Ms Michelle Quinn:

If I could interject in relation to the benefits of section 481, it undoubtedly supports the industry in terms of tax concessions and we welcome that. The downside is that it needs to be sustainable for everyone and currently the performers and crew are not benefiting to the extent they should in relation to sustainability. Clearly, if a person is not able to survive within the industry in terms of earnings, in reality, it is not sustainable for him or her. That is a real concern for me.

In relation to what we can do on the budgetary front, greater scrutiny of compliance with the criteria of section 481 would help considerably to ensure a more level playing field in the first instance. It would also reduce the risk of reputational damage.

In relation to the taxpayer, if the directive on copyright and buy-out was being used as the exception rather than the rule, as, we believe, was intended by the directive, that would also maximise investment for the taxpayer because it would bring somewhere in the region of 500 to 1,000 people into the tax net who are not currently within it because they do not have earnings to justify their inclusion. It would also reduce or remove the need for reliance on additional social welfare payments for people within the industry. There would be a win-win situation for the taxpayer and the industry in terms of sustainability for all stakeholders and this would ensure a standard of living for the performers and crew that is proportionate to what they bring to the industry.