Those who are confident about their buying - who have a good aesthetic eye and who know their artists and their dealers - should not be too concerned about the review. They have, as Reid says, been dealing with these issues for some time.
Last week's announcement by Arts Minister Rod Kemp of a bipartisan government inquiry into the indigenous visual arts and crafts sector puts those contemplating the purchase of Aboriginal art in a tricky position.
Should they hold off until the inquiry is over in the hope that it becomes easier to avoid fakes and unscrupulous dealers and determine what is a good buy?
Or would that mean missing out on good works at a time when Aboriginal art is the fastest growing segment of the visual arts market?
The review was sparked by media reports highlighting a number of problems in the Aboriginal art sector, ranging from fakery and the ripping-off of artists by some dealers, to the sweatshop conditions in which some painters are reputed to work.
Some say the problems have been exaggerated. But regardless of their real extent, they make purchases difficult, particularly for the first-time buyer who is interested in a painting's potential resale value.
On top of deciding if he or she likes a picture aesthetically, such a buyer will have to be assured that it is not a fake, and that it was painted by an artist operating free from duress.
These are not always easy things to ascertain and, as a result, after a decade of stellar growth, anecdotal evidence suggests that Aboriginal art sales have been slowing.
"Questions about dodgy dealers and fakes were raised long before this government review and I think it has affected the market quite considerably, putting sales in a holding pattern," says art-market analyst Michael Reid.
"Sometimes things fall into the too-hard basket. People don't want to do the wrong thing and buy from a backyard dealer, but they find it hard to work out who is OK and who is not."
Those who are confident about their buying - who have a good aesthetic eye and who know their artists and their dealers - should not be too concerned about the review. They have, as Reid says, been dealing with these issues for some time.
For those who are new to the area, however, it seems best to either hold off until it is easier to differentiate between good art and bad art, good dealers and bad dealers, or do extensive research before committing money to an artwork.
Talk to people working in the field, look at what the state galleries are collecting, and look at lots of paintings.
To be conducted by the Senate environment, communications, IT and the arts legislation committee, the inquiry's terms of reference include reporting on the size and scale of the Aboriginal art market (estimated to be anywhere between $100 million and $300 million), the economic, social and cultural benefits that come from it, and its sustainability and infrastructure needs.
It will also look at strategies for dealing with unscrupulous or unethical conduct and for developing new markets, particularly overseas, and at possible improvements to government support programs.
The inquiry is due to report back to parliament in February.
While the inquiry is running, the National Association for the Visual Arts, desArt, and the Association of Northern, Kimberley and Arnhem Aboriginal Artists are developing a voluntary code of conduct.
Beverly Knight, director of Alcaston Gallery in Melbourne and a member of the code of conduct reference group, says she hopes the review results in the establishment of an accreditation system similar to those that operate in fields such as law, finance and fitness.
"The market was definitely overheated and has gone a bit quiet," says Knight. "I think it's at a turning point."
The idea is that collectors who buy from an accredited dealer will have greater confidence that they're buying from someone who treats their artists properly and pays a fair price, and will be more likely (though not guaranteed) to avoid buying a fake.
Such a system will help draw the line between galleries which sell art that may (but not necessarily) improve in value, and those that sell tourist trinkets, which will never appreciate in value. It may also nullify debate about whether buying through community art centres is the only way to ensure good provenance.
However, such a system would only succeed if those running it were scrupulously fair, and did not simply sideline their enemies and entrench the power of their own clique.