Archives
CAMPAIGN LAUNCH WEB VIDEO
- Written by savesuperart.
- Posted on June 16 2010.
- Filed under Uncategorized.
- Bookmark the Permalink.
- Subscribe to Comments RSS feed.
- Post a Comment.
- Leave a Trackback URL.
SAVE SUPER ART
TELL COOPER, HANDS OFF ART IN SUPER!
-
The Federal Government’s Cooper Review of Superannuation has called for a ban on art investment in Self Management Super Funds (SMFS). The Cooper Review also wants SMSFs to divest all art investments within 10 years. These recommendations are extremely damaging to the Australian art industry. 
-
RSS Feeds
60 Comments
1 Eleanor Hart wrote:
Legislation urgently needs to be overturned as the Arts Industry will be destroyed if it is upheld
2 Ivana Perkins wrote:
I was very pleased to attend the meeting. It is great to keep artists informed seeing we’re such a fragmented bunch. I felt that the Galleries are really the target you should be aiming at as most artists don’t really know who buys their art and it’s the galleries that are most informed and will be affected.
3 Jenny Taylor wrote:
This is singling out the work of the artist and shows how Rudd’s
government do not research any new oilicy properly before they go
blindly trying to implement money grabbing ventures. Wonder what the
rich and famous feel about disposing of their precious art collections
and losing 5% plus all other costs incurred with selling. The business
community over the past few years have been keen investors in art, which does not depreciate and lose unlike the share and superannuation fund markets. They also get the chance to encourage the art community and
nurture a part of our cultural growth. The biggest losers will be of
course artists who because of their passion struggle on through tough
times to create wondrous works of art. The Rudd government needs to look at the bigger picture and before going blindly into yet another bad policy decison. Surely they have had plenty of those already !!!
4 Marielle Soni wrote:
Superannuation investment in art is as valid as any other Super investment – it has been proven to be so, as long as it is done with
expert recommendation akin to any other financial advice. Why change
this? It is my right to invest. And it is my right to support the arts.
Hands Off!
5 M Savy wrote:
Art is a valid asset class, and viewed in such a way, its risk and reward characteristics would be evident for anyone who could be bothered
to conduct even the most basic investigation. Its risk/reward qualities
offer diversification benefits that would satisfy modern portfolio theory, as evidenced by CBus’ existing holdings in its portfolio.
The existing ark market not only provides opportunities for capital appreciation over the long term but also income producing opportunities.
How does this conflict with the sole purpose test?
Existing superannuation law (SIS) already provides guidance on the purpose and intent of holding assets within superannuation, in which contravention will lead to penalties. Investment properties can just as equally become holiday homes (personal-use asset), intended or un-intended.
Please reconsider this proposal but this time please, please, please consult with industry (art, investment, anyone who has a clue).
6 Wendy Sharpe wrote:
It is terrible to think what effect this legislation would have on the art industry if were to go through!
7 John Wregg wrote:
This proposal not only threatens to damage the future of an important industry but also the value of artworks extensively researched, already purchased for superfunds. My existing investments and thus my future financial security are endangered by this illogical proposal. At a time when art investments are far outperforming the stockmarket, it is simply sarcen to deny them to superfunds.
8 Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
9 Daniel Moynihan wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
10 Jenny Taylor wrote:
This is singling out the work of the artist and shows how Rudd’s government do not research any new policy properly before they go blindly trying to implement money grabbing ventures. Wonder what the rich and famous feel about disposing of their precious art collections and losing 5% plus all other costs incurred with selling. The business community over the past few years have been keen investors in art, which does not depreciate and lose unlike the share and superannuation fund markets. They also get the chance to encourage the art community and nurture a part of our cultural growth. The biggest losers will be of course artists who because of their passion struggle on through tough times to create wondrous works of art.
The Rudd government needs to look at the bigger picture and before going blindly into yet another bad policy decision. Surely they have had plenty of those already !!!
11 Jenny Port wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
12 Emma Rodwell wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
13 Fleur Downey wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
14 Grant Stevens wrote:
I am an emerging artist struggling to make a living from my art practice. Taking away the ability to include artworks as superannuation investments will greatly effect my potential to survive financially as an artist. We already endure a massive “brain drain” in the visual arts, with so many artists and artworkers seeking the greater rewards of Europe, America and now Asia. If implemented, the recommendations of the Cooper review will wipe out a huge part of the private market in Australia. This will, without a doubt, have dire implications not only for emerging artists like myself, but also for the broader development of the visual arts in Australia. I implore you not to implement the Cooper Review recommendations.
15 Edwin Nicholls wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
16 Dominik Mersch wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
17 Mat Griffiths wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
18 John Firth-Smith wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
19 Annie Wang wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
20 Su Baker wrote:
Hands off. Allow people to make investments as they see fit.
21 Deidre But-Husaim wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
22 Josie Cavallaro wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
23 Somchai Charoen wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
24 Marguerite Brown wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
25 Glenn Walls wrote:
This ban indicates the shortsightedness of the federal government in understanding the Australia art market. It seems that little research has been done on the government’s behalf in understanding the consequences of such a banning. Artist are an integral part of the Australian economy and there is a whole support network that would be directly affected such as art suppliers, framers, printers, galleries, publishers etc if artists works were not acquired by Self Management Super Funds. Artists are one of the many groups who enrich this countries cultural heritage.
26 Carl Scrase wrote:
I am a young artist and it is already a real struggle to survive in our society. Please consider the effects this may have.
27 Doug Gee wrote:
I am so offended as an Australian Collector, collect Art & Real Estate but I have in recent years contributed over $260,000 in stamp duties on residential property and have a folio of Art leased averaging a 12% return, educated yes but Super Funds have been very good at soaking up and loosing our money!!!!!! Assets of those whom they trusted , let us at least loose our own money
28 Amanda Alderson wrote:
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
29 Emma van Leest wrote:
I’m really disappointed with the government. Labor is supposed to help working families – who does this ban help? Not the hard-working professional artists who, although being a very highly skilled and qualified profession, rarely see more than a basic income from their art.
Australia doesn’t have the same philanthropic base to support and value artists as other countries do and we need something to keep the sales coming.
Don’t be remembered as the government who made Australia a less beautiful and creative place.
Yours sincerely,
Emma van Leest
30 Louise Drolz wrote:
The Cooper Review recommends not only a ban on investment by SMSF’s in collectibles but also the divestment of these assets by 30 June 2020.
If a member is past their preservation age and retired or over 65, then their SMSF can ‘pay’ the artwork to them as an in specie lump sum. If not, their choices are limited to either purchasing the asset from the fund, which may trigger a CGT event (itself problematic because of the requirement that gains and losses from collectibles can only be netted off against other collectibles), or selling it into the market.
Given that the art market between now and 2012 will be suffering both a reduction in demand and a surfeit of supply, the latter option could prove dire.
Before adopting this recommendation, would it not be wise to model the likely impact of ‘dumping’ vast quantities of stock into an illiquid market whilst simultaneously cutting demand?
I also wonder what is fair about forcing SMSF members to liquidate legitimately acquired assets which were purchased as a long term investment simply because of ‘regulatory and compliance complexities’ and because, like every other asset held in an SMSF, you can hold them outside super too?
The inference is that the Panel has done the maths and there is a quantum of cost that far outweighs any potential benefit. If this is the case, then surely a better solution lies in finding ways of minimising the cost of these ‘compliance complexities’ rather than adopting a prescriptive approach to allowable assets. And, if these compliance issues are so complex, costly and worrisome, surely it makes sense to communicate the Panel’s concerns to all market participants and see if they can find a solution before pulling the plug. Given that there’s a whopping 3% of SMSF assets described simply as ‘other’, there seems to be a few definitional issues to wrestle with before any recommendations regarding the worthiness of specific asset classes could be made law.
31 Catherine Czerw wrote:
It is disappointing that the Government’s strong success and tangible achievements in supporting artists through the recent resale royalties legislation will be potentially undermined by these recommendations.
32 paul auckett wrote:
Hands off our arts industry Mr Garret! Super is one of the most cost effective funding mechanisms for the arts, which means Mr garret wont have to find money, where there isn’t any to fund the more commercial arts sector. Basically it doesn’t cost the government anything to support the arts in this way. An it is an industry employing many more people other than just artists. Also as we are now in an economic environment which is already seeing a dramatic downturn in demand for art, which would see more support required from the government, not less. But perhaps more importantly, there will be a cultural wasteland left in the wake of the Cooper recommendations when the industry becomes unviable for many of the stakeholders. From the buyers to the artists, through to the galleries and all along the line to the art transport specialists, many people livelihoods will be effected, along with their opportunity to enjoy Australia’s rich and diverse arts culture.
33 Peter Alwast wrote:
The Australian Art scene is tiny in comparison with Europe or America, lets keep our talented people here rather than forcing them overseas.
34 Paul Selwood wrote:
Rather than deflate the art market with these disastrous and philistine Cooper review recommendations, the government should provide a stimulus package of incentives to support Australia’s Fine Arts. Encouraging investment in art by self managed super funds helps to support the livelihood of artists and contributes to the vitality of Australian culture.
35 Sarah Nolan wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
36 Kim Maree wrote:
Please look at this more closely & don’t make changes that will hinder the preservation of & further development of culture – the art industry struggles to make work & earn an income already & it is an industry that is vital to our communities – lets support artists who support our spirits by continuing to make work.
37 Peter McQueeney wrote:
Hands of. As an Artist art isf this is my living and life .
Get one of your own.
38 Jeremy Eccles wrote:
I was about to spend $10,000+ on an indigenous painting for my superfund when I read of Cooper’s proposals. I pulled out immediately – sad for the artist, sad for my fund.
39 joan.dunnwald. wrote:
hands.off.art.in.super.we.do.not.need.any.more.do.gooders.leave.us.alone.to.try.to.make.a,living
40 Claire Bridge wrote:
Art is how I earn my living, and though my earnings may at this point be minimal I’d rather be being creative, productive and contributing to the cultural and social heritage of our nation than leaching of it as an unemployed person. Banning art investments in Self Managed Super funds will detrimentally affect my capacity to make a living, will demolish the cultural capital of our country by impacting artists and the art industry with the closure of galleries and increased unemployment as a result. Investing in art invests in the creative wealth of our society. Saver Super Art and save our cultural heritage. Save artists and our art industry.
41 Madeleine Clear wrote:
Australian artists do not need yet another hurdle to test their ability to survive. Super art is the right of every superfund owner – please leave things as they are!
42 Philip Freeman wrote:
I believe this is a mistake for the art industry and also for the super industry
43 Alicia Parlby wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
44 Joe Mithiran wrote:
Indigenous art is one of the ways in which indigenous Australians can hope to avoid being left in poverty, and art is vitally important for all Australians. Don’t destroy the art industry.
45 Simon Farrell wrote:
Investment in art has been going on for millenniums.
The national Government of Australia does it and does all state and territory governments.
Why not individuals by way of superannuation investment.
Our culture and history is vested in all forms of art.
It is our heritage and that of future generations.
Mr Cooper get real!
Minister don’t be conned.
46 Ian Hodgson wrote:
The justification for the proposal, i.e. the cumulative regulatory and compliance complexities, is very weak. How can buying and selling a unique artwork be complex compared with the buying and selling of shares, which are frequently sold and then bought back later in different lots and at different prices. This must be more complex than keeping track of the sale of a single unique artwork.
47 Andrew Leslie wrote:
Removing art as a superannuation investment possibility will remove a major source of income for Australian visual artists – already one of the lowest paid sectors of the arts in Australia.
48 Ron Irish wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper,
my SMSF’s art investment represent about 1% of the fund’s total assets which hold the bulk of my savings.
They would not have been made except through the super fund. Compared to many of the fund’s other recent investments they have greater residual value (if not actual appreciation), deliver psychic income (equally valuable to money after a point) and and have done more for the local economy (viz artists and galleries, co-dependent) .
I urge you and the Government to reconsider your proposals which are surely incidental to far larger superannuation issues and reforms
49 James Makin wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
50 David Brayshaw wrote:
Why attack one of the most vulnerable industries in Australia? Art adds diversity to any broad basket of investments and at the same time offers the opportunity for an increase in Australian culture.
51 Janena Best wrote:
The recommendations of the Copper Review will have a devastating effect on the Australian art industry. In particular Indigenous art where there is not only huge potential but also a very precarious situation for many communities that are dependent on the sale of art works for their livelihood and cultural identity. I firmly believe this recommendation will be equally catastrophic for artists attempting to enter the art market as many SMSF art investors support young and emerging artists. Please reconsider this aspect of the review, the investment in art works by SMSFs only helps to strengthen the cultural development of Australia.
52 Joanna Best wrote:
I live in the Northern Territory and have seen first hand that in many indigenous communities art making is the only real job opportunity and has, in many cases been the life-blood of these communities.
It is not just important in a financial sense but also as a way of recording and sharing important cultural information between generations. Much of the art which is sold through the art centers and galleries in the NT is bought for superannuation investment. To cut off this opportunity would be just another injustice imparted on some of the most vulnerable people in this country by their government.
This tax would affect more than just those who buy art, it would destroy whole communities and ruin lives just beginning to regain a sense of dignity and self determination.
53 Lynda Battig wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
54 Mary Black wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
55 William Wright AM wrote:
If implemented this Draconian measure will have untold negative impact on the entire life of the visual arts in Australia. Artists’ livelihoods will be severely negated as will their support organisations who provide for this, the galleries. Collectors are already reconsidering the viability of collecting art because of the importation of the Resale Royalty scheme that had been categorically
shown to have failed in other countries. The prospect of continuing in a flooded fire sale market will finish the job. Up until recently supporters of our current Government this will no doubt be yet another straw in the Camel’s back of our continuing loyalty.
56 Scott Marr wrote:
On the other side of these art works are hard working people, just like many other hard working Australians, helping to build up this great nation, and share in its COMMONWEALTH that we are all entitled to.
SAVE SUPER ART.
57 Garry StLawrence wrote:
I recognise the problems that exists in the way some SMSFs handle art items – but the solution is NOT to delete art from the possible assets of these funds, it is to HAVE EFFECTIVE CONTROL MECHANISMS IN PLACE SO THE SMSFs DO NOT MISUSE THE SUPERANNUATION LAWS!
58 Liz Jones wrote:
I do not agree with your recommendation to ban art investment for DIY super. It is well documented that art investment provides better returns than real estate or shares. The current tax regulations already requires the DIY Super art investor to provide evidence of investment research; and under the regulations the artwork cannot be displayed so personal enjoyment doesn’t come into it. In my case I wish I had known earlier that I could invest my super in artwork as by now I would be a richer person. I nearly bought a Lin Onus painting in 2003 for $20,000 and it recently sold at auction for $396,000 – what a great investment! I am currently changing my super so that I can go out and buy a Lin Onus work – if I can afford one anymore! I will certainly not be wanting to hang it in my own lounge due to changes in temperature affecting my investment and will be looking to have it displayed or stored in a public gallery for the general publics enjoyment. What a win win! Please consider the negative ramifications of your recommendation for artists, art lovers and the general public, many of whom benefit from seeing super art displayed in corporate and public places.
59 Alice Byrne wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper, Government Ministers and Opposition Spokespeople
I support the SAVE SUPER ART campaign against the Cooper Review recommendations banning art investments in Self Managed Super Funds. The recommendations are fundamentally flawed, serve no good purpose, are already creating damaging uncertainty in the Australian art market, and, if implemented, would create disastrous “unintended consequences” for the Australian art industry.
60 Janine Good wrote:
How much poorer we will be if this is implemented. Don’t they realise how much the Arts contribributes to the kind of world we live in? As a practicing artist for most of my life I already make a pittance in income and generally am handing out more than I get in return. How much more can artists take? There should be more encouragement to purchase art rather than deterrents. This will stifle the Arts industry at a time when it already struggles and will leave a huge gap in our (Australia’s) cultural heritage of the future.