Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

In answering this question I think you have to draw a distinction between Indigenous artists and non-Indigenous artists. I think the case for a resale royalty scheme is much stronger for Indigenous artists, who during their own lifetime are not rewarded for the on-selling of their work. It may be that Senator Kemp was referring more to long-departed artists—and it would be their estates that benefited because it seems that, apart from a handful of very distinguished living artists, most are rewarded, in monetary terms, for their work after they have departed for that great art studio in the sky.

I have very mixed feelings myself about a resale royalty scheme. It has always been argued by many who are sincere and knowledgeable in the area that it would be a disincentive to purchasing young artists’ work, knowing that when you sell it, if it comes to that, you will lose a percentage of the sale. The studies of the French system are not clear-cut.

In any event, the government wants to wait for the Senate report, which will be a valuable contribution to informing the debate. At the moment in Australia we do not really have a great deal of experience to draw upon. We are looking overseas to other countries’ schemes. We have seen a handful of artists’ estates benefit. But the government is very sympathetic to the position of Indigenous artists, who are suffering the frauds and deceptions that the honourable member refers to.

See this speech in context