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

When it comes to the arts, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts could not organise his way out of a wet paper bag. I am afraid that, once again, we have seen in evidence this evening this government’s completely botched attempts to deal with legislation—botched in a whole range of ways. The first was when the original piece of legislation introduced by the minister was immediately referred to committee for further review, and the committee report, which the minister has referred to, outlined a number of recommendations. It was botched again when this minister in this Labor government sought to have the bill listed for debate prior to actually having responded to the committee’s report. It was then botched for a third time—and from memory it was ahead of the budget recess—when the minister was asked in the chamber whether the legislation would be up for debate and whether he would be seeking the opposition’s response to the legislation, and I was assured, ‘No, that would not be the case.’ Yet, about 10 minutes later, I found myself requiring to seek the call from the Speaker to debate the legislation—legislation put forward by the government that did not incorporate in any way the government’s response to the committee’s recommendations. Now, we have another botch from this government. It is only by the skin of his teeth that the minister has been able to serve the interests of the Australian arts community, he would claim, by moving the four amendments that he has spoken to. I note that recently the minister received an award in France for his service to the arts community. Can I say to the minister: I am glad he received that retrospectively because I am certain he will not receive one prospectively based on his performance over the past 12 months.

In speaking to the manner in which these amendments have been brought forward, I would like to briefly run through what has actually happened with respect to the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. On 3 October 2008, the minister released a media statement heralding the introduction of the resale royalty right; 19 days later a ministerial statement was provided in the House to which I provided the opposition’s point of view; 56 days after that, legislation was introduced and the second reading speech took place, and the matter was referred to committee; 141 days after that the committee tabled its report; 168 days after the introduction of the legislation, I was required with less than 10 minutes notice to speak to the legislation that I had been assured would not be listed for debate—legislation which I knew at the time the government would be seeking to amend to respond to the committee’s report but which the minister had not yet formally done; and then 238 days late, the minister finally tabled his response. So, 321 days later, nearly a full year, debate on the bill has resumed after I agreed to allow debate to occur in Main Committee—otherwise, I dare say, we would still be waiting for the legislation to become enough of a priority for this government to introduce it in the House of Representatives. Here we are in September: this debate is continuing and I expect the legislation will be passed by the lower house. As I have said, the opposition will not seek to frustrate the passage of this legislation.

Bear in mind that this piece of legislation—so called Labor’s honouring of its election commitment—was meant to have taken place on 1 July 2009. Having now seen this timetable completely eroded, completely slipped through the fingers of the muddling Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, we now have a new start date being the date of assent. From day one, we have seen botched handling of this piece of legislation, this so-called Labor election promise. I certainly know that those in the arts community who have watched this debate closely for some time now recognise that this has been a debacle. (Extension of time granted) On 28 May 2009, the minister released a media statement in which he says:

The resale royalty scheme is one of the Government’s key election commitments—

if this is a key election commitment, I would hate to see a non-key election commitment—

and will give artists the right to earn ongoing income from their work—long after the initial sale.

How prophetic those words are—‘long after the initial sale’. The reason they are prophetic is that the National Association for the Visual Arts said in a press release on the same day, 28 May 2009:

The Australian art community could not be more disappointed in the artists’ resale royalty bill which passed through parliament today.

…            …            …

Especially in the current economic downturn, this—

the legislation, the framework—

could have provided urgently needed help to some of Australia’s lowest income earners. This compromised scheme will take about 20 terms of government before it is fully functional.

In lay terms, NAVA predicts it will be about 60 years before this scheme is functional. So when the minister says that this will provide support for Australian artists ‘long after the initial sale’ he means to be taken quite literally. According to NAVA, it will be about 60 years before these artists start to see any real income as a result of their labours.

I have outlined, from a coalition perspective, our support in principle of resale royalty rights, but make no mistake: the coalition’s proposal would have been quite different from the government’s approach. That is why I have committed the opposition to reviewing this botched scheme when we are elected at the next federal election. So from my perspective I think all Australian artists recognise that this government’s so-called interest in the Australian arts community is little more than lip service. It certainly could not amount to anything other than a botched debacle from day one. We know that Australian artists are extremely concerned about the way in which this legislation not only inadequately provides for the needs of Australian artists, not only inadequately provides for the particular needs of Indigenous Australian artists but also fails to provide for the needs of art dealers and the arts community and those engaged in the sale of art works.

I had have some concerns raised with me by, for example, eBay who have very genuine concerns about what this framework will mean on those selling art works via eBay and whether or not eBay itself will be responsible. Because of this government’s approach to the liability issue in terms of who is required to pay, we know that they have effectively sought to paint the entire wall as to who may be responsible for the liability to meet the need of paying the resale royalty. There is so much uncertainty about this legislation. There is such a long lead time with respect to this legislation. I know from speaking with a number of people, not only artists but also operators who are selling art works, that the communal voice is that the scheme put forward by the minister reeks of debacle and reeks of not having been paid due care and attention. That is the reason we have seen that this framework will no doubt continue to be an ongoing sore for this Labor government. If we were elected, it would be an ongoing sore for the coalition. That is the reason we remain committed to ensuring that this particular framework, in due course, is corrected and puts Australian artists, and most importantly the protection of their intellectual property and the ability for them to earn income from their intellectual property, high up where it should be while not unduly encumbering those who are engaged in secondary art market sales.

So right from the get-go we have seen problems with this. Whilst I commend the work of the committee, and I certainly recognise that the minister has in good faith adopted a number of the recommendations of the committee, there is no doubt that this simply is not a priority for the minister and that is detailed and exemplified by the sloppy approach when it came to even passing this legislation, whether it was listed for debate, whether it was pulled for debate, whether the minister was on time to move the amendments and whether the amendments would have lapsed because the minister arrived 15 seconds late. Australian artists, among the best in the world, deserve better care and attention from this government.

See this speech in context