Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Precedent (Australian Lawyers Alliance)

Parkin, Stephanie; Pappalardo, Kylie --- "Protecting Indigenous art and culture: How the law fails to prevent exploitation" [2020] PrecedentAULA 46; (2020) 159 Precedent 32

THE NEED TO PROTECT INDIGENOUS ART AND CULTURE

HOW THE LAW FAILS TO PREVENT EXPLOITATION

By Stephanie Parkin and Kylie Pappalardo

There has long been a problem with the exploitation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and culture in Australia. One particular issue has been the sale of ‘fake’ or ‘inauthentic’ Indigenous art products in stores.

Inauthentic Indigenous art and craft products use or incorporate Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural expression without the consent or knowledge of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people to which the cultural expression relates.^[1] One example is a wooden ‘boomerang’ painted with Aboriginal-style art by a non-Indigenous person. A store proprietor may represent that their products have been created by or with the licence of Indigenous artists, when in fact they have not. Often, these products are sourced from jurisdictions with low production costs, like Indonesia. In a mystery shopping exercise conducted in 2017, the Arts Law Centre of Australia and the Indigenous Art Code found that up to 80 per cent of ‘Aboriginal art’ products that were available in the examined stores, especially in souvenir stores, were either fake or their origin was unclear.^[2]

False representations as to the source or provenance of particular goods are likely to infringe Australia’s laws against false or misleading representations in trade or commerce, contained in ss18, 29 and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).^[3] In 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against wholesaler Birubi Art Pty Ltd on this basis.^[4] The ACCC claimed that Birubi had breached the ACL by representing to consumers that a range of products – including boomerangs, didgeridoos and message stones – were hand-painted by Australian Aboriginal people, and by failing to disclose that the products were made in Indonesia.^[5] The Court considered the express and implied representations made by Birubi on the packaging of the products and the likely meanings that were conveyed to consumers, and concluded that these products breached the ACL.^[6] The Birubi case generated considerable attention in the Indigenous community and more broadly within the media,^[7] but the unfortunate reality is that these cases are rarely litigated; Birubi was the first such case in almost a decade.^[8]

The Australian Parliament has recognised that sales of inauthentic Indigenous art products are a significant problem in Australia. From late 2017 to late 2018, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs conducted a Parliamentary Inquiry into the ‘growing presence of inauthentic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander “style” art and craft products and merchandise for sale across Australia’.^[9] The Inquiry attracted 162 submissions, many from Indigenous artists, and the Committee conducted 26 public hearings around Australia.^[10] The Final Report made eight recommendations for decreasing the amount of inauthentic art products available in the marketplace, mostly focusing on ‘soft law’ approaches such as better labelling of art products; the development of Information Standards and consumer education guides about the differences between authentic and inauthentic Indigenous art; and increased funding for the Indigenous Art Code^[11] and Indigenous art centres.^[12]

The Parliamentary Committee’s Inquiry was thorough, and its final report is an important step in both increasing awareness and responding to the problem of inauthentic Indigenous art in the Australian marketplace. However, a key problem with both the Parliamentary Inquiry and existing legal approaches is the focus on consumer law as the vehicle for regulating inauthentic Indigenous art products. In this article, we argue that without significant amendment, consumer law is not able to properly address the issue of inauthentic Indigenous art products due to the fact that its core aim is to protect consumers. This consumer focus means that the interests of those who are harmed most by inauthentic art products – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons – are sidelined and obscured. This article canvasses, first, how inauthentic art and craft impacts Indigenous persons and communities, through their own words in submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry. We then discuss the limitations of current consumer law in addressing these harms. We conclude with our own views on how law reform in this area should proceed, arguing that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their perspectives must be at the heart of any proposals for reform.

THE IMPACT OF INAUTHENTIC ART AND CRAFT ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PERSONS

For non-Indigenous Australians, it is easy to conceive of the harms from inauthentic art as primarily economic – sales and contracts are diverted to low-cost factories, which in turn diverts income from Indigenous artists and their communities.^[13] But for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the harms are multifaceted and include emotional and spiritual impacts.^[14]

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the nexus between cultural expression, land, heritage and spirituality serves as the foundation of the practice and creation of Aboriginal art.^[15] Obligations exist to protect the ancestral land and relationships, including the ongoing transmission of cultural knowledge through art and cultural expression.^[16] This means that for many Indigenous artists, the pain of seeing cultural expression misappropriated by people without any connection to Indigenous land or culture cuts to the very core of Indigenous identity. As the Parliamentary Committee’s final report stated, ‘almost all of the First Nations individuals, organisations and communities that spoke to the committee during the inquiry are deeply hurt by the sale of inauthentic art and craft’.^[17]

Submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry

One of this article’s authors conducted thematic and discourse analysis across all 162 submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry. In their submissions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons frequently employed strongly emotive language to describe how they were impacted by inauthentic art. They reported feeling ‘violated’,^[18] ‘demeaned’,^[19] ‘disrespected’,^[20] and ‘exploited’.^[21] They also reported feelings of shame.^[22] One artist wrote:

‘It hurts us when people make fake Aboriginal art because that breaks our Law... When Aboriginal Law and our Ancestors are disrespected, we feel terrible pain and fear for ourselves and our family. We don’t know how to make it right, to heal the pain and protect the Law again ...’^[23]

The Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair Foundation explained, in its submission:

‘Aboriginal lore dictates who can replicate these “styles” and colour ways even within their own family structure. Understanding cultural protocols is essential to understanding how destructive the proliferation of inauthentic art is.’^[24]

For Indigenous people, these feelings are compounded by the ongoing effects of colonialism that are experienced on a daily basis. Indigenous scholar Irene Watson has written that the intergenerational impact of colonialism is a ‘phenomenon that has never ended’,^[25] and which continues to ‘smother [Aboriginal] relationships to law, land and the natural world’.^[26] In the context of inauthentic art, when non-Indigenous individuals and businesses reinterpret and market Aboriginal culture for their own profit, they diminish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists’ autonomy to represent themselves to the wider Australian and international community.^[27] Watson’s sentiments were reflected in the submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry. For example, the City of Sydney noted:

‘Fake Indigenous art also suffocates the opportunity for Aboriginal communities that have been impacted heavily by colonisation to re-establish their cultural identity and cultural expression within these high traffic gateways to Australia.’^[28]

Similarly, Aboriginal artist Richard Bell said, ‘And you know, for our people, we had a whole continent taken from us. Most of what we have left is cultural, so you know, to do this is quite, you know, the end.’^[29] The presence of inauthentic art products is, for some Indigenous people, a reoccurring reminder of the disrespect shown to them by colonial settlers; it is a reality that must be confronted daily,^[30] and which can ‘result in feelings of helplessness around the ownership of cultures that have been stolen, faked and warped’.^[31]

The presence and prevalence of non-economic harms makes this a challenge for the law to address, particularly where law plays a remedial function. Monetary damages alone cannot repair the spiritual, emotional and community harms experienced by Indigenous persons whose culture has been exploited, though damages may provide a kind of recognition of the harms caused. If Australian law is to adequately respond to the challenges of inauthentic art products, these non-economic harms need to be taken into account. Current legal approaches, however, have emerged primarily from consumer law, which is not conceptually suited to recognise and consider these types of non-economic harm to Aboriginal artists.

LEGAL REGULATION OF INAUTHENTIC ART AND CRAFT

The ACL provides that a person must not engage in conduct, in trade or commerce, that is likely to mislead or deceive consumers.^[32] As well as the general prohibition in s18, there are provisions in the ACL that apply to specific conduct in trade or commerce. Section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations that goods have a particular history,^[33] or that they have sponsorship or approval.^[34] Section 29 also prevents false or misleading representations about the place of origin of goods.^[35] Section 33 provides that a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process or characteristics of goods.^[36] All of these provisions would apply to regulate the sale of inauthentic art and craft in Australia.

Even without express misrepresentations that a product was made by or under the licence of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander artist, it is our contention that goods that clearly present in the style of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander art misrepresent, through their very appearance, that they are made by an Indigenous Australian or are otherwise connected to Indigenous culture. This carries with it the representation that the goods were made by or with the knowledge of an Indigenous Australian, and, often, that the goods were made in Australia. By extension, a proprietor that sells goods which appear to be but are not Indigenous in origin is engaging in conduct that is likely to mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process and/or characteristics of the goods.

The Birubi case

Implied misrepresentations of this type were contemplated by the Court in the Birubi case. One of the products at issue was a boxed boomerang painted with Aboriginal-style art. Justice Perry considered that this product was ‘immediately recognisable as an Aboriginal object with characteristically Aboriginal artwork, which naturally suggests a relationship between Aboriginal people and the production of the boomerang’.^[37] This impression was reinforced by a statement on the box that the boomerang was ‘100% hand painted’, which Justice Perry thought would cause a consumer to assume that the boomerang had been hand painted by an Aboriginal person.^[38] Her Honour concluded that the overwhelming impression conveyed to consumers by the boomerang itself and its packaging was that the boomerang was made in Australia by an Aboriginal person,^[39] and that this impression was likely to be acute for international tourists whose familiarity with Aboriginal designs, art and cultural practice was limited.^[40]

The problem with relying on implied misrepresentations, however, is that their impact is generally considered to be overridden by any express representations to the contrary. An item which otherwise appears Indigenous in origin, but which is labelled with a notice that the product is ‘Aboriginal style’ or ‘Made in Indonesia’, may not violate the provisions of the ACL – even if the label is small or inconspicuous. In Birubi, the Court held that, in contrast to the boxed boomerangs, loose boomerangs sold by Birubi did not breach s33 of the ACL because they were affixed with labels stating, ‘Art featured is from originals by Australian Aboriginal artist Trisha Mason’ and ‘Royalties are paid’.^[41] The Court accepted that this identified the product as a reproduction rather than an original piece of craftsmanship, and that an ordinary person would not assume that the reproduction was painted by an Aboriginal person.^[42]

What remains underexplored in this area is the complex interaction between express true representations and implied untrue representations relating to inauthentic Indigenous art and craft. The likely impact of various representations on consumers is a question of fact, and we lack comprehensive data about the extent to which small labels of origin counter the general impressions given to consumers who encounter Indigenous-style art products in the marketplace. The Birubi case was an imperfect vehicle to explore this interaction, because the products sold by Birubi contained both express and implied misrepresentations as to the products’ provenance, including labels such as ‘Suppliers of ... genuine Aboriginal art’.^[43] The Court’s treatment of the loose boomerangs, however, indicates that even relatively weak express statements may override general visual impressions of a product’s cultural origins in some circumstances.

Limitations of existing law

In any event, current consumer law is conceptually ill-suited to addressing the harms to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons caused by inauthentic art and craft. Under the ACL, the focus remains squarely on protecting Australian consumers of goods and services, rather than on protecting the creators or potential creators of those goods. For most artistic products, the relevant law to protect artists or creators is the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). But there, too, Indigenous artists’ rights are not adequately protected. Copyright law will not prevent persons from copying a style of artwork, and it will not always recognise the kind of communally-created and communally-owned artistic expression that is central to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture.^[44]

The recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs to improve the law in this area were overwhelmingly directed towards making authentic Indigenous art products easier to identify.^[45] Better market signalling is likely to generate economic pressures that may reduce the incidence of inauthentic art, but for some it does not go far enough to stop the production of inauthentic art products in the first place. During the time of the Parliamentary Inquiry, two private members’ bills were introduced to Parliament, by Bob Katter and Sarah Hanson-Young respectively, which proposed amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to effectively outlaw inauthentic Indigenous art products. At the time of writing, neither has progressed to law.

The Katter and Hanson-Young Bills

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2017 (Cth) (the Katter Bill) sought to prohibit a person from supplying or offering to supply to a consumer anything containing Indigenous cultural expression, unless the thing is supplied by, or supplied under an arrangement with, an Indigenous community or artist.^[46] Additionally, the Bill required that the thing be made in Australia.^[47] While the Katter Bill sought to respond to the messages voiced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people leading up to and throughout the Inquiry process about the need to protect Indigenous art and culture from exploitation, it had some serious limitations. Critically, the requirement that products be made in Australia would limit the ability of Indigenous artists to engage with overseas manufacturers to produce works and souvenirs featuring their art. Ironically, this could make it more difficult for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists to earn money from the sale of their artwork.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Prevention of Exploitation of Indigenous Cultural Expressions) Bill 2019 (the Hanson-Young Bill) proposed that if an item falls within the definition of an ‘Indigenous cultural artefact’, it can only be supplied if it is made by a member of the Indigenous community with whom the cultural expression contained on the artefact relates.^[48] The Bill also includes an outright prohibition on the supply of an ‘Indigenous ceremonial or sacred artefact’, suggesting that some artefacts are so sacred that they should not be available for consumer purchase at all.^[49]

In July 2019, the Senate referred the Hanson-Young Bill to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The Committee’s report, released in April 2020, recommended that the Senate not pass the Bill, but instead engage in further consultation with Indigenous artists, organisations and communities to ‘develop legislation to prohibit the sale of inauthentic Indigenous products sold as souvenirs, either through amendment of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 or through another mechanism’.^[50] The Committee noted that the ‘large and growing presence of inauthentic Indigenous cultural products being sold in Australia’ is ‘concerning’,^[51] and also acknowledged that ‘these matters are complex’ and ‘there are a variety of views in the sector’.^[52] The Committee ultimately concluded:

‘Overall, the committee supports the broader direction of these recommendations which, following extensive consultation with Indigenous and other stakeholders, should ultimately result in a comprehensive, standalone legislative framework to protect the various complex forms of Indigenous cultural expression. The committee's view is that this broader objective is beyond the scope of the current bill.’^[53]

The Committee’s report is a pertinent example of the hesitation and delays that can happen in this space. While urging the need for ‘prompt attention by the Commonwealth’ on the issue of inauthentic Indigenous art products, the Committee’s report betrays a distinct reluctance to approaching the regulation of Indigenous cultural expression and cultural heritage, and especially what ‘authentic’ means in these contexts.^[54] While the process of reform needs to be informed and guided by Indigenous voices, the recommendation for further consultation carries a risk of devolving into an interminable series of consultations without any action. For some, more consultation is welcome,^[55] whereas for others it may be perceived only as a ‘talkfest’; an endless circling around the issue that is disappointing, frustrating and insulting.^[56] Unfortunately, the recommendation for ‘further consultation’ is not unfamiliar to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Our view, detailed below, is that the Committee is correct that we need a comprehensive, standalone legislative framework to protect Indigenous cultural expression in Australia. But we need to be realistic about how long that might take, and the harms that are likely to accrue to Indigenous Australians in the meantime. It may be that legal reform of the kind proposed in the Hanson-Young Bill would help to provide an avenue for preventing some of these harms, by stopping the sale of fake art products in the marketplace, while comprehensive legislation is developed.

CONCLUSION

The final recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs was that ‘the Australian Government begins a consultation process to develop stand-alone legislation protecting Indigenous Cultural Intellectual Property, including traditional knowledge and cultural expressions’.^[57]

A sui generis regime to protect Indigenous art and cultural expression from exploitation is likely to be the best way forward in offering recognition and protection of such rights. It would avoid forcing the issue into a legislative framework that is ill-adapted to the task: the (current) ACL, in seeking to protect consumers from mistakenly buying an inauthentic product when they were seeking an authentic one, might have the effect of protecting some Indigenous artists from being exploited in the marketplace, but this would be a by-product of its main objective. It would also be a mistake to expand copyright law to provide comprehensive protection of Indigenous cultural expression, as we and others have explained elsewhere.^[58] Such expansion would require significant changes to some of the most fundamental rules in copyright, including the copyright term and the rules around originality and ownership. The result would likely be to make copyright law more dense and confusing than it already is.^[59]

A sui generis regime, if developed correctly, would have the advantage of being able to consider the harms experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons when cultural expressions are misappropriated and misused. Importantly, there may be scope to consider the non-economic harms described above, in addition to the more concrete economic harms. However, it is essential that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be intimately involved in any regulatory response to inauthentic art and craft. The law itself is a colonial structure; Indigenous people are accustomed to having law done to them, rather than with them.^[60] It is necessary for lawmakers to acknowledge their role in a system that frequently disempowers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, despite the best intentions in Parliament. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices and perspectives should be included at all stages of legislative development, and should be properly listened to, respected and acted upon. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should inform and guide the development of legislation, especially Article 31, which provides that Indigenous people have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.^[61] While the Declaration has not been ratified by Australia, its principles and intent can still serve as a foundation to guide legislative reform.

Finally, and most importantly, any law to protect Indigenous cultural expression or prevent inauthentic art and craft should have the interests of Indigenous Australians at its core. Law makers must be prepared to listen and act on the long-standing calls by Indigenous people for reform. Standalone legislation can work alongside the ACL to ensure that both consumers and creators are protected. But it is insufficient to treat the concerns of Indigenous artists and communities as subsidiary to consumer rights or to Australia’s overall economic interests.

Stephanie Parkin is a Masters of Philosophy Candidate, School of Law, Queensland University of Technology. Stephanie is a Quandamooka person from North Stradbroke Island. She is also a lawyer, the Chair, Indigenous Art Code, and Indigenous Engagement Manager, Copyright Agency. EMAIL stephanie_parkin190@hotmail.com.

Kylie Pappalardo is a Lecturer in the School of Law and a Chief Investigator in the Digital Media Research Centre at the Queensland University of Technology. EMAIL k.pappalardo@qut.edu.au.

^[1] S Parkin, ‘The theft of culture and inauthentic art and craft: Australian Consumer Law and Indigenous intellectual property’, Master of Philosophy Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, February 2020, 7.

^[2] Arts Law Centre of Australia, ‘Fake art harms culture campaign: Inauthentic art inquiry’ (webpage), 19 September 2017, <https://www.artslaw.com.au/fake-art-harms-culture-campaign-2/>.

^[3] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2.

^[4] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Birubi Art Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1595 (Birubi).

^[5] Ibid, [3]–[4].

^[6] Ibid, [13]–[14], [163]–[164].

^[7] See, eg, I Higgins, ‘Federal Court imposes $2.3 million penalty on Birubi Art for selling fake Aboriginal art’, ABC News, 26 June 2019, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-26/federal-court-imposes-$2.3-million-penalty-on-birubi-art/11247904>.

^[8] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Dreamtime Creations Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1545.

^[9] Australian Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, Report on the impact of inauthentic art and craft in the style of First Nations peoples (December 2018) 3.

^[10] Ibid, Appendix A and Appendix C.

^[11] The Indigenous Art Code seeks to establish standards for dealings between arts dealers and Indigenous artists to ensure fair and ethical trade in artwork and transparency in the process of promotion and sale of artwork. See further: <https://indigenousartcode.org/the-indigenous-art-code/>.

^[12] Australian Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, above note 9, ch 5.

^[13] For instance, the Parliamentary Inquiry’s first recommendation was: ‘that the Productivity Commission conducts a comprehensive inquiry into the value and structure of the current market for First Nations art and crafts.’ Australian Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, above note 9, 73–4.

^[14] See D Stokes, Exhibit 16 to the Inquiry into the growing presence of inauthentic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘style’ art and craft products and merchandise for sale across Australia. See also G Hookey, Exhibit 15.

^[15] JE Anderson, Law, Knowledge, Culture: The Production of Indigenous Knowledge in Intellectual Property Law (Edward Elgar, 2009) 140.

^[16] I Watson, Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism and International Law: Raw Law (Routledge, 2015) 13.

^[17] Australian Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, above note 9, 2.

^[18] See, eg, Debbie Taylor, Submission 12; Libby Harward, Submission 21.

^[19] See, eg, Terri Janke and Company Pty Ltd, Submission 73.

^[20] See, eg, Leeton Lee, Submission 15; Bianca Beetson, Submission 23; Gapuwiyak Culture and Arts, Submission 134.

^[21] See, eg, Philip Rist, Submission 107; Gordon Hookey, Exhibit 15.

^[22] See, eg, Arts Ceduna, Submission 85.

^[23] Jane Young, Tangentytere Artists, quoted in Desart, Submission 87, 3.

^[24] Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair Foundation, Submission 62, 5.

^[25] Watson, above note 16, 8.

^[26] Ibid, 13.

^[27] See, eg, D Waldron and J Newton, ‘Rethinking appropriation of the Indigenous, a critique of the romanticist approach’, The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 16(2), 2012, 64 and 70.

^[28] City of Sydney, Submission 93.

^[29] Richard Bell, Exhibit 7.

^[30] See, eg, Gordon Hookey, Exhibit 15.

^[31] FORM Building a State of Creativity Inc., Submission 61.

^[32] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2, s18(1).

^[33] Ibid, s29(1)(a).

^[34] Ibid, s29(1)(g).

^[35] Ibid, s29(1)(k).

^[36] Ibid, s33.

^[37] Birubi, above note 4, [126] (Perry J).

^[38] Ibid, [125], [127].

^[39] Ibid, [125]–[128].

^[40] Ibid, [75]–[76], [116].

^[41] Ibid, [105]–[107] The Court did find, however, that the loose boomerangs breached ss18 and 29(1)(a) of the ACL: [108]–[115].

^[42] Ibid.

^[43] Ibid, [123]–[124].

^[44] See T Janke, Our Culture: Our Future, Report on Australian Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights (Michael Frankel & Company, Sydney, 1998) 51–63; T Janke, Indigenous Knowledge: Issues for protection and management, Discussion paper, Commissioned by IP Australia and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS), 2018, 30–5.

^[45] Australian Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, above note 9, 74–5 (Recommendations 2, 4, 5 and 6).

^[46] Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2017 (Cth), cl 168A; Explanatory Memorandum, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2017 (Cth), 4.

^[47] Explanatory Memorandum, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2017 (Cth), 4.

^[48] Competition and Consumer Amendment (Prevention of Exploitation of Indigenous Cultural Expressions) Bill 2019 (Cth), sch 1.

^[49] Ibid.

^[50] Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Report on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Prevention of Exploitation of Indigenous Cultural Expressions) Bill 2019 (Cth), April 2020, 25.

^[51] Ibid, 23–4.

^[52] Ibid, 24.

^[53] Ibid.

^[54] See Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, above note 50, 17 and 19.

^[55] See, eg, ibid, 21.

^[56] See, eg, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, Official Committee Hansard, 13 February 2018, 8 (Ann Sudmalis MP, Chair of Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs).

^[57] Australian Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, above note 9, 76 (Recommendation 8).

^[58] T Janke, Our Culture: Our Future, Report on Australian Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights (Michael Frankel & Company, Sydney, 1998) 194–6; K Pappalardo, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2018, Brisbane, 3–4 and S Parkin, Committee Hansard, 16 July 2018, Brisbane, 44, cited in Australian Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, above note 9, 55–8.

^[59] The Copyright Act 1968 is already close to 700 pages in length, and difficult for laypeople to understand.

^[60] E Strakosch, Neoliberal Indigenous policy: Settler colonialism and the ‘post-welfare’ state (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) 27.

^[61] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 61/295 (13 September 2007).