Motions

South Australian Museum

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. N.J. Centofanti:

That the Statutory Authorities Review Committee inquire into and report on the South Australian Museum, with particular reference to:

1. Its proposed restructure of research and collections;

2. Its infrastructure and proposed strategic plan;

3. Its funding from government and non-government sources; and

4. Any related matters.

(Continued from 10 April 2024.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (20:03): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and to move my amendments as well. I believe it makes sense that if the Statutory Authorities Review Committee is to inquire into and report on the South Australian Museum, it should also inquire into Art Gallery of South Australia. That is the gist of my amendments. I move to amend the motion as follows:

Paragraph 1: leave out 'Its'

Paragraph 2: leave out 'Its'

Paragraph 3: leave out 'Its' and 'and'

After paragraph 3 insert new paragraph 3A: 'Administration and staff management; and'

Museums around the world are such an integral part of our history, our social fabric—a rare, fascinating window into the history of the world—and our beloved South Australian Museum is no different. Some of them are home to some of the rarest artefacts or artworks in the world and attract millions of tourists and visitors each year. Think of the British Museum; the Louvre in France; the Smithsonian in the US; the Acropolis Museum in Athens; Pompeii in Italy; there are dozens of them in Rome, which are free; and the Rijksmuseum and the National Maritime Museum in the Netherlands, where I saw one of the first maps ever drawn of Australia, 300 kilometres of the Western Australian coastline, drawn in 1606, then known as Terra Australis.

In Greece in 2022, I caught up with the head of the Acropolis Museum, the world-renowned archaeologist Professor Nikolaos Stampolidis, who outlined the incredible work done by researchers in digging out remnants of their ancient civilisation and documenting it. History is fascinating, and it has fascinated me since I was a child. Anywhere I travel, museums are my first port of call.

That is why the government's now stalled restructure of the SA Museum is ludicrous. It makes you question the motives of the bureaucrats whose idea it was in the first place. The proposed restructure, if it does eventually proceed, will move the Museum from being a strong, respected research institute by axing its research scientists. Millions of tissue samples kept in cold storage may be lost, along with other research work undertaken and invaluable collections. It will harm more than 100 years of work building its prestigious reputation, and the continuation of significant philanthropic donations from concerned South Australian citizens—not just to the Museum but also, they tell me, to the Art Gallery—will be at real risk of being turned off.

There are also real concerns it will impact on the Museum's vast and extremely well-documented Aboriginal collection. Major Moogy Sumner spoke passionately about this at the recent rally, which I attended on the steps of Parliament House, along with many of my colleagues, including the Hon. Tammy Franks. We do not want to see exhibits lost or removed, such as the ever-popular but modest Egyptian room with its own mummy. 'Save our mummy,' I say. No major museum anywhere in the world would dare take this step of effectively dumbing it down.

Under the South Australian Museum Act, the Museum's core functions are to carry out or promote research into matters of science and historical interest and to accumulate and care for objects and specimens of scientific and historical interest. This is at odds with the proposed restructure, which is not about giving us a better cultural institution. It already is that, and it is free to the public.

I visited there a couple of weeks ago, and it was packed with families and curious tourists. Each exhibit in there has a story to tell, and that story has been created by researchers who are experts in their field poring over information they uncover. How could we afford to lose this expertise? I am informed that key research and collection positions have remained unfilled while middle management and front-of-house positions have continued to expand, degrading the Museum's capacity to care for collections of natural history and cultural heritage. It is all about saving money, pure and simple.

Fortunately, the might of people power has seen the Museum win a reprieve—for now. The protest movement against the proposed mindless restructure of our treasured Museum was heard loud and clear inside the Premier's department last week. The Premier is a leader who listens, and his judgement is often quite good. Stepping in to put the Museum's proposed restructure on hold with a Premier's review is welcome.

The timing of that announcement was interesting and followed a meeting earlier in that week with the Museum Board Chair, Kim Cheater, and Chief Executive Officer Dr David Gaimster. But what is telling was a meeting the previous week with what the Premier described as a number of interested parties concerned about the proposed changes to the Museum. My information is that these interested parties included some very generous and well-known philanthropists who donate regularly to the South Australian Museum and the Art Gallery—hence my amendment.

I have received information that there are also administration issues that need to be addressed at the Art Gallery by the same concerned parties involved in the Museum protests. There is no reason not to inquire into this beloved institution as well at the same time. The benefactors told the Premier in no uncertain terms that they would stop making donations to both institutions if the restructure went ahead. One was even contemplating changing their will.

According to the Premier, the review will be undertaken with some haste, with the panel expected to make recommendations to the government by the middle of the year. The review is to be chaired by the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Damien Walker, and will include South Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Craig Simmons, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Queensland Museum, Dr Jim Thompson PSM. According to the Premier, the panel will provide advice on a range of areas including:

research functions;

curatorial capabilities;

repatriation and engagement with First Nations communities relating to their cultural heritage;

collections management;

public engagement;

contemporary approaches to displays, exhibitions and public access to the collection, including digitisation;

contemporary approaches to how the Museum can provide opportunities for education and knowledge-sharing aligned with the curriculum and early learning frameworks;

delivery of public value to the people of South Australia, ensuring the Museum utilises its resources to deliver the best possible outcomes for its audiences; and

any other matters related to the appropriate balance of functions in a contemporary museum of the size and scale of the South Australian Museum.

There are expectations that following the review the restructure will be shelved. How could the Museum possibly function without the generous and regular donations from many philanthropists who have financially supported or propped up the Museum for years so that the government does not have to put even more money in? How could it maintain its status as one of the finest research institutions of its kind in the world without the 27 scientists and research staff who meticulously maintain and develop so many unique exhibits? Curators, as has been proposed, will not be capable of doing the specialised and individual work.

As I have said, I do not know of any major museum in the world that would ever take this path. With those words, I support the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:11): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this motion calling for a standing committee to take on a referral instead of setting up yet another select committee. The South Australian Museum restructure is an issue that has quite rightly drawn much public debate and attention. I also indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment to also include the Art Gallery of South Australia, and I note that recently there have been some concerning rumblings from that North Terrace institution as well.

We have a cultural boulevard in this capital city, and it is a beautiful one. It is one that people come and marvel at. It is one that is accessible to the public. It is one that is much loved. It is one, in the case of the Museum currently, that is chronically underfunded and yet it still beats all of its KPIs and has bigger crowds going along now than it had even prior to COVID. It is hitting its marks on very little money—indeed, when you consider that it has not had an increase in funding and then you factor in CPI, it has actually had an ongoing decrease in funding.

We all know that currently it costs more to do the same. The Museum has been pumping out and performing with less and less resourcing for far too long. It is at a crisis point, which is why the board has taken the decisions that they have. But a decision to sack 27 people and ask them to reapply for a lesser number of jobs is some sort of perverse musical chairs approach that is not befitting of our beloved Museum.

I would just draw attention to people who might not like the mummy room. I grew up in New South Wales. I grew up with a museum that had quite an extensive Egyptian collection and touring exhibits, and they were very different from the mummy room at the South Australian Museum. The mummy room at the South Australian Museum is unique to Adelaide and South Australia. It is indeed now an institution in and of itself. The fact that it is so old has become part of its attraction.

While I note that the minister has said there has been a lot of misinformation out in the public, and she said the mummy room is not under threat, in the Budget and Finance Committee, when asked outright by the Hon. Michelle Lensink whether the mummy room was under threat, the new chief executive or it may have been the chair's response was, 'No, everything is on the table and the mummy room is potentially for the chop.'

The minister says one thing, and says that it is misinformation to say that the mummy room is going, but the head of the Museum to a parliamentary committee has said, 'Yes, the mummy room may go', so where is the truth here? I have to say, I do not trust a DPC-chaired supposed external review to get to the truth of the matter. I do not trust that process.

I note that the problem here is actually the funding. That is why these decisions are being made. They are driven by a lack of resources. Do you know what could happen? Do you know what the Premier could do? He could actually fund the Museum to its need, but, no, he is happy to pay consultants to do yet another review, and they can take some money. Meanwhile, the Museum continues to limp along in a manner not befitting of our cultural boulevard, not befitting of our ambition to show off our treasures of North Terrace to tourists and locals alike, and not in a way that will be in time for the state budget. It simply kicks the can down the road for yet another year.

Meanwhile, the staff live with uncertainty, the donors live with uncertainty, and continue to be treated with contempt. Do you know what? It is not even just about government money. Donors have noted that one philanthropist actually donated some $400,000 or so for a marine biology position. That has not been used for the purpose that the donor gave the money. Do we think that this will be uncovered by the Premier's so-called external review, chaired by the head of Department of the Premier and Cabinet? I doubt it. Certainly the public will not get their say, the professionals will not get their say, and it is three men who are driven, in this case, by science.

Do you know what? We have a Museum which is beyond an arts institution in the arts budget, and we are cutting pretty much 27 scientists, putting their jobs at risk, giving them job insecurity, and then expecting them to continue to do more for less, and offering them lesser number of jobs at lesser pay, and expecting that somehow we are going to get an improved outcome. This is extraordinary stuff. I cannot see that we are doing the people of South Australia a justice without opening this issue up for a proper public consultation; not one through the Industrial Relations Court, not one through the Premier's own office, but a proper public debate.

I think it would be unheard of for the South Australian Museum to start charging an entrance fee, but that is one of the possibilities here if they are not adequately funded to do what they need to do to offer the appropriate level of experience, to keep the collections at the level that the public would expect but, more importantly, to take care of the precious resources.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo has mentioned the DNA collection. We have the largest Aboriginal collection in the entire world and, again, the heads of the Museum were uncertain of that fact when they presented to a parliamentary committee. That is extraordinary stuff. They were uncertain of whether it was the largest collection in the world. Well, it is the largest collection in the world. It is something that we have right here in South Australia, and it is one of the reasons that we were talking about Tarrkarri, something that means 'future'. Now Tarrkarri is up in the air. We do not know what happens next with Tarrkarri.

We know that down on the end of the cultural boulevard in Lot Fourteen there is a big, empty, gaping space. We also know that a lot of capital city funding was devoted to that. We also know that there were conversations about the collection that is currently held within the Museum to be part of that experience, so where is the public conversation about Tarrkarri in the Premier's stopgap, bandaid measure to fix up a minister's mistake? It is not there.

The public conversation is what is important here, and I will just draw members' attention to a few factors that certainly have been of great concern to me. I have received correspondence from Birds SA, which is alarmed to hear of the proposed changes to research capacity and collection management at the South Australian Museum.

They have learnt that currently there are 27 positions in research and collections, natural science and humanities. These are 37 per cent of the total Museum staff of around 73. Under the proposed new structure, all 27 positions are to be abolished and replaced by 22 new positions with different job descriptions, many of them significantly different from current roles. The reality here is that we are losing scientists as part of this process, unless we stop this process. How was this allowed to happen? The parliament surely cannot let this happen.

I have drawn to the attention of members in this place and in the Budget and Finance Committee the South Australian Heritage Committee's grave concerns that not only were they not consulted prior to the news becoming public about these cuts but they have written specifically saying that the staff in the humanities section that they have spent years developing a relationship of trust and expertise with have been responsible for repatriation of their ancestors. They are deeply concerned that that repatriation work is impacted adversely by the measures that the board is currently considering and that the minister appears silent on.

Again, that is apparently not at risk, but the jobs of those people that the communities and the different nations have been working with, who took a long time to develop those relationships of trust, are now on the line. They may go to someone else. They will certainly be paid less, should this process go through.

How is that respect for the expertise and the experience and the connections of true reconciliation that have been created through the humanities section of our South Australian Museum? It is world leading, it is best practice and it is being potentially slashed and burnt. How will that get a guernsey with some scientists looking at this from that science lens? How will that repatriation work be assessed by these three men, one of whom works for the Premier, which is hardly independent or external?

I draw members' attention to the fact that the Royal Society of South Australia for the advancement of science has expressed their concerns. So many of the donors and philanthropists have expressed their concerns, and they will take their money out and then we will need even more money to support our institution, if we are not careful. This is all about relationships. This is all about public ownership of our much-loved SA Museum.

As I said right at the start, it is not as if people are not going. They are going in greater numbers than they ever have. The KPIs are being met, but the reality is that the arts budget gets cut and cut and cut and the poor old South Australian Museum, which is far more than just an arts institution, is suffering from those cut, cut, cuts and suffering from that negligence and could be supported by this parliament so much better. It will be supported. Those people, those professionals, those communities, those scientists, those humanities professionals will be given a voice by the parliament in a cross-party public forum of a standing committee. Those voices will be silenced should we only have the Premier's intervention.

With that, I urge people to support this referral to the Statutory Authorities Committee. It is in fact doing what the Statutory Authorities Committee should do. The SA Museum is a statutory authority of this parliament. We already had the SA Museum coming before that committee, but this will allow not just the Museum's board to be heard, not just the chair and CEO, but the staff, the donors and philanthropists, the consumers and the public, and the children of the future will actually get a real say, with a true consultation. With that, I commend the motion and the amendment by the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (20:24): I rise briefly to speak to the honourable member's motion. Although I will not be supporting the motion, I do want to acknowledge the work of the Leader of the Opposition, David Speirs. He has campaigned hard to hold the government to account on this issue. He has consulted stakeholders and listened to the concerns of the people involved in the community.

The Premier has since announced that the proposal to restructure the operations of the South Australian Museum has been put on hold to allow the state government to review the plans. Both the public and staff of the Museum have raised concerns about the future of research and jobs under the proposal, and they do deserve to be heard, but in response to these concerns there has been a panel established, and it is expected to make recommendations as early as June.

Although I am open to considering the inquiry proposed by the opposition and do support the intent, I am holding my support until the outcome of the Premier's panel. Should the panel fail to address concerns then an inquiry by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee can still occur, if the chamber agrees. In the meantime, it is unnecessary to have two separate investigations running concurrently. This matter warrants investigation. I acknowledge the role of the opposition but also the Premier to put the plans on hold and to investigate further.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:25): I rise today to support the motion put forward by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for the Statutory Authorities Review Committee to inquire into and report on the proposed restructuring of the South Australian Museum. On Saturday 13 April, the Liberal Party joined hundreds of protesters, Museum staff, the academic community, the PSA and people from all walks of life and across all political persuasions at the front steps of Parliament House to raise their concerns, to demand that their voices be heard and to call on Peter Malinauskas to reverse Labor's brutal 2022 budget cuts to the South Australian Museum.

The South Australian community would like the Labor government to cancel its proposed restructure for the SA Museum. I was one of those protesters who joined the Hon. David Speirs, the Leader of the Opposition; the Hon. John Gardner; former minister the Hon. Diana Laidlaw; as well as former MP Jennifer Cashmore, who came out in her wheelchair, bracing the cold wind, to be with hundreds of protesters taking a strong stand for our South Australian Museum.

There were many other well-known leaders, including Aboriginal elders Major Moogy Sumner and Mark Koolmatrie, who spoke passionately about their concerns at the save the SA Museum rally. They reminded the crowd that the South Australian Museum's Indigenous Australian collection of 28,000 artefacts stands as one of the world's most significant accumulations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural and historical material—right here in South Australia.

The Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Frank Pangallo from this chamber were also there. I wish to thank the Hon. Tammy Franks, through her speech at the protest, for publicly indicating her support for this motion today. I also appreciate her shout-out of my name, acknowledging that both of us are members of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, which has the power to inquire into and report on the South Australian Museum as the Museum is a statutory body.

What is under threat with the Museum's proposed reimagining are its beloved galleries, whose future has been put under a cloud, including the Egyptian room, the polar collection and the mammals display, as many other honourable members have mentioned today. The SA Museum is not only a much-loved South Australian institution, it is also home to world-class collections and research. There is no way we could simply sit back and watch all the precious artefacts of historical significance be destroyed.

Our SA community is incredibly angry and concerned about Labor's cuts at the SA Museum, the removal of 27 scientific research roles and the government's refusal to guarantee the future of treasured galleries such as the mammals and the other Egyptian room collections.

The SA Museum plays a crucial role in education, in tourism and in the advancement of knowledge, so Labor must reverse its cuts, save jobs and safeguard one of our state's key cultural institutions. Our Museum is loved by generations of South Australians, including my family, and is globally respected for its commitment to scientific research and reconciliation. It is an icon of South Australia, and some 350 scholars and high-profile leaders signed an open letter published in The Advertiser calling on Premier Peter Malinauskas to listen—listen, please—to the community and reverse the proposed job cuts to research and collections, which have achieved incredible feats in the past 165 years. More than that, we want to protect these world-class research capabilities and our collections so that future generations can continue to benefit from our beloved Museum.

Following weeks of pressure from the Hon. David Speirs and the Liberal Party, along with scientists and the South Australian community, Premier Peter Malinauskas has been forced to intervene and put the controversial restructure of the South Australian Museum on hold. The Premier has announced a panel to review the proposed changes. While the decision to put the Museum restructure on hold is a move in the right direction, it is a stunning backflip from Peter Malinauskas, who has been given no choice but to intervene after huge pressure from the opposition and outrage from the community.

The proposed restructure threatens the very essence of the South Australian Museum's identity as a home to world-class collections and research. We will continue to stand side-by-side with the community and fight for the future of the SA Museum, as we do not want to see this restructure simply paused but abolished altogether. We want to see the Labor government restore funding to the Museum and cancel the restructure altogether.

We understand that the announcement of a three-person panel appointed to the Premier's review will be chaired by the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Reflecting on the significant concerns that the community has shown in the campaign to prevent the restructure of the SA Museum, the Liberal opposition does not believe that a Premier's review consisting of a simple three-person panel, chaired by his department's CEO, is adequate, independent or vigorous enough to address everything that this motion calls for.

Given the South Australian community has already lost faith in the Malinauskas government in its handling of the SA Museum proposed restructure to date, followed by Peter Malinauskas' humiliating Museum backflip, how can the public now trust this Labor government to do the right thing by them? As a member of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, I strongly believe that SARC is best placed to conduct a more thorough inquiry into the SA Museum with the high level of scrutiny, independence and accountability that the South Australian community deserves. I commend the motion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (20:32): I rise very briefly to speak on this motion. I start by saying that I have previously indicated my in-principle support for an inquiry into the Museum. Indeed, I think that in-principle support was reflected at the meeting on 13 April. Since that time, on 26 April the government announced a review, so here we are now dealing with an inquiry and the announcement of a review.

I have had recent discussions with the minister in relation to this issue. I appreciate her concerns around effectively running those two processes concurrently. Perhaps where I differ from other members is that I have had those discussions with the minister who, in my view, takes her portfolio very seriously. I do not think you will find a minister more committed than the current one and I have no doubt that what she wants is, indeed, a positive outcome.

I have seen this particular minister previously take contentious issues, deal with them diligently behind the scenes and come to this place with practical resolutions, and I have absolutely no doubt that, based on the discussions I have had with her, that is precisely what she is intending to do in this instance.

The Hon. Ms Lee has called the Premier's position—and by extension, I guess, the minister's—'a stunning backflip'. I look at that and say that is precisely what happens when public pressure builds. By the same token, I accept that there are those who think that this review may be a stitch-up and going through the motions, and that basically it might not be worth the paper it is written on and we are just trying to buy time.

If this review is a stitch-up, as some are expecting, I have no doubt whatsoever that the mover and everybody else will be back in this place with another similar motion, and the matter will be revisited then if not beforehand. As has been alluded to, it may be that, regardless of this motion, SARC instigates its own inquiry, and that transpires regardless of the outcome of this motion today. For the record, I do not disagree with the views that have been expressed here today. Indeed, I think the Premier and the minister are both on notice that if this review is not genuine in nature then they can expect the review itself to be the subject of any further inquiry that is instigated in this place.

I have looked at the time frame of the review that has been given to me. The terms of reference are broad, the time frame is tight and, importantly, any restructure that has been talked about previously has been paused. I do not make the decision to not support this inquiry today lightly but, as I have indicated to the mover, I am willing to wait for the outcome of that review to see what it is that the government is proposing. I am willing to take a breath to see if anything comes of that review and, as I said, if nothing fruitful comes from that review, given that the restructure has been paused, then I would expect that the mover would double-down on her proposal today.

I have read the message from the chief executive that was published on the website, which acknowledges the public discussion and debate and speculation about the Museum's future. I acknowledge that the CE has said that he wants to reassure you, the public, that the South Australian Museum has heard the strong response to plans to consult on proposed reforms and that they acknowledge the affection in which the Museum is held by South Australians and the passion that discussion about its future promotes. They acknowledge the early discussion of the engagement process has prompted the concerns which have been outlined today, both from within the scientific community and the broader community.

He goes on to talk about the fact that the Museum leadership recently met with the Premier and the arts minister to discuss that planned public engagement and the concerns raised from some sections of the community, and then stipulates that following those discussions there will be this review process, with this review panel made up, as others have indicated, by the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Mr Damien Walker, together with the Director of Queensland Museum, Dr Jim Thompson PSM, and Chief Scientist of South Australia, Professor Craig Simmons—both of whom are said to be eminent experts in their respective fields of science, research, cultural institutions and policy.

As far as the terms of reference are concerned, according to the minister, the Premier and the chief executive, the panel will consider and provide principles of general guidance and advice on a range of areas, including research functions, curatorial capabilities, repatriation and engagement with First Nations communities relating to their cultural heritage, collections management, public engagement, contemporary approaches to displays and exhibitions, and public access to collections, including digitisation and contemporary approaches as to how the Museum can provide opportunities for education and knowledge-sharing, aligned with the curriculum and early learning framework.

That is the remit, and it has been, as I said, made against the backdrop of a tight time frame and a pause to any restructure. My position is that I appreciate the concerns raised with me by the minister about those issues running concurrently, and any practical issues that they may raise in terms of practical solutions. My position is also that I think the minister is genuine in her intent in saying that she wants to see this issue resolved and that a review will assist with that process.

But as I said before, the minister and the Premier are also on notice that, if that is not what we end up with, there is every possibility we will be back here having this debate again, if not beforehand through the current committee processes, which we know can instigate their own inquiries regardless of what we say in here. So I say again for the record that in principle, I have said before and I say now, I am not opposed to this, but I do acknowledge that there is another process that has now been instigated.

I will just say for the record that a lot of the times many of the things that we raise in this place, and certainly that I raise in this place, are with a view to get a review external from this place. In this instance, when I first spoke to the minister, it was clear to me that that was what we were going to get. People might have their views about whether there is any place for the CE of DPC, Mr Walker, on that review or not, but I am certainly open-minded to at least allowing that review process to take its course, to see what the outcomes are and to revisit the issue pending those outcomes.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (20:41): I rise to speak on the Hon. Ms Centofanti's motion, which the government will not be supporting. At the outset, it needs to be acknowledged that the Malinauskas Labor government has made significant investment into the arts and cultural sector in South Australia; in fact, we were elected on our commitment to increase funding, with an additional $8 million to support small and medium arts organisations, $8 million for the Adelaide Fringe, $2 million for the Adelaide Film Festival to ensure it becomes an annual festival and $10 million to support the live music industry through our See It LIVE campaign.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: However, I also want to note that since coming into government we have gone even further and provided $35 million to upgrade the Adelaide Festival Centre, $2.3 million for the Adelaide Festival, $2 million to increase the Adelaide Film Festival Investment Fund to support the creation of new films and $5.2 million in partnership with the ABC to support more television production in South Australia. In just over two years, this government has clearly demonstrated that it supports the South Australian cultural sector.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I have to say that this additional $72.5 million of funding is in stark contrast to the actions of those opposite. There are senior members of the former Marshall Liberal government sitting on the other side of this chamber who played a part in inflicting significant cuts to all our cultural institutions, including the SA Museum, in their 2018-19 and 2019-20 state budgets. They cut millions in the Museum's budget.

Members will now be aware that the proposed restructure of the South Australian Museum is currently on hold and is subject to the Premier's review to examine the options going forward. I have been advised that the Premier and the Minister for Arts met with the Chair of the Museum Board, Kim Cheater, and Chief Executive Dr David Gaimster following a constructive meeting with a number of interested parties concerned about the proposed changes to the Museum.

Following those discussions and the community advocacy, I was told the Premier and the Minister for Arts decided it was in the best interest of the public trust in this institution to pause the restructure and further examine its purpose. Consequently, the Premier's review warrants this motion unnecessary.

Importantly, the Premier's review will be chaired by the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Mr Damien Walker. Its membership will also draw on the expertise of the South Australian Chief Scientist, Professor Craig Simmons, and the chief executive officer from the Queensland Museum, Dr Jim Thompson PSM. Both are eminently respected. I am surprised that the opposition questioned their integrity. Professor Craig Simmons—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Sit down, the Hon. Mr Ngo. What is your point of order, the Hon. Ms Franks?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did not hear the opposition question the Chief Scientist's or the Queensland scientist's integrity at any stage. I did not hear that. I feel like the honourable member just misled the chamber.

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo: Would you like to withdraw?

The PRESIDENT: I would invite you to withdraw, the Hon. Mr Ngo. It is probably the easiest way we can continue.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I am happy to withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT: Stick to your script, mate.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Well, they did question the panel.

The PRESIDENT: Move on, the Hon. Mr Ngo.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: There are two other members—so you are saying they are not independent?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ngo, do not respond to interjections. Just finish your speech.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Professor Craig Simmons has served as an executive director at the Australian Research Council, and he is recognised for his major contribution to science, leadership, education and policy reform. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and the American Geophysical Union.

Queensland Museum is a cultural institution that is comparable to our own Museum. The CEO, Dr Jim Thompson, has an extensive and distinguished career and has performed a range of leadership roles throughout Australia in areas such as research, policy and the public sector. I have also been advised that the Premier's review will consider a range of matters, including:

research functions;

repatriation and engagement with First Nations communities relating to their cultural heritage;

collections management;

public engagement;

contemporary approaches to displays, exhibitions and public access to the collection, including digitisation;

contemporary approaches to how the Museum can provide opportunities for education and knowledge that aligns with South Australia's curriculum and early learning frameworks;

delivery of public value to the people of South Australia, ensuring the Museum utilises its resources to deliver the best possible outcomes for its audiences; and

any other matters related to the appropriate balance of functions in a contemporary museum of the size and scale of the South Australian Museum.

It is intended that recommendations will be made to the Premier and the minister by the middle of the year, which is less than two months away. This will ensure the process is completed efficiently and in a timely manner. The Labor Malinauskas government knows that our Museum enriches our cultural fabric in so many ways. We want to support its endeavours to sustain engagement, educate and preserve and showcase diverse cultures.

Unfortunately, there has been a significant amount of misinformation in this chamber about the proposal for the Museum, so it is best that we wait for this review, which is only two months away, and then give it a go. We can debate this matter in two months' time. What is the urgency? The Premier has intervened and he is looking into it.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: For this reason, as outlined above, we cannot support this motion.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (20:49): First, I acknowledge and thank the following members for their contribution in this chamber to this debate: the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Tung Ngo and my colleague the Hon. Jing Lee. Whilst we are glad to see that the government and the Premier have taken a belated interest some six or seven weeks into this issue, the opposition is disappointed that the government continues to leave 27 scientists without security of employment. It continues to leave the assurance of over 150 years of work, precious information and specimens, in peril.

While the government and the Premier may believe—and I quote the Premier from a radio interview—that six weeks is nothing, I and, I am certain, the families and individuals affected by this restructure beg to differ. People who have invested a lifetime of work, a dedication that only scientific academic endeavours, beg to differ.

This issue has drawn substantial community interest. A pause by the Malinauskas government does not guarantee answers to numerous questions that have been raised, nor does it allay public concern over the processes taking place. It is critical that a review of this nature is independent of government. The people of South Australia are seeking assurances that their Museum will not only retain its wide variety of exhibits but will continue its scientific, anthropologic and archaeological work.

Therefore, we the opposition and a number of crossbench members feel that referring this to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee is absolutely still relevant. The Museum is a statutory authority and therefore it is absolutely appropriate that this parliamentary committee examines the new Museum's purpose and priorities.

One issue that particularly demands a review that is independent of government is the need to consider the Museum's budget and what adjustments may need to be made in order to ensure that the Museum is capable of fulfilling its legislative duties at an appropriately high level. Therefore, given that the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is the responsible department for the Museum's funding and governance, one could easily argue that a review that is headed by the CEO of DPC into their own management of this authority is utterly unsatisfactory.

It is extremely disappointing that we do not have the support of SA-Best and One Nation on this entirely reasonable motion. The public is tired of governments reviewing themselves—it lacks transparency.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: And crossbenchers not being vigilant.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Hear, hear! I think the public would absolutely expect members of this place to support transparency. Again, it is disappointing that some members of this place would rather support a government review into this issue than a genuine independent inquiry of this place, of this parliament.

It is disappointing that some members in this place would rather support a government review that, as the Hon. Tammy Franks points out, will involve consultants and will cost taxpayers money, when there is a perfectly fit body, right here in this parliament, ready to do that work that would not cost taxpayers a cent. Let me be clear: if this motion is not successful and the government's internal review is not satisfactory or unnecessarily delayed, then we will be bringing this motion back to the chamber to once again be debated. I put all members on notice and I put the government on notice.

Before I commend this motion to the chamber, I note that the Hon. Frank Pangallo has an amendment to include the Art Gallery of South Australia in this motion. I indicate that we, the opposition, are absolutely happy to support this amendment because, again, the Art Gallery is another statutory authority that warrants oversight by this parliament through that committee. With that, I commend this motion to the chamber.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.