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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5900:

(1) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 11 to 16), omit the clause, substitute:

        (1)    If the operation of this Act or the regulations would, but for this section, result in an acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the person.

        (2)    If the Commonwealth and the person do not agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery from the Commonwealth of such reasonable amount of compensation as the court determines.

        (3)    In this section:

acquisition of property has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

just terms has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

This amendment pertains to clause 11, which is the matter I referred to in my speech in the second reading debate. I note that I am disappointed that both the government and the coalition voted against the second reading amendment without actually saying why or what was wrong with it. I would appreciate if the government could explain to me why it thinks it is appropriate that artists will have to wait decades for a second resale before they see a cent from their work which has been resold already. It makes a lot of profit for the art dealers. This is going to be a huge disappointment to people who have waited so long, when it ought to be that visual artists receive royalty payments for the first resale of their work instead of having to wait for second and subsequent sales. We believe this amendment deals with that issue and also deals with the legal advice the government had which pertained to compensation. I believe that this amendment deals with that in the appropriate way.