that amendment. Because of the way we are doing this, divisions are not being called, but it needs to be on the record. I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5900:

(2) Clause 23, page 14 (lines 14 to 24), omit subclause (1).

This effectively relates to the opt-out provision. What the scheme does is provide for a collecting society to be the primary means of collecting and distributing the resale royalty. Clause 23(1) allows artists to notify the collecting society that they do not want the collecting society to enforce the resale royalty right, and artists can then collect the royalty themselves or not collect it at all. This amounts to an opt-out clause. There is a genuine concern that this could lead to artists being coerced or bullied into giving up their right to a resale royalty, and this concern is held by a number of stakeholders in the arts community, including the National Association for the Visual Arts, who are concerned about the fact that it will leave some artists vulnerable to exploitation.

There is also a question of whether this opt-out clause undermines the inalienability of the resale royalty right which is provided for in clause 21. The ability of artists to opt out of the scheme raises concerns about the viability of the scheme, as I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate; if large numbers of artists or certain artists choose to collect the royalties themselves or enter into arrangements with auction houses over the payment of royalties outside the collection agency then the collection agency will miss out on the administration fees necessary to function. I also think this opt-out clause undermines the intention of the government to provide a transparent and accountable process for the fair distribution of royalty payments. Hence, I am moving this amendment to omit subclause 1.