HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

South Australian Museum

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta) (11:27): I move:

That this house refers the eligible petition presented to the House of Assembly on 28 August 2024 from 10,561 residents of greater South Australia requesting the house to establish a committee inquiry into the South Australian Museum, including the proposed restructure of research and collections, strategic direction, budget for scientific research, reporting relationship to government and other related matters to the Social Development Committee.

The petition that I have brought to the house from 10,561 South Australians calls for a referral to a select committee, although my motion accords with the request of the government and the standing orders for it to go to the Social Development Committee, a standing committee of the parliament, to inquire into a number of matters relating to the South Australian Museum.

This is really important, and I want to provide a little bit of background to the situation. I will then go through what is now expected of the Social Development Committee as they undertake this inquiry, which I understand the government is supporting—although I am sure they will speak for themselves shortly.

The South Australian Museum is a beloved and cherished institution. It is tremendously important in terms of both South Australia's cultural firmament but also in terms of ongoing and advancing scientific research. It is something that draws school students every day of the year—except for Christmas Day, of course, when it is closed. It draws tourists, it provides inspiration, elevation and education to thousands upon thousands of South Australians.

There would not be a member of this house who does not have a memory of visiting the Museum as a child, or with a child, as an adult, as a student, or in some context where they have lifted their eyes above what they knew, have been introduced to a new concept, a new piece of anthropology, a new piece of history, a new understanding of Australian Aboriginal culture, a new appreciation of the extraordinary geological natural history of this country.

Whether it is the native megafauna, the opalised remains of dinosaurs found in the desert, whether it is the Andy Thomas Collection, whether it is the opportunity to see exotic animals through the stuffed animal gallery or, indeed, the lion twitching its tail—or not, as the case may be—the Museum's collections are to be cherished and valued.

Unfortunately, the presentation of them could be improved. Some of the galleries are worthy of improvement, but a lot of what goes on in the Museum is, of course, behind the scenes: the dozens of researchers who between them have collectively more than 400 years of experience serving the state. Some of the research is at the cutting edge of climate science in Australia. Some of the work done through, for example, the tissue lab, through the ultra-freezers that were threatened to be closed down, is extraordinarily valuable for understanding South Australia and Australia's place in the world and the way in which diseases can be tracked and the way in which species are operating.

A lot of this was in jeopardy through twin challenges to the Museum, ultimately, I think, caused by successive budget cuts—successive governments to be sure, but most cruelly the first budget of the Malinauskas Labor government, which ripped hundreds of thousands of dollars per year out of a museum budget that was already straining under pressure.

The board, led by the former chair and the former CE of the Museum, had a couple of approaches to how they were going to do this. There was a strategic plan that involved transferring the responsibilities for scientific research from the Museum to the universities. Those responsibilities are not just the accidental whims of successive Museum leaders or governments in terms of what the Museum did. That scientific research work is required of the Museum as one of the functions in its act. It is not an optional extra. It is critical to the work of the Museum.

Of course, while most South Australians will engage with the Museum through looking at the displays, looking at the exhibitions and looking at the occasional special exhibitions, much of that work is informed by the scientific research going on behind the scenes and much of the engagement, whether it is for Aboriginal communities seeking repatriation of remains of cherished loved ones or whether it is indeed scientific researchers seeking to engage with the collections of the exhibition, that is done behind the scenes by those scientific researchers.

So for the Museum leadership to seek to address their budget challenges through cutting that research, it wasn't really an option. I acknowledge they were dealing with profound budget challenges, exacerbated especially by the first budget of this government, but that was not the solution.

The second aspect of what the petition was seeking to address was what was called the reimagining of the Museum. It was a proposal denied by the government for a long time that it was existent, until ultimately leaked documents proved that it was a clear proposal, endorsed by the board, signed off by the minister, a proposal of this government to reimagine the Museum.

What did that mean? It meant that there was a hope that they would get some financial support in the way of capital improvements to the Museum. It was suggested, although denied and remains denied to this time, that the idea was that, with the likely cancellation by this government of Tarrkarri, the Aboriginal arts and culture centre, that would free up money to enable them to invest in the Museum and the proposal—the clear plan—suggested basically removing anything from the Museum that was not South Australian-specifically focused and replacing it with new galleries.

I am all in favour of capital investment in the Museum to enhance the galleries, and indeed there are opportunities to do so as there is low-hanging fruit, but there must be a clear intention to retain those collections for public display that are so beloved by so many generations of South Australians.

The situation that we were in early last year was that, when these plans were revealed, firstly there was the announcement of the proposal to remove the jobs of the scientists and then the suggestion alongside, which was ultimately shown to be true, of this reimagining proposal for the capital infrastructure at the Museum. This caused enormous disquiet in the community. We saw about 1,000 people rallying on the steps of Parliament House. It has been cited before and I again remind the house that the late, wonderful Hon. Jennifer Cashmore's last visit to this Parliament prior to her passing was to participate in that rally opposing the restructure and the reimagining of the Museum, and it was reflected at her funeral and it was reflected in the condolence motion in this house.

But of course, at that rally, it was also acknowledged by the former leader of the Liberal Party and me, as the Liberal Party's representatives, that ultimately more funding was required. The government needed to commit to more funding. The Liberal Party committed a future Liberal government to increasing the funding at the Museum. We needed a cancellation of the restructure and a cancellation of the strategic direction that had those researchers losing their jobs.

This petition that we are considering today was launched on that day and over the subsequent three or four months more than 10,000 signatures were collected. They were collected on the steps of the Museum by members of parliament such as myself, the member for Unley, the member for Frome and the member for Bragg—a range of members of the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—talking to everyday South Australians on the lawns of the Museum who were lining up to sign. They were collected in suburbs. They were collected by citizen scientists and people involved in all of the groups that engage with the Museum.

I particularly commend the advocacy and the work of the group of volunteers and donors. I highlight Mary Lou Simpson and her consistent public advocacy for the role of that work. Of course, her family, Antony Simpson and the broader Simpson family, are among the many donors who have contributed so much to the South Australian public good through their support for the Museum.

Ultimately the collection of 10,000 signatures triggering a parliamentary inquiry is no small thing. This is not the only parliamentary inquiry, of course. The Budget and Finance Committee has brought in the former chair and the former CE to ask them questions. A review by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee of the Legislative Council has been underway and that brought forward a lot of the evidence that was highlighting last year why the government needed to rethink what they were doing. Those have been important bodies of work.

In August last year I tabled this petition and in September last year the Premier announced that, indeed, there was going to be a rethink. The government backflipped on their proposals. They spent some time trying to deny any responsibility for them, but they did at least acknowledge that the proposals needed to cease. They let go the chair of the board and replaced him with a new chair of the board. Ultimately the chief executive was moved on at the end of last year as well, so the government has indicated that they got it wrong and the new approach needed to be taken.

There was a modest time-limited budget boost to enable decisions around the work of the researchers or whatever else might be done going forward to be worked out over the next period of time. I think it is not bad timing that it has taken us from August last year until now to have this formal referral to the committee take place, because the new chair of the board has been undertaking a significant body of work within the Museum community itself, assessing the views of the community, the views of donors, the views of staff about how they can make ends meet going forward within their act and indeed what new strategic approach the Museum will take. All of that is worthy, but as that is coming to a conclusion it is now time for the parliament to get engaged again.

My message to the government more than anything else today, as we refer this petition signed by 10,600 South Australians to a committee inquiry of the parliament, is that the Museum needs new investment. The Museum needs new investment in improving its capital infrastructure and it needs new investment to ensure that it can fulfil its charter to South Australia's public, our school students, our tourists and our interested passers-by who go and engage with the exhibitions and, critically, with its mission for scientific, anthropological and other research that must continue. It does not have enough money to fulfil those ambitions at the moment, and the money that the government put in as a short-term measure when they backflipped on their reimagining and their restructure is insufficient going forward. It was time-limited money.

Today is budget day. I would love to see a significant boost in funds for the Museum in today's budget. If that does not happen, then we really will be coming up to it by the end of this year for the Museum to have the future that we want it to have. This parliamentary committee inquiry will hopefully keep the pressure on the government to put it in their budget investment; it will hopefully support the work of the Chair of the Museum Board and their board and, indeed, all of those passionate South Australians who are doing their best for the Museum to ensure that future generations can continue to have the same wonderful experiences that I have had and that so many members of this chamber have no doubt had over the course of their lifetimes.

I certainly commend to the house this committee inquiry looking at the restructures, which is less relevant now than it was, and the remainder of the petition: the strategic direction for the South Australian Museum, the budget for the South Australian Museum, and the reporting relationship, whether it should be in the arts, environment or education portfolios and, indeed, how the Museum can best maintain and enhance its reputation, collections and scientific credibility going forward.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:40): I rise to indicate that the government supports the referral of this petition to the Social Development Committee.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT