Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Art Gallery of South Australia Art Gallery of South Australia The Hon. S.L. GAME Legislative Council The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:29): I move: That this council— 1.	Acknowledges that families and kids may visit the South Australian Art Gallery without being informed that it features sexual and adult-themed content that is inappropriate for children; 2.	Acknowledges the right of parents to be informed about the possibility of their children being exposed to highly sexualised or adult-themed content at the South Australian Art Gallery, whether it be during a school excursion or a public visit; and 3.	Calls for family-friendly zones to be implemented at the South Australian Art Gallery's public exhibitions. I wish to speak on this motion regarding the public concerns that have been raised with me on the appropriateness of certain displays at the Art Gallery of South Australia and, in particular, concerns on the appropriateness of these displays for children. My motion was prompted, in particular, by two sculptures, Buck with Cigar and Big Mother, which I am calling to be relocated within the Art Gallery of South Australia to a space designated for adult-themed content. I have been accused of not having done my homework on some of these sculptures, and to that, I have looked further into said artworks, although my position on them has not changed. For the benefit of anyone else engaging in this debate, I offer a brief summary of them. The first piece is by British artist Marc Quinn. It is a life-sized sculpture of Buck Angel called Buck with Cigar, now a permanent fixture at the Art Gallery. A transgender man, Buck Angel is a former pornographic film actor and producer. Having had his breasts removed, his trademark has become, and I will not put it on Hansard, the man with a 'p' word pertaining to female genitalia. It is his trademark in his adult films. He was the first trans man to feature in an all-male porn film. He has received various nominations including one for Most Outrageous Sex Scene, and he has been nominated as Transsexual Performer of the Year a number of times. I will not list all Buck's accolades now because they are just too extensive, but I will mention that Buck has also begun to transition from the porn industry to sex education, in particular addressing what Buck perceives as societal constructs reducing the perception of masculinity and maleness for one having a vagina. The second work is Big Mother by Patricia Piccinini, an Australian artist, depicting a genetically engineered animal with a prominent gaping vulva breastfeeding a human baby positioned opposite a classical piece depicting mother Mary and baby Jesus. The primate mother, overwhelmed by her grief at the death of her own baby, abducts a human baby to nurse as a substitute. Patricia Piccinini is known for her hyperreal sculptures of imaginary creatures that could be potentially produced through genetic engineering. Let's be clear: this motion is not about censorship or the banning of art, it is about the protection of children and the preservation of childhood. My Education and Children's Services (Parental Primacy) Amendment Bill previously introduced into this place, which serves to restore parents' rights on the moral and ethical teachings of children, has had much public support. As occurs when our parliament is out of touch with the people of South Australia, criticism is already being hurled from my parliamentary colleagues on this matter. I point out that I speak on behalf of my constituents and I believe there is much community support. A recent Advertiser article on the matter showed 68 per cent of the more than 3,000 voters believed these sculptures were inappropriate for children, and 81 per cent of the almost 1,500 Daily Mail voters on the matter agreed with me. Some in the media say, 'But art is to provoke discussion and thought. What is your problem with that, Ms Game?' The problem is that I feel children should be left to be children and to grow up as who they are meant to be. I do not believe that children should be burdened by adult problems and adult concepts unnecessarily. If there is public outrage at the Renmark incident in which year 9 students were exposed to concepts of bestiality and images of transgender surgery, why is it acceptable for primary school children to be exposed without adult consent on a seemingly innocent trip to the Art Gallery? 'Why has that man got a vagina?' asked the seven-year-old child of one of my constituents. I do believe that parents have a right to influence when these discussions take place. Much debate has stirred on this matter before parliament and the criticism has been made that I have not been up close with aforementioned pieces. I would draw to this chamber's attention that there are numerous issues I have a particular viewpoint or objection to that I have not witnessed, and they include my objection to pornography, prostitution, illicit drug taking, dangerous driving and violence. For now, I will be relying on my research and photographic evidence, as is the case for many outcomes of the judicial system where one cannot, for various reasons, be present at the scene of the crime. I would like to thank the constituents who sent in the photographs depicting the pieces—some photographs evidencing primary school children on a school excursion next to these statues. I was lucky enough to miss the sculptures on my visit with my three children years ago. As so happens, some members in this place have already spoken of their passion and support for these sculptures. I am aware that the Hon. Frank Pangallo has come out publicly and passionately to support the placement and inclusion of these sculptures in the public taxpayer-funded place, which involves itself in the education of our children, describing them as 'stunning'. I would say to the honourable member: it is best to understand the argument before unleashing a public rebuttal. If the Hon. Frank Pangallo would like to enjoy these pieces, I suggest that they make it possible for the member and other like-minded members of the community, but that they do so in a space away from primary school children visiting. The Hon. Frank Pangallo has accused me of wanting to cover the glorious Statue of David with fig leaves. Let me assure the chamber, I have no intention of bringing such a motion to the house. The magnificent Statue of David by Michelangelo, which I have enjoyed from close-up on a visit to Florence, firstly, depicts a body more familiar to children, and, certainly, upon visiting the Accademia Gallery, parents know what to expect from this well-known masterpiece. The same cannot be said for well-intentioned parents signing excursion permission slips for primary school aged children to the Art Gallery of South Australia. As one member of the public put so well, 'It's not about culture wars, it's about the sexualisation of young children. Put the sculptures somewhere else.' My motion is not about stifling artistic expression but ensuring that our taxpayer-funded public spaces respect the rights of parents to guide their children's development. It is a balanced approach that upholds both the value of art and the right of families. It is up to parents to decide what is age appropriate for their children. Last time I checked, public polls also agree with that statement. I hope, upon voting in weeks to come on this matter, the parliament does not show itself once again to be deaf to the wishes of the people. I commend this motion to the chamber. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.