HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (ARTS AGENCIES GOVERNANCE AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 September 2010.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:36): I rise to indicate that the Liberal opposition will be supporting this bill. I think it is fair to say that it arises from a fairly sensible review which was conducted by Arts SA to standardise sections of the arts acts. There are quite a number of them which have been promulgated, if that is the correct term. These are acts which govern such institutions as the Museum, the State Library, State Opera, the State Theatre Company, the Festival Centre, the Art Gallery, Carrick Hill and the History Trust, among others.

They have been promulgated over some many decades and, therefore, as governance has matured over the years, some of them need to be updated to catch up. I note that the member for Bragg in another place stated that it is her personal philosophy that, on this side of the chamber at least, we certainly do not agree that a one-size-fits-all approach is necessarily required for these things. However, I think in this instance it is probably an improvement. I would encourage honourable members to read the comprehensive contribution of the Liberal Party leader and our spokesperson on the arts, Isobel Redmond, on 15 September in the House of Assembly.

The bill introduces a set of fairly standardised governance arrangements for all of our arts bodies. It simplifies the relationships with the government and stipulates a set of consistent powers and functions for each board or trust. A number of those governance provisions relate to the board, the composition of the board, the conditions of membership, ministerial direction and control, any committees that may be established by the board, delegations, common seals, annual reports, annual budgets, staffing arrangements, authorised offices, official insignia, issues to do with gifts and so forth. They are set out in the bill which itself is relatively lengthy, but that is because it is an amending act which identifies all of those acts and then inserts those provisions into them.

I would also like to place on the record our gratitude to the many people who have served on those boards over many years. All South Australians owe a debt of gratitude to the people who are prepared to serve in this capacity. The arts industry does not have the sort of financial records and so forth, including sponsorship, to make it an easy area to operate in. Indeed, I recall that our former minister for the arts in the last Liberal government, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, was able to obtain, I think, under interesting circumstances, some funding for a Rodin sculpture. I am not sure whether the former treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, would have approved of the manner in which she obtained that funding, and I am not even sure whether—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I was always very happy with whatever Diana did.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am pleased with the Hon. Mr Lucas's response that he was always pleased with however the Hon. Diana Laidlaw was able to make contributions to the arts. She was very creative in that regard. I am not convinced that that would readily be able to take place with the present administration.

As I said, there are a number of different trusts and institutions that are covered by this particular piece of legislation, and members would be very familiar with them, many of which are located quite close to us in the North Terrace Precinct. The composition of each board will be a maximum of eight members which will include at least two women and two men. Board appointments will be for up to three years, with a maximum nine-year period, and boards must meet at least six times in each year.

Each board is subject to general direction and control of the minister; however, there will be a level of independence established by statute. I have referred to the issue of the committees. There will be conflict of interest provisions, and the like. So, with those comments I endorse the bill to Legislative Council members and look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:42): I rise to indicate the Greens' support of this bill, which introduces a suite of governance arrangements for the major arts bodies in South Australia. The bill does not change the operations or objectives of any of these organisations; in fact it streamlines their relationship with the government and ensures a consistent and clear set of powers and functions for each of their boards or trusts.

The acts covered by this bill include the Adelaide Festival Centre Trust Act 1971, Adelaide Festival Corporation Act 1998, the Art Gallery Act 1939, Carrick Hill Trust Act 1985, South Australian Country Arts Trust Act 1992, History Trust of South Australia Act 1981, South Australian Film Corporation Act 1972, South Australian Museum Act 1976, Libraries Act 1982, State Opera of South Australia Act 1976 and the State Theatre Company of South Australia Act 1972. Now, that is a veritable array of arts icons in this state, and I think that South Australia, as many are aware, has much to be proud of with its artistic tradition. We happily wear the title of 'Festival State' and the arts do contribute a lot to our wearing that title proudly.

This bill introduces consistent provisions for board structures, and many of these organisations, of course, are quite historical and have come about in their own way and in their own time and, as they are arts bodies, with their idiosyncrasies. This bill will in fact bring all those boards up to 21st century standards. I am very pleased to see that a gender balance is one of the new features that will be ensured in respect of all these boards, with a provision in fact of a minimum of two men and two women for each board. We also have boards that will not exceed certain sizes and will ensure appropriate measures for the appointment and removal of members.

Currently, as they stand, some of the boards have two or three positions that have been reserved for representative groups, such as subscribers and employees. I note in particular that, in relation to subscribers, say, for the State Theatre Company of South Australia, I understand that the issues with those positions have been addressed by an in-house amendment to be moved by the government. We are happy to see not only that those concerns were heard but also that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the current people on those boards see out their term and that the board is then appropriately transitioned.

Another issue, which the Hon. Isobel Redmond, the member for Heysen, has raised, is the issue of the representation of local government on the Libraries Board. Again, the Greens support her work in ensuring that those voices were heard, but I also commend the government, because it has done a really good job of ensuring that the arts bodies were well consulted. Rather than declare and demand and then defend its position, which it tends to do in some other areas, in this particular situation the government has, in fact, consulted and come up with what I think is quite a good bill.

The revised boards will be professional bodies that will take these arts organisations into the 21st century and beyond. As I have said, I believe that the arts are, in fact, a great asset for South Australia and, with professional boards that are modern, reflective and gender diverse, they will see this state proud and certainly support our reputation as not only a festival state but also an educated and cultural state.

I note, though, that recent reports, which were part of the Sustainable Budget Commission's recommendations, certainly recommended cutting the arts. I would hope that future governments will not be looking to do such a thing, because that is not a sustainable way of going about presenting a sector of this state that is unique to South Australia and something we hang our hat on as part of our identity in South Australia. So, I would hope that in the future we will see more positive moves towards the arts from this government. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:48): I rise to speak to the second reading. There are two broad issues about which I want to direct questions to the minister and her advisers. I obviously do not expect the minister, not being overly experienced in the arts, as indeed neither am I, and I suspect she is less experienced—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Yes, you are. You love it!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, I love the arts but, in terms of the drafting of the legislation, I would expect that the minister would not be in a position to respond immediately to a number of the questions I intend to put. So, I raise the questions during the second reading, which will allow the minister and her advisers to bring back a reply either at the conclusion to the second reading debate or at clause 1 of the committee stage. The two broad areas on which I seek response from the government are as follows. The first is in relation to the various ministerial control provisions. When one looks at the bill, there are any number of clauses that one can refer to. Essentially, they would all appear to have been drafted in either very similar or exactly the same words for the draft bill we have before us.

My question to the government is: for each of the arts bodies covered by the legislation, can the minister indicate which arts bodies, as a result of this proposed legislation, will have greater ministerial control powers in their governing acts than under the current acts of parliament? That is, as a result of bringing in this overarching provision, which is the same for all arts bodies, over which bodies will there now be greater ministerial control?

We had a recent example of some legislation in the parliament (the name of which immediately escapes me) that was a similar attempt by the government to bring in overarching legislation that covered a whole range of agencies and bodies and, as a result of that in terms of the governance of those bodies, some had greater control, some had lesser control: it was the end product of bringing in one particular provision that applied to everybody. When one asked that question, it was interesting to see the differences, and I think it is important for this parliament, as we go through the committee, to understand where the government is making changes in relation to the ministerial control provisions.

One of the things I have learnt over the years in relation to the arts communities is that they jealously guard what they see as their artistic independence. There is an endeavour in this particular ministerial direction provision to try to cater for that. I am seeking a detailed response from the minister's advisers in relation to all these bodies on where there is any greater control by the minister over the decisions of the particular arts bodies.

The second general area is similar. We have provisions that relate to conflict of interest under the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act. I again ask whether the minister' advisers can advise whether, under the particular honesty and accountability provisions, this bill results in any case for an arts body where the conflict of interest provisions would either be less onerous or, indeed, more onerous than the conflict of interest provisions that currently exist under the current acts of parliament that govern the operations of those particular bodies.

The third area relates to the powers and functions areas. When one looks at that, it relates to areas like engaging agents, consultants and contractors, entering into contracts, etc., acquiring, holding or taking on hire, lending, exchanging, disposing etc.—a whole range of quite detailed powers and functions. I again seek from the minister and her advisers an indication of where the boards are being given even greater powers under this bill than exist under current acts in relation to these particular provisions, in particular, the engagement of consultants, agents, contractors, entering into contracts and acquiring or purchasing objects, properties, etc.—those general provisions covered under the powers provisions in the legislation. With that brief contribution at this stage, and subject to the minister's officers' response, I intend to pursue some or all of those issues in committee.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (15:54): I thank all members for their second reading contributions and indicated support for this amendment bill. The bill introduces consistent and contemporary governance arrangements, it clarifies the obligations and powers of the boards that it includes and it streamlines administration. The bill has been extraordinarily well and extensively consulted on and, as the Hon. Tammy Franks notes, that is reflected in the quality of the legislation before us. I will seek in the committee stage to answer the questions asked by the Hon. Robert Lucas. With those few words, I again thank honourable members and look forward to dealing with the committee stage in an expeditious way.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure how the minister wants to proceed. I have asked a series of detailed questions. I would have thought it would make sense for the minister's advisers to prepare a written response and provide that. From my viewpoint, if no further questions arise in relation to that, then the committee stage would not need to be delayed at all. If there are particular issues then I would intend to pursue them in the committee. I cannot expect that the minister's advisers are going to be in a position to answer them on the run this afternoon; and, indeed, I would like to consider whatever response they have anyway. As I raised in the second reading, my suggestion is, as we do with other measures, that the minister and her advisers take the time to prepare a response and we may then be able to considerably shorten the committee stage of the debate, rather than proceeding with it this afternoon.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the honourable member for his questions. I have just had a chance to seek what level of detail we have in response to the three questions asked by the Hon. Rob Lucas. At this point, we do not have a detailed response in relation to questions 1 and 3, so we will need to take those on notice and bring back a response; that is, if the information is available; nevertheless, we will seek to do that. In relation to question 2, in terms of the honesty and accountability matters, the question was: will this bill result in conflict provisions that would be more or less onerous than the current provisions for these boards? I am advised that the answer is no, that they remain the same because they are bound under the Public Sector Act.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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