The intention is for painters etc. however I can't see why it wouldn't extend to musicians.
Current Australian music artists are paid a royalty when their music is played, such as on the radio. It's about a $1 per play (assuming you owned 100% royalty rights for the song). Money is collected and distributed by companies like APRA.
The proposal is for artists (assuming it includings musicians) to be paid a similar percentage royalty when their art is sold, including when resold. The proposal is for this to continue while the copyright continues.
A music artist (as in the person who wrote the music, not the person who played it) gets a royalty for their music being played regardless of their contract with the record company. However, depending on their contract, the artist may get nothing for their CD sales. So when applied to music, it sounds like a nice idea in theory.
However, it would be expensive and complicated to enforce. It will force a national registry of copyright owners for each piece of art (each CD, each piece of music), similar to APRA (and probably will be APRA).
It might force the concept of "orphaned works" into the open (when the original royalty owner is unknown). It would be a massive blow to second hand CD stores and any sale of any music (eBay, garage sales etc.). No more $1 vinyl records at the market.
And what about bands selling their own CDs? Will they have to register with APRA and send a cheque to APRA, pay a percentage handling fee, only to get the money back?
The bill is aimed directly at ensuring poor artists (such as indigenous artists) whose work is being exploited and sold for huge prices at posh art gallaries, but it's not much of a stretch to see it applied to music.