You referred to a Mulrunji. The surname you gave was his surname while alive. Mulrunji was his name when deceased pursuant to indigenous spiritual belief. The combination is an error that reflected neither his proper living name nor his proper deceased name.

Mulrunji was clearly not kicked to death by a policeman. Even the Coroner held in her report that kicking was ruled out by the medical evidence. She found that the prisoner who claimed that Hurley punched Mulrunji in the head and then kicked him did witness punching but was mistaken and the punching was to the body.

You say that in spite of her finding that his injuries were consistent with a savage beating it took 3 years to have Hurley charged with manslaughter and he walked away a free man from the trial. Firstly, it took 3 years because the matter was thoroughly investigated and the DPP, reportedly on the advice of a retired judge with recent criminal law experience, concluded that there was insufficient evidence of death and even opined it was a tragic accident. In any other case that would have been the end of it. Likewise the CMC concluded that there was insufficient evidence. It only went to trial at all because the media campaigned, protests were held, and the government intervened. Hurley was singled out in the judicial process. The coroner had no authority to make a determination as to whether or not there was sufficient evidence of Hurley’s criminality to send him to trial. That is the role of the DPP. Secondly, what does it tell you that the jury let Hurley walk away a free man after considering the evidence? Would you consider the possibility that the trial by media reached a different conclusion than that reached by a consideration of the evidence?

In that case a lack of evidence most definitely meant not guilty. The lengthy investigation involving 2 sets of police investigators, 2 post mortems, 2 coroners albeit with one not going the distance, consideration by the DPP, consideration by the CMC, a hired gun ex judge, and a trial costing $7 million failed to find evidence of wrongdoing by Hurley. A private investigator also was involved. Everything but 6 or 7 seconds was well witnessed or on video tape (the watchhouse didn’t have one in the general area but there was one in the cells). The witness during the 6 or 7 seconds (other than Hurley) made damaging claims some proven false, others unlikely and none that on the face of it could explain the death. For the record the prosecution witness pathologist who examined the body admitted at trial that he couldn’t rule out punching but it was unlikely as there was no indication of it.

You stated that Mulrunji’s injuries were not consistent with a fall down stairs, as concluded by the coroner. However if you actually read the coroner’s report, you would know that all the medical experts involved concurred that the injuries were consistent with such a fall particularly considering 2m tall (115kg) Hurley appeared to fall on top of 74kg Mulrunji according to the view of one witness and later surmised by Hurley. Hurley naturally didn’t remember ever last detail of the fall particularly after just being punched in the head by Mulrunji but concluded that it must have gone that way.

With respect, that is an extremely poor example.

Artists need distributors, promoters, advertising, and often need someone to loan them money to set themselves up, etc. There’s nothing exploitative about this.
Art is a high risk business. Look at the music industry where 99% of all originals bands lose money and never get famous. I don’t believe there is an instance where a dealer paid $100 for an indigenous painting, then was able to straight away sell it for $100,000. But even if this has happened, it would be extremely rare.
The reason I don’t think this happens is because when I visited Alice Springs, Aboriginal art was everywhere and it wasn’t that expensive.

Like every single business ever, the artist always has the responsibility to negotiate the best price for their products to whomever they sell it to.
Or would you like indigenous artists to be treated as special or inferior by the law in regards to art sales?

Contemorary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry

The Market

The market for Australian art and craft works is supplied by a number of different types of businesses: commercial art galleries/ dealers, auction houses, other merchants such as department stores and tourist enterprises, and directly from the artist themselves.

There are no data available on the total value of artwork sold in Australia. However, in 1999 approximately $69 million of art was sold in Australian auctions�of which the majority is assumed to be secondary sales (Furphy 2000). The value of art sold through commercial galleries in 1999�2000 was $218 million, of which $111 million were secondary sales (ABS 2001b).

Between 1990 and 1999 the value of artworks sold at auction in Australia increased by around 300 per cent, with most of the increase coming from works by non-Indigenous, Australian artists. Auction sales of works by Indigenous Australian artists showed the biggest proportional increase over that period, however, rising from $169 000 in 1990 to $4.7 million in 1999�an almost 30-fold increase. (ABS 2001b).

At June 2000 there were 514 commercial galleries operating in Australia (ABS 2001b), including 31 Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander art centres. For the purposes of the survey, a commercial art gallery was defined as a business whose primary activity is the display and sale of works of art. The total value of artwork sold was $218 million in 1999�2000. Commercial galleries and art centres sold $35.6 million of Indigenous artworks.

With regard to visits to art galleries, an ABS survey indicated that 3.16 million people, equal to 21.2 per cent of the Australian population, visited an art galley at least once in the 12 months to April 1999 (ABS 1999).”

I don’t know where you are pulling your figures from Kate.

Right. So after a $90 000 – $110 000 sale, the income of the artist doesn’t increase?

All paintings are valued to a reasonable estimate of what they are likely to fetch at auction at a given time.

In an industry worth about $300 million a year, only $50 million goes back to indigenous artists, according to Rupert Myer’s comprehensive 2002 report for the Federal Government on the visual arts and crafts.

It is not exploitative. Clearly the painter will get a much higher price for their next artwork. Unless the artist agrees that the dealer doesn’t have to tell them the price, and they haven’t agreed to a commission scheme.

I think you’ll find this is how most art works, the first work an artist sells commercially is generally pizza money but the dealer makes a killing. Everything else they sell after that is caviar money, or more.

How much do you think the NGA bought Blue Poles for, and what is it worth now?

Art is also high risk, so a large premium is demanded.