It comes from Peter Garrett, who apparently does not take advice, either safety, commercial, legal etc, and has never let reality get in the way of any of his good ideas.

The complainants about this royalty and SMSF art are really self seeking.
Let us look at the facts in regard to the SMSF art proposal: In limiting art sales to SMSF the only people to miss out are the dealers and the auction houses selling art who stand to loose between 20% and 40% in premiums both ways!
Furthermore it would be interesting to audit: 1. where these works of art spend their days during accumulation and after achieving pension status?- I would wager on the walls of the homes of the superannuants!
2.how many actually buy serious works of art for their super that are of real value and would if bought in the 30-50 year old age group ever be sold to realise their pensions?
3. taking into account the costs of buying and selling art, the works need to be very serious and expensive to start with in order to realise a substantial profit.
Let everyone here be just a little bit honest. The mass of art purchased for SMSF's is because it is an easy way to get art for the walls at home and is most unlikely to ever be realised!

You are right to call this a perfect storm. the resale royalty is small beer next to the coopers forced fire-sale of god knows how many indigenous artists works. It will totally , permanently, kill off indigenous art and artists for ever.

As for Gazzaboys comments- dealers dont make and sell art, Artists make and sell art! It is artists that are the real target of your malice.

The artists who are most likely to be hurt by this crap are the very same indigenous artists that Mr garret supposedly loves!