22 July 2022

OH&S Prosecution

The recommendations of the ACT WHS Prosecutions Review are 

 Efficiency 

Recommendation 1: Implement an efficiency performance measure which requires briefs of evidence to be assessed within 120 days of referral. 

Effectiveness 

Recommendation 2: Implement an effectiveness performance measure which requires 90% of prosecutions to result in a conviction with the conviction rate being the percentage of defendants convicted in prosecutions which proceeded to a decision or verdict. 

Data collection and reporting 

Recommendation 3: Collect investigation and prosecution timeline data and provide regular reports to the WHS Council on the length of time taken from notification of an incident to filing of charges and on the outcomes of prosecutions. 

Recommendation 4: Publish detailed prosecution reports, court summaries and data on the WorkSafe ACT website like the reports and data currently provided by the Office of the WHS Prosecutor in Queensland. 

Transparency and consistency 

Recommendation 5: Develop a prosecution policy which states clearly how prosecution decisions are made and highlights the breaches expected to result in prosecution action. 

Recommendation 6: Incorporate prosecution priorities into the statement of operational intent. 

A new model for the ACT 

Recommendation 7: Establish an in-house prosecution team comprising one senior prosecutor, two junior prosecutors, a legal graduate, and a paralegal. 

Recommendation 8 Amend the Law Officers (General) Legal Services Directions 2012 (ACT) to allow the WHS Commissioner to seek prosecution advice from external counsel without the need for approval from the Chief Solicitor of the ACT. 

Recommendation 9 Amend the Law Officers (General) Legal Services Directions 2012 (ACT) to allow the WHS Commissioner to use external counsel to progress WHS prosecutions through the relevant courts. 

Recommendation 10 Amend the Law Officers (General) Legal Services Directions 2012 (ACT) to allow the WHS Commissioner to establish an in-house prosecution team within WorkSafe ACT. 

Recommendation 11 Ensure that all Industrial Manslaughter offences are prosecuted by the DPP. 

Recommendation 12 Amend section 230 of the WHS Act to reflect the original wording of the model WHS Act.

20 July 2022

Authority

Another fake doctor incident.

Queensland-based 'Spiritual insights coach' and COVID denialist Maria Carmela Pau (aka Maria Power) has been fined $25,000 in Southport Magistrates Court, with no conviction recorded, after pleading guilty to posing as doctor and issuing false COVID exemption certificates. 

She is variously reported as having made $90, 000 or 1$20,000 issuing false COVID-19 exemptions as a purported doctor. 

Pau was charged with multiple counts of taking a title, name, word or description to indicate she was a health practitioner. When arrested in October last year at a Labrador (Gold Coast) address police located hundreds of the false certificates. She had been dobbed in 'by a concerned member of the public'. 

Pau is not registered with AHPRA, has not met the formal requirements for practice as a general practitioner and does not have a doctorate in medicine. 

Her lawyer argued that Pau believed she had the power to grant the exemption certificates and was deeply distressed after being charged. The prosecution however argued that she had shown no remorse, remained defiant and had urged people to 'end tyranny' of mandatory restrictions.

Fizz and Geographical Indications

'The GI Prosecco Battle between Italy and Australia: Some Lessons from the History and Geography of the Most Famous Italian Wine' by Enrico Bonadio and Magali Contardi in (2022) 23(2) Journal of World Trade and Investment 260-292 comments 

This article seeks to contribute to the debate around the legality of the Prosecco geographical indication (GI). The article’s main point is to demonstrate that the term Prosecco does satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 22 TRIPS, and that its protection as a GI in both the EU and other countries does not run counter to TRIPS. Through a review of the relevant literature, the article shows that this term has been used for many centuries in the North-eastern part of the Italian peninsula to refer to a high-quality wine, including in the territory around the village of Prosecco in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region of Italy. This suggests a strong link between that area and the quality and reputation of the famous Italian sparkling wine; and strengthens the EU and Italy’s claims for the protection of the term Prosecco as GI, in both the EU and other countries that sign trade agreements with the EU. 

The European Union (EU), and Italy specifically, strongly protect geographical names in connection with food and agricultural products, especially those which have qualities linked to the soil and local areas and are made according to specific methods of production. The EU’s regime for the protection of geographical indications (GIs) aims at safeguarding both cultural and gastronomic heritage and economic values associated to the place of production (e.g. “Bordeaux”, “Rioja”, “Barolo” and “Champagne” wines). Protecting GIs via the sui generis system of Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) or Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) is at the heart of Europe’s agricultural and food policy. 

Other countries, particularly in the so-called New World (i.e. the former colonies of European countries), do not offer geographical names the same strong protection as the EU does.  United States (US), Canada and other states for example do protect geographical signs, but they do so via trademark law based on the “first come first served” rule. This however may create conflicts between European producers of wine and foodstuffs and local competitors in the new world. Chile, for instance, did not adopted a comprehensive law on geographical indications until 2005 - and several Chilean producers of wine in the past used European GIs. One of these was Champagne. Chile claimed that this term had been used locally as both a generic term and component of registered trademarks, dating back to the 1930s. From a European perspective, this is perceived as an unfair behaviour which aims to free ride on the reputation of European food and agricultural products’ brands and heritage, and may end up confusing consumers as to the real geographical provenance of the goods. The specific Chilean case was settled in 2002 when Chile and the EU signed a free trade agreement which provided for 12 years of coexistence after which all trademarks including the expression “champagne” would be cancelled and any generic use of the term would cease. This period ended in 2015. 

As we have just seen, one of the arguments put forward by countries in the New World is that many of these terms do not identify anything but just describe the product itself; and that therefore the attempt by the EU to claw-back names which have become common in those states constitutes a protectionist measure aimed at monopolising descriptive terms and signs to the detriment of competition and consumers. This is thus a fight between the New World which embraces a minimalist approach to protecting geographical names, and the Old World, especially Europe, which advocates for a strong protection - not only at home, but also in other states via bilateral trade or economic partnership agreements. Indeed, the EU has constantly sought enhancing protection for its geographical names by shifting away from the WTO arena (where the two decades long discussion over reforming the TRIPS regime of GIs has been fruitless) toward a variety of bilateral accords that range from standalone agreements on GIs to sectorial accords that provide for mutual recognition and protection of names for wines or spirits. Specifically, the EU has in the latest years concluded comprehensive agreements with other nations that include a chapter on GIs, including the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement, as well as the accords with Korea  and Canada (CETA). 

This expansionist strategy has, as expected, created tensions with some countries in the New World. The very early negotiations between the US and the EU for concluding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) failed also because of the opposition of US producers of wines and food (especially cheeses) which could not accept the EU claw-back demands. Emblematic and eloquent was the letter sent by fifty-five US senators to the US Trade Representative in 2014, expressing their dislike of the EU requests: “we urge you to make clear to the EU counterparts that the US will reject any proposal in the TTIP negotiations now underway that would restrict in any way the ability of US producers to use common names (e.g. for cheeses)”. 

A GI dispute which may potentially see the EU being dragged before a WTO panel focuses on the use of the term Prosecco by Australian producers of sparkling wines. The name Prosecco has been formally protected since 2009 as GI in the EU,16 with protection under Italian law dating back to 1969. And the EU not only bans the importation of any Prosecco labelled wine in the EU - it also seeks a strong protection of this GI at international level via bilateral accords, including the trade agreement which is currently being negotiated between the EU and Australia. Of course, this demand is strongly opposed by Australia, which has recently experienced a hike in the sale of domestically manufactured Prosecco-branded sparkling wines. From an Italian and EU perspective, the reason for this opposition is clear: the Prosecco brand is powerful and attracts a strong customer base. 

Such a row between the EU/Italy and Australia has been recently covered by some academic works. Specifically, it has been argued that the expression Prosecco has not traditionally been used or recognised as a term referring to a geographical location but just to a grape variety; and that the Italian Prosecco has historically been produced in the area surrounding the town of Conegliano in the Veneto region, at some 130 km from the village of Prosecco, which is situated in the neighbouring Friuli Venezia Giulia region. Therefore – the argument goes – the Prosecco GI status would amount to a “legal fiction” which ends up shielding Italian Prosecco producers from international competition. Based on this claim, the EU and Italy would violate several provisions of the WTO TRIPS and TBT Agreements if Australian producers were prevented from labelling their products with the term Prosecco. 

Our article seeks to contribute to this debate and offer a different perspective. Its main point is to bring into the discussion history and centuries-old practices which confirm that the term Prosecco has been used for many centuries in the North-eastern part of the Italian peninsula, including in the territory around the village of Prosecco, close to the town of Trieste. That history and those practices suggest a strong link between this area and the quality and reputation of the famous Italian sparkling wine. This – we believe – strengthens the EU and Italy’s claims for the protection of the term Prosecco as GI, in both the EU and other countries which sign trade agreements with the EU. Most issues dealt with, and points made, in this article could also be relevant in other controversies which involve the Prosecco GI, including the recent challenge brought by Italy against Croatia’s application to register the traditional expression “Prošek” as EU PDO. .

19 July 2022

Vexatious Sovereign Citizens

In Bradley v The Queen [2021] QCA 101 - following up a sovereign citizen claim noted here - the Court states 

Mr Bradley has filed yet another appeal. He has previously filed notices of appeal that have been struck out as an abuse of process: [2018] QCA 163; [2017] QCA 66; [2016] QCA 53. I struck out a similar notice of appeal in November last year. Proceedings have also been struck out for the same reason in the trial division: 11427 of 2017; 13 November 2017; [2017] QSC 275. 

[2] The notice of appeal in this case continues these precedents. It is a confused hodgepodge of confusion. One paragraph is enough to illustrate the content that fills the document: 

That the supreme Ecclesiastical Law is ONE, under the CROWN. (The ‘Ecclesia’.) And this means that all ecclesiastical entities including Queensland as a state can (equally) sue and or be sued in the one Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Men and women within court-house Registries (as ‘public officials’ under the state) have a disregard for and are continually disregarding the fact that Australia and it’s [sic] state were “created” at and remain under this supreme Christian Law. Clear contempt of the Law. 

[3] The notice of appeal should be struck out as an abuse of process. 

[4] Mr Bradley has been incorrigible in his attempts to vex the parties he chooses to name as respondents to his applications. This case is an example. It arose from a document filed by Mr Bradley in the Magistrates Court which purported to sue “The Queen” and was entitled “Common Law to Govern the Court”. Mr Bradley then pressed for a committal hearing at which he wanted to air his complaints. Like the notice of appeal before me, the document in the Magistrates Court was a confused heap of nonsense. An example is the following:

The common law (as per the First Charter of Justice, 1787 and as proclaimed under the Crown and that still remains valid today) says that this is so. (Also, See attachment One) This document (as filed) involves a matter that went before the District Court of Appeal on 11/10/2018. (See DCA 31/18) The honourable court is asked to determine if this my allegation that a public official/s or, person/s of Queensland (see Exhibit # THREE – DCA 31/18) has or have knowingly or unknowingly committed a common law offence to pervert the course of justice. (Attach. Two) That as a man, and born with unalienable inherent Rights and Duties and through my person (BRADLEY), my matter as Filed by me and as was incorrectly listed by registry staff of the Beenleigh court-house, had subsequently resulted in an ‘obstruction’ of the course of justice that then became (resulted in) an unfair hearing, when conducted before a Coram.

[5] The learned magistrate rightly struck out the proceeding. Mr Bradley then appealed to the District Court, under the aegis of yet another senseless piece of paper, which was struck out, and he now seeks leave to agitate his concerns in the Court of Appeal. 

[6] The time has come to stop this kind of behaviour from being repeated. 

[7] At the hearing of this matter, I invited Mr Bradley to submit why his proceeding should not be struck out. Mr Bradley could not formulate a ground but, instead, persisted in making oral statements that were consistent with the incomprehensibility of his written statements. 

[8] I also invited Mr Bradley to make submissions as to why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. He made submissions of the same disordered kind, which merely demonstrated further the need for an order to be made to prevent any further abuse of the judicial process by him. 

[9] I am satisfied that Mr Bradley has frequently instituted vexatious proceedings in Queensland. I am also satisfied that unless an order is made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 Mr Bradley will continue to waste the time and money of the people he chooses to sue and waste the time and resources of the Courts. I am satisfied that an order should be made to stop Mr Bradley from continuing to do this.

Crookto, Cyber Security and Corporate Responsibility

'Crime and Cryptocurrency in Australian Courts' by Aaron M Lane and Lisanne Adam in Monash University Law Review (Forthcoming) comments 

This article presents the findings of the first empirical study of reported Australian case law involving Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies between 2009 and 2020. The initial dataset consists of 103 cases, with 59 criminal decisions and 44 other decisions. Focusing on criminal proceedings, the study finds that cryptocurrency has been considered in the context of bail, extradition, restraining orders, trials and sentencing. Significantly, the study finds that the use of cryptocurrency in the commission of an offence is seen by courts as a factor that tends to increase the sophistication or seriousness of the offence – becoming an aggravating factor in sentencing – and leads the court to consider general deterrence above other sentencing purposes.

The authors argue

There is a perception that Bitcoin, and the other cryptocurrencies that followed, are associated with criminal activity. By our count, there are four dimensions to this perception from the literature – which is briefly surveyed here as introductory context for the first study on crime and cryptocurrency in the Australian courts.

First, law enforcement experts claim that Bitcoin is “the currency of choice for cybercriminals” in the commission of ransomware attacks and other forms of theft and extortion in the digital environment. Also in this category, cybercriminals are using cryptocurrency in running fraudulent investment scams. Statistics collected by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission show that “in 2019, reported losses for cryptocurrency scams exceeded $21.6 million from 1810 reports.” Data reported by Chainalysis puts the global figure at US$7.8 billion. 

Second, cryptocurrencies are used to exchange illegal goods and services from ‘dark web’ online marketplaces, such as Silk Road, which exclusively used Bitcoin for the platform’s illicit transactions. Famously, Silk Road’s founder Ross Ulbricht was convicted in the United States and sentenced to life imprisonment for charges relating to his role in the criminal enterprise. The convictions were upheld on appeal notwithstanding that two federal agents were also charged and sentenced for their conduct in the course of the investigation against Ulbricht, including misappropriating Bitcoin into offshore bank accounts. The Ulbricht saga brought into popular consciousness the fact that cryptocurrencies provided a new payment platform for those seeking to illicitly transact with counterparts across borders, pseudonymously. While estimates vary, the most recent industry analysis reports total illicit cryptocurrency transactions at US$14 billion in 2021 – although this equates to just 0.15% of the total volume of cryptocurrency transactions. 

Third, Bitcoin has been described as a “criminal's laundromat for cleaning money”  that has been earned from illicit enterprises. Of course, money laundering is a serious criminal offence in and of itself. Although, initially, the use of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were not subject to the same regulatory constraints as the use of fiat currency. In 2017, the Federal Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism asserted that “it is recognised globally that convertible digital currencies, such as bitcoin, pose significant money laundering and terrorism financing risks because they allow people to move money around the world on a peer-to-peer basis without revealing their identity.” On this basis, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (‘AML CTF Act’) was amended to require Australian cryptocurrency exchanges to comply with Anti- Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing laws under regulator AUSTRAC’s purview. The stated purpose of the amendments was to “deter criminals from using convertible digital currencies to move illicit funds and avoid detection” and “facilitate the collection of transactional information about exchanges in digital currency for use by law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies”. At the end of February 2022, AUSTRAC had revoked the registration of seven cryptocurrency exchanges, suspended another, and refused to register a further six exchanges. 

Fourth, there are concerns that cryptocurrencies could be used for tax evasion. The Australian Taxation Office has provided guidance on various issues surrounding the tax treatment of cryptocurrency. As with money laundering, the pseudonymous, borderless nature of cryptocurrency transactions — combined with Australia’s tax system of self-assessment — means that the task of tax enforcement is more difficult and provides a greater opportunity for tax evasion. Tax evasion is a crime regardless of the underlying legitimacy of the transaction that gave rise to the taxable event. 

As this introduction outlines, it appears that criminal entrepreneurs were among the first to find a use case for cryptocurrencies. It is not surprising, therefore, that law enforcement and regulatory agencies around the world have established digital taskforces focusing on crime and cryptocurrency. Domestically, the Australian Federal Police’s (AFP) Cybercrime Operations Unit and AUSTRAC have primary carriage of these matters among enforcement bodies, in addition to the Australian Cyber Security Centre. State and territory police forces also appear to have developed some capabilities in this area. 

Against this background, it was inevitable that criminal cases involving cryptocurrency would come before the Australian courts. However, there is currently no reported data on criminal cases involving cryptocurrency in Australia. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to investigate in what contexts Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have been considered in criminal matters before Australian courts and critically analyse of how the use of cryptocurrency has factored into judicial decision making in the context of criminal proceedings. This article will proceed as follows. Section two introduces Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Section three explains the study’s methodology and reports the study’s quantitative findings. Section four provides the study’s qualitative findings. Section five will bring the study’s findings into conversation with theoretical perspectives from the law and economics and criminology literatures. Section six concludes.

In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v RI Advice Group Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 496 - a landmark judgment - the FCA has identified that obligations for Directors under the Australian Financial Services Licence regime include obligations to adequately manage cyber resilience and cybersecurity risks. RA was found to be in breach of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). 

Rofe J made declarations that RI breached obligations under s 912A(1)(a) by failing to ensure adequate cybersecurity measures were in place and/or adequately implemented across its Authorised Representative,  with breach under s 912A(1)(h) by failing to implement adequate cybersecurity and cyber resilience measures and exposing its Authorised Representatives’ clients to an unacceptable level of risk.

He stated 

it is not possible to reduce cybersecurity risk to zero, but it is possible to materially reduce cybersecurity risk through adequate cybersecurity documentation and controls to an acceptable level.

noting  'that the relevant risks and controls deployed to address cybersecurity evolve over time' and that 'as cybersecurity risk management is a technical area, the adequacy of risk management must be informed by people with technical expertise in that area'. 

AFS Licence holders are required to identify the risks faced in the course of providing financial services, including in relation to cybersecurity and cyber resilience. The holders must have established documentation, controls and risk management systems that are adequate to manage risk across their network.

The 'reasonable standard of performance' is to be assessed by reference to the reasonable person qualified in that area, not the expectations of the general public.

Global South Genomics and WHO

'Accelerating access to genomics for global health: promotion, implementation, collaboration, and ethical, legal, and social issues', a report of the WHO Science Council, comments

 In 2021 WHO Director-General (DG) Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus established the Science Council to advise him on WHO’s scientific agenda. 

At its first meeting, the Science Council identified genomics as the focus of this report, for a number of compelling reasons, chief among them, the substantial and extensive benefits of genomics for personal and public health. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has clearly demonstrated the importance of genomics for global public health. In addition, there are many examples of the successful uses of genomics in humans, animals, and agriculture in high-, low- and middle-income countries, as revealed during three international workshops convened by the Science Council. The Council recognizes that there are many impediments to the implementation of expensive genomic technologies, especially in low- and middle-income countries, including high costs of equipment and reagents and lack of trained personnel. We are, however, convinced that current uses and future applications of genomic technologies are critical for improving the health and livelihood of people in all parts of the world, regardless of economic status, and that strategies to overcome the impediments are available. 

Our report to the Director-General makes 15 recommendations for WHO and for consideration by multiple sectors within its Member States. 

The recommendations are grouped under four themes:

1. promotion of genomics through advocacy 

2. implementation of genomic methodologies 

3. collaboration among entities engaged in genomics, and 

4. attention to the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSIs) raised by genomics.

All four sets of recommendations are intended to accelerate the establishment of genomic technologies and to sustain their beneficial use. The Council has also concluded that a long lag time between the availability of genomic technologies in rich countries and their availability in less-resourced countries is neither ethically nor scientifically justifiable. We strongly support the early diffusion of genomic technologies throughout the world so that humankind can collectively derive the health and other benefits from genomics.

The report features the following Goals and recommendations 

1 Promote the adoption or expanded use of genomics in all Member States through advocacy by many parties. 

1.1 WHO should use its leadership role in global public health to advocate for the expanded use of genomics in its Member States. In particular, WHO should promote affordable access to genomic technology globally so that all Member States, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), can adopt and expand the use of genomics for better health and other benefits. This will require persuading Member States, as well as commercial and non-commercial organizations, academic institutions, and others, of the medical, scientific, and economic benefits of genomic technologies. 

1.2 Member States, especially LMICs, should develop and conduct advocacy programmes that support the adoption or expansion of genomics. 

1.3 International, regional, and national professional societies in medicine, public health, and biomedical research should advocate for the uses and benefits of genomics. 

1.4 WHO should establish a Genomics Committee to assess and report annually to the WHO Director-General on progress in implementing the recommendations in this report. This evaluation should encompass all four themes—promotion, implementation, collaboration, and ELSIs. The Genomics Committee should also be mandated to take up additional tasks (elaborated below in 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, and 4.1). 

2 Identify and overcome the practical issues that impede the implementation of genomics through local planning, financing, training of essential personnel, and the provision of instruments, materials, and computational infrastructure. 

2.1 WHO should provide guidance to Member States on best practices for implementation of national or regional genomic programmes. 2.2 Member States should establish national programmes for building or expanding genomic capabilities or join a regional programme. 2.3 Organizations in the genomics commercial sector should be convened by the Genomics Committee to develop and execute approaches to make their products and technologies affordable in LMICs. 

2.4 Organizations in both the public and private sectors should develop and execute plans to enhance the training of individuals capable of making effective use of genomic technologies. 

3 Foster commitments to collaborative activities to promote all aspects of national and regional programmes that advance genomics in Member States. 

3.1 WHO should promote international collaborations on genomics by strengthening effective existing collaborative arrangements and by helping form new ones for specific needs. 

3.2 Funding agencies should promote collaborative arrangements and encourage the participation of investigators, health care personnel, and computational experts from a diversity of disciplines to promote the optimal use of new genomic information. 

3.3 Industry, academia, and civil society should collaborate on the use of genomics to help solve important health problems, especially those prevalent in LMICs. 

4 Promote ethical, legal, and equitable use and responsible sharing of information obtained with genomic methods through effective oversight and national and international rules and standards in the practice of genomics. 

4.1 WHO, working through its Genomics Committee, should be the custodian of guidance on how to deal with the ethical and social ramifications of genomics, including the global governance of genomic information. 

4.2 WHO should take a leading role in the resolution of debates about policies that govern the attribution of credit for genomics research. 

4.3 Organizations in Member States, especially funding agencies, academic institutions, and governmental units should be attentive to ELSIs and to efforts being made by WHO and other international bodies to develop solutions to outstanding issues related to genomic ELSIs. 

4.4 WHO should aspire to become the global authority on ELSIs for health-related genomic applications.

Fakes and Indigenous Cultural Expression

The Productivity Commission's Draft Report on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts features the following key points 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been creating visual arts and crafts for tens of thousands of years. This practice has grown into a significant industry, generating income for artists and art workers, creating economic opportunities for communities, and helping to maintain, strengthen and share Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. 

Total sales of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts reached about $250 million in 2019–20 — this includes $30–47 million in artwork sales through art centres and at least $83 million in sales of merchandise and consumer products (mostly souvenirs) bearing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and designs. While a small number of artists command high prices, the average income for the 5800–7700 artists who sold art through an art centre in 2019 20 was just over $2700. For independent artists, average income was about $6000. 

Inauthentic arts and crafts — predominantly Indigenous style consumer products not created by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people — are a pervasive and longstanding problem. They disrespect and misrepresent culture and, by misleading consumers and denting confidence in the market, they deprive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists of income. Inauthentic products accounted for well over half of spending on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander souvenirs in 2019 20. 

Mandatory labelling of inauthentic products would raise consumer awareness and help them distinguish between authentic and inauthentic products, impose a negligible compliance burden on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists (and their commercial partners), and involve modest establishment and administration costs. 

Some visual arts and crafts make use of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP), such as sacred symbols, without the authorisation of traditional custodians. This undermines customary laws and limits the economic benefits flowing back to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Legal recognition and protection of ICIP is patchy, with very few limits on whether, how and by whom ICIP is used in visual arts and crafts. 

A new law that strengthens protection for aspects of ICIP used in visual arts and crafts would formally recognise the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in their cultural assets, promote respectful collaborations and allow for legal action where protected cultural assets are used in visual arts and crafts without the authorisation of traditional owners. 

Art centres assist thousands of established and emerging artists to practise their arts and crafts and engage in the marketplace; they fulfil important cultural and social roles. Other organisations provide vital services to artists — including addressing instances of unethical conduct from other market participants. Improving funding and the effectiveness of support services, as well as strengthening the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts sector workforce, will be critical for future growth. An independent evaluation of Australian Government funding to the sector — undertaken in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people — is needed to inform future funding needs, objectives and strategic priorities.

The Commission's  draft findings and recommendations  are -

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and crafts are a cornerstone of culture 

Draft Finding 2.1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and crafts generate broad cultural and economic benefits  

isual arts and crafts have been central to the practice and preservation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures for tens of thousands of years. Arts and crafts — as expressions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s connection to culture, Country and kin — are fundamental to the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and bring wider benefits for all Australians. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts are foundational to Australia’s national identity. The visual arts and crafts sector generates income for artists and economic opportunities for communities, and is a major source of direct employment and income in many remote areas. It also supports complementary industries such as tourism. Visual arts and crafts markets are substantial, diverse and growing 

Draft Finding 3.1 The total value of annual spending on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts — including artworks and consumer products — is about $250 million 

In 2019 20, the total value of spending on (authentic and inauthentic) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts was about $250 million. This includes sales of original art made through art centres, commercial galleries, auction houses and other retailers, as well as consumer products such as souvenirs and homewares. Some of the spending on these consumer products was on inauthentic arts and crafts — about 55–61% of spending on souvenirs was on inauthentic Indigenous style products, purchased predominantly by international visitors.   

Draft Finding 3.2 Visual arts and crafts sales contribute to the economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists 

For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists across Australia, selling their arts and crafts contributes to their economic wellbeing. In remote areas, arts and crafts activities provide economic opportunities for artists, through artwork sales and the teaching of art and culture. Artists in regional and metropolitan areas also benefit economically from the sale of their arts and crafts, although they are more likely to have access to a wider range of income sources. 

Draft Finding 3.3 Art centres support most of the production and sales of art in remote areas The Commission estimates that sales of artworks produced by art centre artists totalled between $30–47 million in the 2019 20 financial year, from about 5800–7700 artists who sold at least one artwork. Total sales by art centres have more than doubled since 2012, but growth has been concentrated mostly in Northern Territory art centres. The scale of production at art centres varies substantially, with the largest scale operations taking place in the Western Desert, Arnhem Land and APY Lands art regions. Art centres rely on several methods to sell artworks, but have shifted towards sales through consignment agreements with intermediaries such as commercial galleries. Art centres have also moved towards selling art direct to consumers, either through their own galleries or through art fairs. 

Draft Finding 3.4 Artworks by independent artists have a material presence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and crafts markets Independent artists have a material presence in markets for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts — the Commission’s preliminary estimates based on limited data show that about 1700 independent artists generate sales of about $10 million a year. About half of art dealer businesses sell the works of independent artists. In addition, independent artists produce commissioned artworks and sell direct to consumers through art fairs, online marketplaces and social media. 

Draft Finding 3.5 The total value of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artworks sold on the secondary market remains below its peak 

Following strong growth up to 2008, resales of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artworks collapsed following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The total value of resales has since remained below the pre GFC peak, with average prices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artworks sold by public auction houses lower than resales of artworks by non Indigenous artists. 

Inauthentic visual arts and crafts are pervasive and cause significant cultural harm and economic costs 

Draft Finding 4.1 Visual arts and crafts are considered authentic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and crafts if they are authored by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person, or produced under a licensing agreement 

For the purpose of this study, a product or artwork is considered authentic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual art or craft if it is: • an original piece authored (or co authored) by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person, or • produced under a licensing agreement with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artist(s). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts that do not meet these criteria, including those that infringe the copyright of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artist’s work, or are Indigenous style arts and crafts made by non Indigenous people without licensing agreements, are considered inauthentic. 

Draft Finding 4.2 Inauthentic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and crafts are rife in the consumer product, digital and print on demand merchandise markets 

Inauthentic products dominate the consumer product (mostly wholesale souvenirs), digital, and print on demand merchandise markets. Copyright infringement is also common in the print on demand merchandise market. In the consumer product (wholesale souvenirs) market: • approximately two thirds to three quarters of product offerings are inauthentic, though the prevalence of inauthenticity varies by product category • on average, authentic products are nearly twice as expensive as an inauthentic product of the same type • most consumer products are manufactured overseas regardless of their authenticity. Based on random sampling, inauthentic products are commonplace in the print on demand merchandise market (over 60% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander merchandise was found to be inauthentic) and even more prevalent in the digital art marketplace (over 80% of digital stock images depicting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designs, styles and motifs were inauthentic).   

Draft Finding 4.3 The negative effects of inauthentic visual arts and crafts outweigh any benefits 

The existence and prevalence of inauthentic arts and crafts in the market has wide ranging and predominantly detrimental effects on both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the broader Australian community. These include personal and cultural harms (such as emotional distress, loss of identity and self) and economic harms (such as a loss of income for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists, and consumer hesitancy in purchasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and crafts). Inauthentic products disrespect and misrepresent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and have the potential to mislead consumers. 

Draft Finding 4.4 Consumers’ lack of awareness and difficulties in identifying authentic products, as well as the legal landscape are the main enablers of inauthentic arts and crafts 

Inauthentic Indigenous style visual arts and crafts continue to be prevalent in the market due to: • limited legal barriers to the creation or sale of inauthentic arts and crafts under Australian law (in particular, the Copyright Act and the Australian Consumer Law) • a lack of awareness and understanding of inauthenticity and its harms by producers and purchasers of inauthentic arts and crafts • difficulties identifying and distinguishing inauthentic products from authentic ones. 

A mandatory labelling scheme to reduce trade in inauthentic products 

Draft Finding 5.1 Some approaches to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and craft products are already in place 

Some approaches are already in place to help consumers distinguish between authentic and inauthentic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artworks and other products. These include certificates of authenticity provided by art dealers (such as those produced in accordance with the Indigenous Art Code), as well as other branding and marketing initiatives used by artists and dealers to provide information and assurances to consumers. However, only limited information is provided for some products, particularly in the lower end of the market, including souvenirs and digital products.   

Draft Finding 5.2 Voluntary industry-wide labelling schemes for authentic products are unlikely to be effective in materially reducing inauthentic arts and crafts 

Notwithstanding the possible marketing benefits to participants themselves, industry wide voluntary labelling schemes (such as certification trade marks) are unlikely to reduce the prevalence and harms of inauthentic products substantially. To address information gaps in the market and allow consumers to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic products, voluntary labelling schemes require high levels of participation. Yet the risk of limited uptake by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists, coupled with the costs of establishing and administering an industry wide voluntary labelling scheme, make the net benefits uncertain. 

Draft Finding 5.3 Education and awareness-raising measures should complement other initiatives 

Education and awareness raising measures can inform consumers and businesses about the existence and harms of inauthentic products. However, on their own their effectiveness in countering inauthentic products is limited, especially where the information used to promote and label products is confusing or inaccurate. Education measures are more effective where they accompany measures that help consumers distinguish between authentic and inauthentic products. 

Draft Finding 5.4 Banning inauthentic products is unlikely to be the most cost effective response 

A ban on the sale of inauthentic products could be an effective way to mitigate the economic and cultural harms they cause and prevent consumers from unwittingly purchasing inauthentic products. However, there are substantial risks in imposing a ban. A broad ban would increase the risk of costly errors (for example, authentic products incorrectly excluded from sale). A narrow ban would not resolve the harms caused by many inauthentic products. A ban would also limit choice in the market, and consumers would arguably be better served by being able to make more fully‑informed choices. Therefore, the Commission considers that a ban is unlikely to be the most appropriate response. 

Draft Finding 5.5 Labelling inauthentic products is a targeted and cost effective way of informing consumers and improving the functioning of the market for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts 

A mandatory labelling scheme for inauthentic products could be a targeted and cost effective option for addressing the issue of inauthentic Indigenous style products. While it would not eliminate inauthentic products, it would improve the operation of the market, by helping consumers to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic products. A well designed labelling scheme focused on inauthentic products would only impose minimal compliance burdens on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists. 

Draft Recommendation 5.1 A mandatory labelling scheme for inauthentic products should be developed 

The Australian Government should develop a mandatory information standard to require the labelling of inauthentic Indigenous style products to indicate to consumers that they are not created by or under licence from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person. In developing the standard, the Australian Government should engage effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 

Information request 5.1 How might a mandatory labelling scheme for inauthentic products operate in practice and what should be considered further in its design? • Is the suggested approach to product coverage workable? Are there ways to provide greater certainty about coverage without unduly narrowing its scope? • Are the authenticity criteria for the scheme appropriate? Do they pose any unintended consequences? If so, how could these be addressed? • Are there any other considerations about the design and implementation of the standard? 

Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property is used in arts and crafts without permission and inappropriately 

Draft Finding 6.1 Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property has intrinsic value 

Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) refers to all dimensions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and cultures, from languages and performances to traditional scientific and ecological knowledge. It has intrinsic value to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and is a unique national asset that forms an important part of Australia’s identity. Expressions of ICIP in the form of visual arts and crafts are often more than creative outputs. They can play a role in transmitting and thereby preserving laws, history, culture and customs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.   

Draft Finding 6.2 Existing laws do not directly protect Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts 

Current laws provide some protection of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) in visual arts and crafts. But these protections are piecemeal and do not enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities to directly control whether and how their ICIP is used in visual arts and crafts. This means that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ICIP is often used in inappropriate contexts without the consent of the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities. There is a strong case for examining how legal protections for ICIP in visual arts and crafts could be strengthened to reduce misappropriation and help to protect and preserve ICIP in visual arts and crafts. 

Draft Finding 6.3 Dedicated legal protections may assist in addressing misappropriation of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property in visual arts and crafts 

Minor amendments to existing laws could improve protection of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) in visual arts and crafts, but gaps would remain. Larger scale amendments are likely to be incompatible with the frameworks or objectives of existing legislation. Dedicated legislation has the potential to provide stronger recognition and more fit for purpose protection for ICIP used in visual arts and crafts. Legislation directly focused on ICIP in visual arts and crafts would provide a framework for negotiation and presents an opportunity to do so in a way that promotes a fair allocation of benefits. 

Recognising cultural rights to protect the ICIP in visual arts and crafts 

Draft Recommendation 7.2 New cultural rights legislation should be introduced to recognise and protect cultural assets in relation to visual arts and crafts 

To address the issue of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property being used in visual arts and crafts without authorisation from traditional owners, the Australian Government should introduce new legislation that formally recognises the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in their traditional cultural assets. To achieve this, the legislation should create a new cause of action that specifies that a traditional owner’s rights are infringed if a person uses a cultural asset to create a cultural expression, such as a piece of art or craft, without the authorisation of a traditional owner, unless an exception applies. 

Draft Finding 7.2 A cultural rights regime must balance the interests of traditional owners and those seeking access to cultural assets 

The recognition of cultural rights needs to strike the right balance between the interests of traditional owners and the interests of those seeking to access and use cultural assets. This will help ensure that the preservation and maintenance of culture does not come at the cost of preventing traditions and culture from evolving or adapting over time. To achieve this, checks and balances should be built into the legislative regime — including by specifying criteria for: what is protected under the legislation; who can take action to assert cultural rights; and what uses of cultural assets require authorisation. 

Information request 7.1 What should be protected by the new cultural rights legislation? • What is the best way to define what should be in scope for protection? • Should there be limits on protection, such as conditions on when protections apply or threshold criteria for what is protected? If so, what should they be? 

Information request 7.2 How should the legislation deal with the issue of standing to bring a cultural rights action? • What criteria should determine whether a claimant has standing? • What is the best way to recognise communities or groups as having standing? • What are the merits, drawbacks and challenges of giving a government regulator the power to bring cases in relation to cultural misappropriation? 

Information request 7.3 What types of conduct should be considered an infringement of a traditional owner’s cultural rights? • What types of uses of cultural assets should be recognised as having the potential to be infringing? For example, should there be a requirement for the use to be in material form or a substantial use? • How should a court determine whether a user has been granted authorisation to use a cultural asset in a certain way? • Should there be exceptions when cultural assets are used for certain purposes? If so, what should those exceptions be? What should the legislation say about remedies for infringements of cultural rights? • What suite of remedies are needed to achieve fair and just outcomes? • What should the new cultural rights legislation say about how remedies are awarded? 

Information request 7.4 What institutional arrangements are needed to support a new cultural rights regime? • What types of dispute resolution options should be available? What is needed to ensure that dispute resolution processes are responsive to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities? • Is there a case for a statutory Cultural Authority? What would its remit, functions and powers be? 

Draft Finding 7.1 There are advantages to taking a multi pronged approach to protecting Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property 

Given its multi faceted nature, it is not clear that stronger legal protection for all aspects of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) could be pursued through a single regulatory measure. A multi pronged approach to protecting ICIP would enable regulatory responses to be tailored to specific types of ICIP, resulting in more nuanced and fit for purpose protections. It would also take the pressure off any single measure to solve all issues relating to ICIP and give implementation bodies the licence to focus on specific policy issues. 

Draft Recommendation 7.1 An Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Strategy is needed to coordinate regulatory measures 

The Australian Government should develop and publish an Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) strategy that sets out how policy and regulatory measures will address different aspects of ICIP. The development of the strategy should be led by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, in partnership with state and territory governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.   

Some artists encounter unfair and unethical conduct     

Draft Finding 8.1 Unethical conduct towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists still occurs  

Longstanding and serious allegations continue to be made of exploitation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists in some remote areas of Australia. There are also examples across the country of unfair contract terms, copyright infringement and plagiarism, which affect the rights, wellbeing and economic returns to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and their communities. 

Draft Finding 8.2 Enforcement of the Indigenous Art Code is constrained by resourcing 

The Indigenous Art Code is one of the key mechanisms used to mediate interactions between artists and the market. However, the company enforcing the code is under resourced and overstretched. 

Draft Finding 8.3 Artists face difficulties accessing justice and other support services 

Key legal protections, including copyright and the prohibition on unconscionable conduct, can be difficult for artists to access. There are also gaps in support services for independent artists, including those working outside of areas served by art centres and regional peak organisations. 

There is scope to improve government support to the sector 

Draft Finding 9.1 The big picture of government funding is hard to piece together 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and art organisations receive funding from a multitude of sources, including targeted and mainstream arts programs and various non arts portfolios across all levels of government, as well as from philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. Outside of the few targeted programs, data on funding provided to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts is not reported. As a result, it is hard to determine the overall amount of funding available to the sector, or assess how well different funding streams are addressing the needs of the sector.   

Draft Finding 9.2 The National Indigenous Visual Arts Action Plan provides a time-limited funding increase 

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts sector has seen recent injections of funds both directly through the Australian Government’s National Indigenous Visual Arts Action Plan, and indirectly through commitments to establish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and cultural centres. The National Indigenous Visual Arts Action Plan provides $25 million of additional funding to the sector over five years, including for infrastructure upgrades and building digital capacity. The governments of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia are funding art and cultural centres in their respective jurisdictions while New South Wales is investigating similar opportunities. The Australian Government has also committed to establishing a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural complex in Canberra, which will include art and artefact collections. 

Draft Finding 9.3 Primary funding sources from the Australian Government have plateaued in real terms in recent years The Australian Government provides targeted annual funding of about $24.5 million to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts sector through its key art funding programs: the Indigenous Visual Arts Industry Support (IVAIS) and the Australia Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts programs. After increasing for many years, since 2015–16, total IVAIS funding has declined in real terms by 5%. Average funding for art centres — the main recipients of government support — has fallen by 6.3% as the number of art centres has increased while funding under the program has remained fixed. Since 2016 17, funding to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Program under the Australia Council has fallen in real terms by 5%. The recent funding commitments through the National Indigenous Visual Arts Action Plan will assist a number of art centres over a five year period, but there has been no change to the ongoing operational funding provided by IVAIS.   

Draft Finding 9.4 Many roles that art centres fulfil are out of scope for arts funding programs 

The Australian Government’s flagship funding program for the sector, the Indigenous Visual Arts Industry Support (IVAIS) program, focuses on art production and operational costs. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled art organisations fulfil a range of important cultural and social roles within their communities, which are not funded under IVAIS. This increases the administrative burden on art organisations (as they seek to secure funding from other sources) and limits their ability to undertake activities highly valued by their communities. Securing funding to meet the infrastructure needs of art centres has been a longstanding issue. While some funding has been made available for this purpose under the National Indigenous Visual Arts Action Plan, this commitment is only for five years at this stage. 

Building the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts workforce requires a strategic approach 

Draft Finding 9.5 A strategic approach to building the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts workforce is lacking 

Art centres and other art organisations continue to face significant difficulty recruiting and retaining skilled art workers, especially in remote areas. There is no strategic approach at the national level to build the pipeline of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts workers — and leaders — in remote, regional and urban areas. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts sector was not included as an area of focus under the National Roadmap for Indigenous Skills, Jobs and Wealth Creation, and there is a risk that strategic opportunities will be missed as a result. With a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and cultural institutions being built across the country, investment in career pathways and traineeships is required to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people lead — and are employed by — these institutions, and to meet broader policy goals as agreed by governments on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment, self determination, leadership and empowerment. 

Draft Finding 9.6 Appropriate training and professional development opportunities appear limited 

Governments provide funding for professional development and training for workers in the visual arts and crafts sector. However, only a limited number of targeted training, professional development and support programs are available to existing and aspiring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts workers and artists. In particular, it is not clear how adequate or accessible professional development opportunities are for independent artists. 

Information request 9.1 • What are the barriers facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people wishing to develop the skills required for leadership and senior management positions in the visual arts sector? For example, is funding support to study or gain accreditation while away from home a barrier? • Is there merit in establishing an accreditation that formally recognises the practices, skills and knowledges learnt from Elders on Country? • Are the professional development programs offered to arts workers (and independent artists) by art centres, industry service organisations and regional hubs delivering the skills required by the industry? • Are these programs over subscribed? If so by how much? If not, how can art workers be supported to attend? 

Strengthening the sector 

Draft Recommendation 10.3 Australian Government funding should be evaluated to inform future arrangements 

The Australian Government should commission an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of Australian Government expenditure directed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts sector. The scope of the review should include the Indigenous Visual Arts Industry Support (IVAIS) program, the National Indigenous Visual Arts (NIVA) Action Plan and relevant Australia Council programs. This evaluation should be undertaken in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives of the sector, in accordance with the principles of the Productivity Commission’s Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, and be completed by December 2025. The evaluation should consider: • how effectively funding has met existing objectives, and whether these objectives are the right ones • whether and what additional support is required to help meet sector priorities (for example, whether a sector wide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce strategy is required) • what aspects of the NIVA Action Plan, such as support for independent artists, should be maintained as part of ongoing government funding to the sector.   

Draft Recommendation 10.4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be part of shared decision-making in setting objectives for government funding for visual arts and crafts 

Under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, governments committed to build and strengthen the structures that empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to share decision making authority with governments. The current approach to determining funding objectives in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts sector is not characterised by shared decision making between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Australian Government (led by the Australian Government’s Office for the Arts) should establish a formal shared decision making partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and art organisations to help identify funding priorities and strategic initiatives to support growth across the sector. 

Information request 10.1 • What is the best approach to bring together the range of perspectives of the sector to establish a formal shared decision making partnership with government? • Does the sector support the development of a national peak organisation to advocate on behalf of the sector? • What would be required to develop a national peak organisation? How should governments support this process? 

Draft Finding 10.1 The case for an ACCC enforced mandatory or voluntary Indigenous Art Code is not strong Although there is some indication of ongoing unethical conduct in some remote areas of Australia, there is inadequate evidence that this conduct is sufficiently widespread to justify an ACCC enforced voluntary or mandatory code of conduct for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and crafts industry. An industry wide code risks being a blunt and costly tool that would not necessarily address existing shortcomings.   

Draft Recommendation 10.1 The Indigenous Art Code can be strengthened through a joint commitment of government and industry The Australian Government, in partnership with state and territory governments, should modestly increase funding to Indigenous Art Code Limited to support key priorities, including: • an enhanced dispute resolution process, with a referral pathway to independent review of decisions and public reporting of deidentified dispute outcomes • more detailed performance indicators to inform evaluation of the Code’s effectiveness, alongside public reporting of progress. Additional funding should be subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the Code’s effectiveness. Commensurately higher membership fees from dealer members should also be levied to co fund these improvements. 

Draft Recommendation 10.2 Artists should be aware of and able to access legal support services The Australian Government should ensure that legal support services for artists are accessible. Referral pathways should be comprehensive and accessible to independent artists, and promoted such that artists are aware of them. Through its review of the Indigenous Art Code Limited, the Australian Government should assess whether it is the best organisation to undertake this role. Depending on the outcome of that review, the Australian Government should provide funding to the responsible organisation to maintain these referral pathways. 

Information request 8.1 • Are there shortcomings in the processes that governments, large corporations and non government organisations use to purchase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and design services? • What changes could be made to enable artists to better engage with these procurement processes?