ACTING CHAIR (Senator Ronaldson) —I would like to welcome officers from the department.

Senator LUNDY —I would like to ask a couple of general questions in relation to the National Film and Sound Archive. They are questions specifically to the Minister for the Arts and Sport. Is the minister aware of the document titled Independent Statutory Authority Status for the National Film and Sound Archive, which was released by the Australian Society of Archivists, the Archive Forum, the Friends of the National Film and Sound Archive and the Australian Historical Association?

Senator Kemp —I think I have seen that. It would have been some time ago, from memory.

Senator LUNDY —Have you made any effort to address the points raised in the document?

Senator Kemp —I think a lot of the issues that have been raised are those which have been very extensively canvassed. They have been extensively canvassed in the parliament; in Senate estimates and in other debates. I think the government’s position was pretty clear. We are very happy to continue to work with all groups. I think even you would say that I am a very consultative minister—one who is happy to meet with people and to listen to people. At the end of the day the government made a decision, initially supported by you, and then there was a backflip by the Labor Party. I am always happy to talk to groups, and I think I am pretty well aware of their views. From time to time I meet with former Senator Puplick, who also takes a pretty active role in lobbying on behalf of the archive. I am not sure I can add too much more.

Senator LUNDY —Can I help you to be more specific: how does the government intend to fulfil its promise of protecting the National Film and Sound Archive’s identity, budget and institutional integrity?

Senator Kemp —Can you quote some examples where you feel that commitment has not been fulfilled?

Senator LUNDY —Certainly this organisation, the Archive Forum, feel that their identity is being subsumed. I know this is a longstanding discussion we have, but I thought it was time to go there again.

Senator Kemp —They may feel that. If there are serious issues I am always happy to look at them. They have a particular position and they are entitled to their position. It is not one that I fully accept, but if people have queries about the continuing management of the archive, then I am happy to look at those issues. Generalised comments like that are a bit hard to respond to. If you have some examples, we can respond to them.

Senator LUNDY —I refer you back to that document.

Senator Kemp —As I said, you did not tell me that you were going to raise this issue. If you had, I might have had a copy of the document.

Senator LUNDY —Could you take on notice to respond to the points raised in that document.

Senator Kemp —I will refresh my memory and then I will decide what to do. But I am not sure that I can keep having correspondence about essentially the same issues; in the end, you have to draw a line. They have a particular view on where the archive should be located. It was not a view which I held and it was not a view which the government held. Having said there is this difference, we are always happy to listen to people. Where there are real issues, we will try to address them.

Senator LUNDY —Very specifically, I think the archive group would really appreciate it if you responded to the resolution from their 2004 annual general meeting that was sent to you back then. That is still outstanding.

Senator Kemp —They could have phoned my office.

Senator LUNDY —I think they wrote to you.

Senator Kemp —They could have done that.

Senator LUNDY —I think it is just a matter of courtesy.

Senator Kemp —I will revisit the material. I do not want to prejudge what my response would be. My feeling is that these issues have been very extensively canvassed. I think that sometimes you just have to say that we will have to agree to differ. That is not to say we ignore them but, at the end of the day, governments have to make decisions. The government made a decision and they did not agree with it.

Senator LUNDY —I appreciate that that is your view, and I think that is well known. I think what this group is looking for are some responses to its correspondence to you. I think it is seeking your reaction to its call for a scrapping of the original directions plan. Obviously many things have changed since all of that went under the bridge.

Senator Kemp —We had that debate a long time ago.

Senator LUNDY —I appreciate that, but I think it is now a matter of respecting this organisation and their views by honouring them with a response. It is down to respect, really.

Senator Kemp —I will dig out the correspondence, but very few people say that I do not treat them with courtesy. Certainly in relation to this debate, I would be surprised if they felt that they had not been treated with courtesy. If people feel like that, I will revisit it. That directions plan was such a long time ago. There was a big debate in Canberra. Gary Humphries played a very useful role, if I remember rightly, in relation to that.

Senator LUNDY —I can give you the actual date. The Society of Archivists called on the minister to respond to the resolution from a meeting in 2004. That correspondence was sent to you on 20 September 2004.

Senator Kemp —I will have a look at that issue. Are you aware that they have recently contacted me?

Senator LUNDY —I am following up information that I have had for quite some time. I do not believe this was followed up, otherwise I would have been advised. If you could give me an undertaking to follow it up, then that would be terrific.

Senator Kemp —Will I give you an undertaking? I will look at that material and then I will decide what to do. But if it means just revisiting a lot of issues which have been really extensively canvassed then people of goodwill will have to agree to differ—I think that is where it may have to lie. I do not think that anyone complains that we have cut funding to the archive. If there are particular management issues, people are always entitled to raise them with me. I think people would have a general view that I am fairly responsive when real issues are raised.

Senator LUNDY —I hope you would treat the Archive Forum and the Society of Archivists with the respect they deserve.

Senator Kemp —As I said, I am a person who has a name for treating people with respect.

Senator LUNDY —I want to turn to the issue of the review of government film funding. We covered a fair bit of this before in terms of the time frame but I just want to recap specifically the timing of the review—Minister, I think you did a bit of that—and whether the submissions to the review are publicly available?

Senator Kemp —I have indicated to the department that in principle I am happy to make them publicly available. We have had this discussion, and perhaps Mr Cameron can refresh my memory about what the agreement was, but in principle I am happy to do that. We were just looking at what was the appropriate time in which these should be made available.

Mr Cameron —The submissions to the review—other than those where the submitter indicated that they were confidential—are available on our website now. In terms of the timing of the review, I am sure you are aware that an issues paper was released on 12 July this year. In response to that issues paper over 80 submissions were received and, as the minister indicated, the review is in its final stages of being completed and put forward to the minister.

Senator LUNDY —What about the status of the review of the refundable tax offset? Has that been completed?

Mr Cameron —Yes, that review has been completed. A report of that review will be tabled in the near future.

Senator LUNDY —Tabled in parliament?

Mr Cameron —That is correct.

Senator LUNDY —Will that be next week or in the final sitting period or will it be tabled out of sitting?

Mr Cameron —At this stage I cannot give you an exact date. I expect it would be tabled during a sitting period, but I am not able to say whether it will be next week or not.

Senator LUNDY —Minister, can you give us a better insight?

Senator Kemp —To be quite frank I was otherwise distracted, as you noted. That was a very cute trick on your part.

Senator LUNDY —I try and do it all the time—the refundable tax offset review.

Senator Kemp —Now that I have been fully briefed on this issue, my advice is it will be tabled shortly and if I can give you more precise information, I will. This is one of those reviews which form part of our wider consideration of the film industry and I can understand your interest.

Senator LUNDY —The information on the department’s website said that the refundable tax offset review was to be completed before 4 September 2006. Why has there been a delay?

Mr Cameron —The review exercise was completed in that time frame. Since that date the department has been preparing the report of the review which, as I say, will be tabled in the near future.

Senator Kemp —Senator Lundy, while you are reflecting on this, my ever efficient office has brought to my attention that the Australian Society of Archivists wrote to me on 26 October 2005 regarding the resolution on the National Film and Sound Archive. My correspondence here shows that I replied on 7 December 2005.

Senator LUNDY —7 December. Could you provide that correspondence to the committee?

Senator Kemp —I will read it first and make sure it is appropriate.

Senator LUNDY —Thank you.

Senator Kemp —I do not normally share my correspondence with the committee, but let me have a read of it and I will make a decision.

Senator LUNDY —Yes, it might prompt me to ask more questions, so it would be very useful.

Senator Kemp —Therefore I might make a decision late in the piece.

Senator LUNDY —Don’t be so tight. I obviously was not aware of that correspondence, so I would be very interested to have a look at it.

Senator Kemp —All right. If you show me your letters, I’ll show you mine.

Senator LUNDY —I am going to ignore that. The next questions I have are in relation to additional funding for the Australian Business Arts Foundation. I believe the minister received advice on a variety of options for the allocation of the training package to help visual artists work more closely with the commercial arts market. Can you give the committee the detail of this advice and the range of options that were offered? I am referring to answers to questions on notice.

Senator Kemp —This is advice to the minister and, to be quite frank, I do not think this is appropriate to be shared with the committee. I think my words will have to stand. I normally do not provide details on advice to the minister—in line, I might say, with every Labor minister who ever sat in this chair and in line with the practice of my colleagues.

Senator LUNDY —Can I ask the department the names of the organisations they collated for the minister’s decision that would be in a position to provide a training package to help visual artists work more closely with the commercial arts market?

Senator Kemp —I think you can rest assured that they covered the full ambit. The department are very assiduous on these issues. If anyone in the department doubts what I am saying they had better correct me, but I think that it is correct that the full range of options were considered and the department provided some advice to me. I do not normally say this, but I will share this with you: I accepted the department’s advice. I do not always do that but this time I did.

Senator LUNDY —Interesting that you say that now, Minister.

Senator Kemp —You asked me the question.

Senator LUNDY —You are anticipating my questions very well.

Senator Kemp —I have been around for a long time.

Senator LUNDY —Was there an option to grant funding to an established industry body such as NAVA? Were they on the list?

Senator Kemp —Again, I do not want to go into the detail. I think my comments rest. The department canvassed the full range of options available. I do not plan to go into this detail, because this is advice to the minister.

Senator LUNDY —All right. I will ask questions about process to the department.

Senator Kemp —Yes, sure.

Senator LUNDY —What industry bodies were consulted in the lead-up to the granting of this funding which, for the purposes of interested parties, was granted to ABAF? That question was to the department.

Ms Bean —There were a number of submissions—letters, actually; I would not necessarily put them as high as submissions—received from various organisations. I do not have the full list of all of the correspondence received with me.

Senator LUNDY —What were those letters or submissions responding to?

Ms Bean —They were responding to the budget announcement.

Senator LUNDY —So not to a specific invitation from the department?

Ms Bean —No.

Senator LUNDY —Did the department make any effort to actively contact or seek a submission from industry bodies who may be in a position to perform this role?

Ms Bean —No, we did not; there was no tender process.

Senator LUNDY —Who made the decision not to enter into an open tender process and why?

Ms Bean —That was a ministerial decision on the advice of the department.

Senator LUNDY —On what basis did the department advise the minister not to have an open tender process?

Senator Kemp —No, I do not—

Senator LUNDY —I am not asking about advice that you considered. I want to know the department’s rationale, because they just said it was their decision to tell you that.

Senator Kemp —You are getting dangerously close to starting to canvas advice to a minister. The department has reasonably gone as far as it can go. I know there are people who are disappointed; they made their views known to me and they made their views known to others. They have obviously made their views known to you and they are entitled to do that. We do not object to that; this is a free society and people can make their views known. But in the end governments have to make decisions.

ACTING CHAIR —I think that is reasonable. If you have other lines to pursue, feel free to do so.

Senator LUNDY —Was there ever a commitment, either verbally or in writing, to any industry body, including obviously NAVA, that there would be an open tender process, or is there anything that you can point to that would have allowed them to reasonably understand that to be the case—that is, prompting their concerns now?

Senator Kemp —I understand that those claims have been made. I am aware of their concerns. People have made their concerns available to me. I re-read the advice that I got from the department. I am happy with the advice that I got. We are not going to please everybody. If you ever get into this seat, Senator, you will find that you cannot please everybody. In the end you have to make a decision and you try to make what seems to be the best decision. Obviously, I would prefer people felt that they had had a fair hearing. I have looked carefully at the advice given to me by the department and I am satisfied and I have received assurances from the department that all reasonable and appropriate options were considered. In the end I had to make a decision and I did.

Senator LUNDY —Minister, were you aware when you made that decision of NAVA’s proposal for a training and resource strategy?

Senator Kemp —I do not plan to go into what I was or was not aware of. All I am saying is—

Senator LUNDY —I think that is a reasonable question.

Senator Kemp —All I am saying is that I received advice from the department that the department had canvassed a variety of options. I am satisfied with the outcome. NAVA are not satisfied with the outcome; I understand that. I accept that they are not happy with the outcome, but sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you do not. I think NAVA overall is pretty delighted with the way this government has given a high priority to the visual arts. In fact, they have even put out supportive press statements, if I remember correctly, on various things I have done. So the truth is you win some, you lose some. I am sorry NAVA feels this way.

Senator LUNDY —I think their funding is dependant on it, isn’t it?

Senator Kemp —What we have delivered is very important. I have worked closely with NAVA over quite a long period of time and I am sure I will work closely with NAVA again.

Senator LUNDY —Minister, are you able to tell the committee if you were at least aware of their proposal at the time you made the decision?

Senator Kemp —I am not prepared to go into the advice. Of course, I am aware that there were groups who were putting forward views, but I am not going further. I do not believe the department acted in a capricious or careless way.

Senator LUNDY —I am not suggesting they are. I am just trying to understand the process.

Senator Kemp —The process is that the department sees that the government has made a budget decision, canvasses a range of options and then gives advice to the minister. A minister has to decide whether or not to accept that advice, and I accepted it. But I do think it is time we moved on. We have had this debate; we have had it extensively. I accept that NAVA are not happy with the outcome. NAVA were very happy with the outcome of the Myer report and with a number of other things I have been able to do for them. I am sure in the future they will be very happy with things I am able to do, but on this occasion I was not able to reach a decision which suited NAVA. That is what happens. My relations with NAVA continue to be entirely satisfactory, as far as I am aware, and I will continue to work with them.

ACTING CHAIR —Senator Lundy, I suspect the minister is not going to canvass this any further.

Senator LUNDY —No, I appreciate that.

ACTING CHAIR —It might be worthwhile moving on.

Senator LUNDY —I want to ask the department one more question on this. Why did the department reject NAVA’s proposal?

Senator Kemp —I think that is going—

Senator LUNDY —No, it is not, because this is prior to their recommendation to you. It is a reasonable question and I want to know their criteria and the reasoning why.

Senator Kemp —I think this is going to the nub of the issue that we canvassed 15 minutes ago. I do not think it is appropriate for the department to get into those discussions. If any officer really feels they have to say something, they should say it; but that is my view.

Senator LUNDY —Can I say in response to that that you started off this discussion by making it very clear that you took the department’s advice on this issue—and I appreciate that—and that you are not going to tell me anything else about how you considered the issue. But, because you have put that on the record and it is very clear that the department put advice to you that you accepted that, it is a reasonable question for me now to ask the officers of the department what their criteria was for rejecting the NAVA proposal.

Senator Kemp —I think that is—

Senator LUNDY —In a way you set them up for this because you already said they—

Senator Kemp —I did not set anybody up.

Senator LUNDY —Not like that but—

Senator Kemp —I have set nobody up.

Senator LUNDY —You opened the door for this question to be asked quite reasonably to the department.

Senator Kemp —I think that is a half clever line, but it is coming at exactly the issue which I discussed before. I think we should move on. I accept that NAVA are disappointed with the decision. I accept that. It is not surprising because of the way the decision went. It in no way affects my relations with NAVA, whom I have worked with over a long period of time. I think it is time we all moved on. That is my view. I am satisfied with the decision that has been made and, since it has been made, I continue to be satisfied with it.

Senator LUNDY —Are you directing the department not to answer my question?

Senator Kemp —We are dealing with very senior public servants. If they feel they need to say something to clear their position, they are perfectly entitled to say so. I am indicating to the department that I think this is probably treading into an area where you are starting to canvass advice to ministers, and I do not believe this is a subject for consideration by this committee. That is what I think.

Senator LUNDY —Do the department officers have anything they would like to add?

Ms Williams —I really do not think it is appropriate.

Senator LUNDY —I will place the question on notice and then invite the department to respond to it.

Senator Kemp —Sure.

Senator LUNDY —If they do not want to then they can provide all the appropriate reasons.

Senator Kemp —Then you can nail me at the next Senate estimates.

Senator LUNDY —You will not be here.

Senator Kemp —If I am here. I have been here for eight years.

Senator LUNDY —Ms Williams will be here, Ms Bean will be here and Mr Cameron will be here. You will not be here, though.

Senator Kemp —You might find there is someone in this chair who is less helpful than me.

Senator LUNDY —I doubt that.

ACTING CHAIR —Senator Lundy, over the last four years you have been making these comments.

Senator Kemp —Next issue.

Senator LUNDY —Let us move along. Was the review of the funding model for major performing arts companies tabled at the recent Cultural Ministers Council and, if not, why not?

Senator Kemp —There was discussion of the funding review and there has been discussion with individual states about the requests that were made under the funding review. Each state has been briefed as far as it relates to its own budgetary considerations about the funding review. The document itself was not tabled. However, the states themselves are well aware of what the review showed. Subject to anything my officers may say, consultation is continuing with the states to determine whether they are prepared to support the findings of the review.

Senator LUNDY —So you did not present collectively to them. You went to them individually and said, ‘This is what we can do for you.’

Senator Kemp —I think that was accepted by the state Labor ministers. I think they felt that was an appropriate way to deal with it. The officer has just indicated to me that consultation at the officer level by the Australia Council with the various states has occurred. My impression was—others may have a different view—was that Labor ministers were happy with that process because they did not want to be locked into anything that could be seen to be a public position. My judgement was that they preferred to deal with it in this way. That was my view as well. We will have to see. The truth is that some states will be very supportive of the review. There will be some who will not be enthusiastic perhaps but will go along with it, and there will be one or two who will not be supportive. We will have to work out what to do with those states. I think New South Wales is very sticky, indeed, on some of these issues.

Senator LUNDY —Very what?

Senator Kemp —Sticky. I make no judgement in relation to this review, because that would not be fair; but, in relation to some other art issues we have had with New South Wales, they have been less than forthcoming. I hope that that will not be shown in relation to this funding review.

Senator LUNDY —Can you provide details to this committee about the nature of the briefing that was provided to each of the states?

Senator Kemp —No, I do not have that.

Senator LUNDY —That is, what the outcome of the review was.

Senator Kemp —No, I do not think I will actually. I will just wait until we finalise the position with each of the state governments. The review is feeding into the government’s budgetary considerations. This is a really, I think, a budget document, so I do not propose at this stage to share the findings of the review with this committee.

Senator LUNDY —Have the major performing arts companies met the criteria of artistic vibrancy, sustainability and current and future challenges for the industry?

Senator Kemp —I think there has been a huge improvement. One of the things the review showed is the important gains that had been made since the Nugent initiative. It also indicated that, in some areas, some of the companies were under some pressures, and that is the issue that we have to deal with. Overall, and particularly post-Strong with the orchestras, the companies’ financial position is typically stronger than it was before the Nugent review. I think everyone who is involved can take some pride in that. The companies themselves, of course, and what they have produced, the Australia Council and their administration of that and the generally sound advice one gets from the department. Even ministers may be able to take sound credit. Who knows?

Senator LUNDY —Are you trying to pat yourself on the back, Minister?

Senator Kemp —Yes, I am actually. I was trying to subtly give myself a pat on the back.

Senator LUNDY —It is not very subtle.

ACTING CHAIR —A very understated pat!

Senator Kemp —It has been a significant achievement. The Nugent review of the major performing arts companies and the Strong review, which fed into that with orchestras, have meant that some very considerable advances have been made with those major performing arts companies. Yes, there are issues that we have to deal with and that the companies themselves have to deal with, but hopefully the outcomes of the funding review model will allow those issues to be addressed. What has happened there in the last six years has been very important for arts in Australia.

Senator LUNDY —Minister, as a result of this review, are you able to guarantee that all major performing arts companies will retain, at minimum, their existing funding?

Senator Kemp —The issue is not so much their existing funding, it is whether some of the funding can be increased. That is the issue.

Senator LUNDY —It certainly is, but I am looking for a benchmark here.

Senator Kemp —It depends a bit on the states.

Senator LUNDY —No, I am talking about the federal allocation.

Senator Kemp —There is a funding ratio and typically it is 80-20. The states have got to come to the party. It is a partnership. The ratios were settled at the time of the Nugent review and those ratios remain in place. For example, the New South Wales government decided not to fully fund some of the initiatives under the Strong review of orchestras, so the SSO missed out on some of those benefits. We thought that was an odd decision by the New South Wales government, but nonetheless that was the decision they made and, therefore, if state money was not going to be forthcoming under various strong initiatives, federal money was not going to become available.

Senator LUNDY —Just going back to the organisations meeting the criteria, are you able to tell the committee how the criteria were evaluated with each organisation? Was it by the department? Did you engage consultants? Did they fill out a questionnaire? What was the process?

Senator Kemp —This is really the Australia Council’s area and they have now departed on an early flight out.

Senator LUNDY —Lucky them.

Senator Kemp —I am not sure I can add too much at this stage; I do not have the material in front of me.

Senator LUNDY —I will place that question on notice for the Australia Council.

Senator Kemp —That would be all right.

Senator LUNDY —Is the department involved in any way in evaluating the organisations against the criteria? Stop looking at the clock, Minister.

Senator Kemp —It seems to me—

Senator LUNDY —Only 45 minutes to go.

Senator Kemp —I think it moves slowly if you do not look at it. I think it moves quicker if you keep on willing it forward. It has been a long day.

Senator LUNDY —Very enjoyable.

Ms Bean —There was very marginal involvement with the department. Obviously we have ongoing discussions with the Australia Council about all manner of issues that are of interest to both agencies. But in terms of actually engaging the consultants undertaking the review, that entire process was managed by the Council.

Senator LUNDY —Did you have any formal input into the review?

Ms Bean —No.

Senator LUNDY —The communique from the ministers’ council stated:

What was the basis for that statement?

Ms Bean —There was an evaluation undertaken.

Senator LUNDY —Can you provide the background to that evaluation and how that evaluation was conducted?

Ms Bean —That was undertaken by the department in consultation with the Australia Council. It was a lapsing program review done in the budget context.

Senator LUNDY —To what extent did the department assess the sector against I presume some criteria and allow you to draw that conclusion?

Ms Bean —Sorry, Senator; I am a little wary here because much of this material is budget in confidence. What I can say though is that client groups, for want of a better word, did have an opportunity to submit information, and information was gathered by us and by the Australia Council.

Senator LUNDY —Does that mean that this evaluation will inform the government’s budget considerations?

Ms Bean —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —Fine. So why was this statement issued as part of the cultural minister’s review if it is a federal government budget matter?

Ms Bean —This is another example where there is Commonwealth and state funding involved in the program. It is very similar to the major performing arts organisations where there is a funding ratio and the states put in money and we put in money.

Senator LUNDY —Has the review of the Collections Council of Australia started yet?

Mr Cameron —That review is under way.

Senator LUNDY —When is it due to conclude?

Mr Cameron —I understand it is due to conclude early in the new year.

Senator LUNDY —Is that review also for the purposes of budget considerations?

Mr Cameron —No.

Senator LUNDY —My next questions relate to Old Parliament House.

Senator Kemp —I have got a great idea, Mr Acting Chairman. Why don’t we finish early?

ACTING CHAIR —I was just thinking exactly the same thing, Minister.

Senator LUNDY —We might well.

Senator Kemp —One way for you to get a lot of credit—

Senator LUNDY —If you keep talking we might not.

Senator Kemp —is to indicate that that finishes the estimates.

Senator LUNDY —Before you all run away—

Senator Kemp —What have you done, Senator?

Senator LUNDY —Senator Wortley has just brought to my attention a remaining element of my brief. Can you describe the current operations of the department’s indemnity scheme for major exhibitions?

Senator Kemp —The indemnity scheme is a very important initiative and it is administered by two institutions, the National Gallery of Australia and also a body called Art Exhibitions Australia. This indemnity scheme has allowed many of the exhibitions which have created such public interest, many coming from offshore—Picasso was the most recent one and the Dutch Masters was another one we had in Melbourne. The exhibition I will be opening and you be coming to in three weeks time at the National Gallery of Australia, I think it is under—

Ms Bean —I do not believe it is.

Senator Kemp —I have just been corrected. Luckily you have helped me avoid misleading the Senate committee. Specifically, what is your question?

Senator LUNDY —Can you describe any changes that have been made to the operation of the scheme in the last five years, particularly in relation to the safety and security arrangements that the department now demands of exhibition organisers?

Senator Kemp —It does seem to be a rather technical question. I know that these things are constantly reviewed to make sure that it operates at the highest possible standards. Are you able to enlighten us?

Ms Bean —I would be rather concerned about talking in a public forum about security issues, because obviously one of the key factors about this scheme is that you are dealing with extremely valuable works and security is very tight around the movement of those works. I think it is probably unwise to canvass this.

Senator LUNDY —I do not really want to go into the specifics of the procedures per se. My question is: have there been any changes? The implication there is have you upgraded the security and safety treatment?

Ms Bean —Certainly security is always under review, and it is always a key issue for us.

Senator LUNDY —Has that been upgraded? It is okay to say ‘yes’.

Ms Bean —I am trying to be helpful.

Senator LUNDY —It is better than saying ‘no’ or ‘no, we’ve downgraded’.

Ms Bean —That is true.

Senator Kemp —Can we offer you a private briefing? It is fairly technical and it is a scheme which, I hope I am not—

Senator LUNDY —I certainly do not want to compromise the security. I am just trying to get a feel for where I am heading with my questions, Minister, and this might assist.

Senator Kemp —Perhaps if you got to where you are heading, and then we can work backwards and see what we can do.

Senator LUNDY —Concern about the growing cost of compliance and also the use of commercial insurance rather than this scheme because it was cheaper, so it actually is starting to affect the viability of mounting certain exhibitions.

Senator Kemp —One of the challenges we have had is to keep the value of the exhibitions within the ceiling of the scheme. Sometimes when exhibitions are not within the ceiling—I am looking at my officers to make sure I am heading in the right direction—we do sometimes encourage people to get additional commercial insurance. Has anyone got any views they want to share with Senator Lundy?

Senator LUNDY —One specific question which might assist you: are you aware of any instance where an exhibition organiser, while eligible to access this scheme, has instead sought commercial insurance because it was cheaper or for any other reason?

Ms Bean —Certainly on some occasions the exhibition organisers do choose not to access indemnity. It can be for a variety of reasons.

Senator LUNDY —Does that concern you?

Ms Bean —Not really, because there are a number of significant exhibitions still utilising indemnity and at some points through the year we do reach the cap.

Senator Kemp —And that cap is set by the department of finance essentially, isn’t it?

Ms Bean —By the government.

Senator LUNDY —Would it be of concern to the department if it were to be demonstrated that commercial insurance was cheaper and that that was the reason, given the purpose of this was to facilitate it?

Ms Bean —This is a complex area and it is difficult to answer on a superficial basis. There are always a number of reasons going on in there, and it is not something that—I think a decision not to take indemnity would not generally be as simple as just the cost. There are all sorts of different complexities in there.

Senator Kemp —Because of the value involved sometimes people might find our requirements, from their point of view, too onerous, and they are entitled to feel that. This is a scheme which remains very important and the fact is that at times we tend to have problems with the cap. Some suggest that the scheme is still being very useful and in demand. I was a little bit critical of the Labor policy in the last election to allow a significantly wider group of people to administer the program. I thought that was a very dangerous policy and my judgement is that I would invite you to reconsider that.

Senator LUNDY —People are not even bothering to use it under your management. It is cheaper to get it elsewhere.

Senator Kemp —How can we have problems with the cap if people are not bothering to use it? The truth is, as one of the officers said, that sometimes in the course of the year we have trouble as the exhibitions insured are starting to press on the cap that we are allowed to by the government. It is just not correct. People are using the scheme. We do not object. To be quite frank, if people feel they can get a better deal out of commercial insurance, we do not object to that. It is not a matter that we would dispute with them.

Senator LUNDY —At what point will you scrap the scheme, if people are using commercial alternatives?

Senator Kemp —I keep making this point: from time to time the cap itself in the scheme is under pressure, which suggests it is still a very popular scheme. The underlying assumption in your question is wrong. If people want to have commercial insurance, we do not object to that. We have been telling the states that they should upgrade their schemes, particularly Victoria. I think their indemnity scheme was falling behind what other state governments were offering. They have recently upgraded their indemnity scheme, which is a good thing and which we supported. I think there was a bit of an issue with your policy at the last election. I would certainly invite Peter Garrett to look closely at that policy. I think it was a very unwise policy. I am surprised you did it actually.

Senator LUNDY —I will place some further questions on notice in relation to that. It is not my intention to add to the vulnerabilities on the security front. I am sure the department will answer them wisely.

Senator Kemp —If at any time you would like a briefing on that, we are very happy to do that. We are very happy to brief you or Mr Garrett or staff. We would be very happy to do that.

Senator LUNDY —I am happy to move on now to the Old Parliament House. Old Parliament House, welcome. Can you update the committee of the developments with respect to the Gallery of Australian Democracy.

Ms Anderson —You will recall in the May budget we received quite significant funding over four years—$31.5 million—to establish a Gallery of Australian Democracy in Old Parliament House. An element of that is also the Australian Prime Ministers Centre. Our priority for this year is to establish stage 1 of the Prime Ministers Centre, and planning is well underway for that. Our long-term planning is for the Gallery of Australian Democracy, and that will be established in the current areas occupied by the National Portrait Gallery in Old Parliament House ready for when they depart at the end of 2008.

Senator LUNDY —What educational programs will be offered to school and community groups?

Ms Anderson —You would be aware that we already offer a range of educational and outreach activities, especially to school groups, and of course we will continue to do that. We will certainly expand that program in light of the Gallery of Australian Democracy.

Senator LUNDY —Can you provide some description as to what areas will need to be refurbished and how you will preserve their character, particularly in the context of the listing of the building.

Ms Anderson —The national heritage listing?

Senator LUNDY —Yes. I have the Prime Minister’s press statement: ‘National Heritage Listing for Old Parliament House’. How do you reconcile that, which I presume upgrades substantially the preservation of the building, and the work that needs to occur for the Gallery of Australian Democracy.

Ms Anderson —We have been working on our heritage management plan which is in line with that national heritage listing. We are currently at the draft stage with that. We are refining that draft at the moment with some informal consultations and we expect to be able to submit our draft heritage management plan to the Department of Environment and Heritage for further consultation quite shortly. We expect that to be finalised early next year. That plan will assist us in interpreting and working out the appropriate use of the building to fit with that plan. We are quite confident that that is what we are working towards. The priority for this year is our planning for the refurbishment for the Australian Prime Ministers Centre stage 1. We have to do some slight refurbishment in the south-west wing on the Senate side. Planning for that is underway.

Our long term planning in the capital works side of things is for the House of Representatives wing, which requires quite substantial refurbishment—we certainly received funding for that for the next four years—and some refurbishment to the National Portrait Gallery area.

Senator LUNDY —You mentioned stage 1 and various stages. Can you characterise what each stage will involve?

Ms Anderson —Stage 1 of the Australia Prime Ministers Centre will comprise a small exhibition area on Australian Prime Ministers, a reference area and an area for more serious research. The first area would probably be more appropriate for school children, and there will be an area for more advanced research as well. That is only the initial stage 1 because, as I said, it will be in the Senate wing. We are also planning for the permanent Australian Prime Ministers Centre, which will move to the House of Representatives side when we do the long-term planning.

Senator LUNDY —Why are you doing the Prime Ministers Centre temporarily first up in stage 1 rather than making the refurbishment of the House of Representatives stage 1? Wouldn’t that be more efficient?

Ms Anderson —No, because the refurbishment of the House of Representatives is a very long term capital works program. We can do something as an initial phase to get a program up and running quite easily, and that is what we are doing in this current year.

Senator LUNDY —So what is stage 2?

Ms Anderson —Stage 2 will be a much more permanent focus on Australian Prime Ministers, and what we learn from stage 1 will certainly assist us in that long-term planning.

Senator LUNDY —But stage 2 will have to be the House of Representatives refurbishment—is that stage 1?

Ms Anderson —Stage 1 of an Australian Prime Ministers Centre is purely where we will have an initial Prime Ministers Centre in the Senate wing. By the end of 2008, early 2009, we will move over to a refurbished area in the House of Representatives side.

Senator LUNDY —The refurbishment of the House of Representatives will be concurrent to stage 1?

Ms Anderson —Yes. Stage 1 will be established quite soon, but in the meantime we do our capital works, which is a long-term capital works program over the next three years.

Senator LUNDY —Thanks. Sorry I interrupted. Stage 2 is the permanent Prime Ministers Centre.

Ms Anderson —Yes, and the Australian Prime Ministers Centre is only an element of that Gallery of Australian Democracy.

Senator LUNDY —Certainly. So when do we see other elements of the Gallery of Australian Democracy?

Ms Anderson —Not until towards the end of 2008, early 2009. They are planned to coincide with the departure of the National Portrait Gallery to its new building.

Senator LUNDY —Is that all that stage 2 is?

Ms Anderson —Stage 2 of the Australian Prime Ministers Centre—yes. But the Gallery of Australian Democracy is a very long-term focus.

Senator LUNDY —So what happens by the end of 2008 or early 2009?

Ms Anderson —We will by then have established a permanent Gallery of Australian Democracy and a permanent Australian Prime Ministers Centre within Old Parliament House, and the National Portrait Gallery will be in their new building.

Senator LUNDY —I have got a few questions for the National Portrait Gallery as well.

Ms Anderson —I might ask Andrew Sayers to join us.

Senator LUNDY —I have a few other issues I want to raise with you about Old Parliament House, but by all means, come to the table. I want to get updated as to what is happening with the sponsorship of the roses in the Old Parliament House gardens. I have got some feedback—

Ms Anderson —That is not Old Parliament House’s area.

Senator LUNDY —Who manages that?

Ms Anderson —The National Capital Authority. We do not manage the rose gardens at all.

Senator LUNDY —You do not have anything to do with the rose gardens.

Ms Anderson —No.

Senator LUNDY —I will raise that issue with them. Do you get any feedback from visitors about the gardens?

Ms Anderson —Our visitors often wander over to the gardens, and that feedback is always quite positive. We certainly take a great interest in the gardens, but they do not come under our responsibility.

Senator LUNDY —I have one more question about the refurbishment of Old Parliament House. Are there any external refurbishment works planned?

Ms Anderson —I am not aware of any external works. Part of our planning in our normal life cycle cost planning is to look at the render of the building and the roof. That is the actual building—but certainly not, apart from that.

Senator LUNDY —How are the plans for construction of the National Portrait Gallery proceeding?

Mr Sayers —Plans are proceeding to a very detailed stage. Construction will commence on the site some time in November—this coming month. We have spent the last few months working on the detail of the building. The plans are at a very detailed stage of development. The contractor to build the building was formally brought on as the contractor on 23 October—last week.

Senator LUNDY —Who is that?

Mr Sayers —That is John Holland. Of course, the contract is being managed by the Department of Finance and Administration, not by our department.

Senator LUNDY —Are you still on track for the programmed move of the gallery from Old Parliament House to the new site?

Mr Sayers —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —Has anything changed from what was anticipated in the time frame previously, now that the contract has been signed?

Mr Sayers —No. The program we currently have is the same program that we have been working to for quite some months. It is the program which has the building opening in December 2008. That means that the building needs to be practically complete by September 2008. That is the current program. That fits in with our move from Old Parliament House. Exhibitions in Old Parliament House will cease at the end of March 2008. That will give us time to effect the move, establish all the displays and commission the building. So the time frame is as previously advised.

ACTING CHAIR —What is the cost of the project?

Mr Sayers —The cost of the project is $73.6 million.

Senator LUNDY —How many companies were in the final stages of the tender process?

Mr Sayers —The tender process was actually managed by the Department of Finance and Administration. That is a question you would have to address to them.

Senator LUNDY —But you must know.

Mr Sayers —It was not a tender process that we ran.

Senator LUNDY —I will place questions on notice. Is it helpful if I put the questions on notice to you?

Mr Sayers —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —And then you can get the information.

Mr Sayers —The questions should really go to the Department of Finance and Administration. They are responsible for all of the contractual matters—tendering and construction.

Senator LUNDY —What involvement does the Portrait Gallery and/or the department have in the management of that contract?

Mr Sayers —Essentially our key interest is in the building that is delivered and its functionality and capacity to operate as a National Portrait Gallery. We work very closely on the design detail and all of the aspects of the building that are going to be delivered as a National Portrait Gallery, and the Department of Finance and Administration are responsible for actually managing all of the tenders, the contracting and so on. We work very closely to ensure that the time frame and what is being delivered at the end are what we require.

Senator LUNDY —What about the annex down at Commonwealth Place?

Mr Sayers —The Commonwealth Place annex that we currently use as an exhibition space is in fact a space that belongs to the National Capital Authority. It is a part of Commonwealth Place. We have a memorandum of understanding with the National Capital Authority to use that space as an exhibition space and that ceases at the end of March 2008, after which time the National Capital Authority will resume its use and it will be up to them as to what they will do with it, but all of the National Portrait Gallery exhibitions will be under the one roof.

Senator LUNDY —Have you experienced any problems with that physical space at Commonwealth Place?

Mr Sayers —The space at Commonwealth Place has been a very valuable space for us to display particularly the contemporary end of the collection. The Commonwealth Place space was not designed as an exhibition space and so it is not designed to the highest qualities of light control in particular. However, for exhibitions of contemporary photography, for example, and exhibitions of the secondary school students’ work that we have there at the moment it is ideal. We did, in fact, have the Kylie exhibition there, for which we had to work with the space design wise to make it work as an exhibition, and it worked very well. There were 31,000 visitors through that exhibition. It has been a space that we have worked with to make it into an exhibition space, though it was not designed as that originally.

Senator LUNDY —How have visitor numbers been to the National Portrait Gallery in Old Parliament House?

Mr Sayers —Because of the fact that the portrait gallery is in fact an integral part of Old Parliament House, we do not distinguish between visitors into the National Portrait Gallery and Old Parliament House. We treat the figure as a whole, and figures have remained very good.

Ms Anderson —I have more detail on that. Certainly, our visitor figures in Old Parliament House, which include the National Portrait Gallery component, have been increasing.

Senator LUNDY —Do you distinguish between them?

Ms Anderson —No, we do not. We distinguish between the National Portrait Gallery and Commonwealth Place, but we do not distinguish between Old Parliament House and the National Portrait Gallery. The figures have certainly been increasing over the years, and our growth for this year is still improving.

Mr Sayers —Commonwealth Place has maintained a fairly consistent visitor number. It is weather dependent because it is so close to the lake, and it ranges from 18,800 a month to up into the 20,000s in Commonwealth Place, so there is a consistent visitation there.

Senator LUNDY —Do you get a lot of passing traffic there or is it mainly driven by promotion of events there?

Mr Sayers —There is a combination. Clearly, something like the Kylie show, which was a very popular exhibition with a lot of attractive promotion, did bring extra visitors. I think one of the great things about Commonwealth Place is that when we first took up the offer of an exhibition space there people thought it was a bit of a godforsaken part of Canberra, but you could see with the development of that part of the foreshore that it was really going to become a boulevard, really, and that is essentially what has happened. Lots of people drop in and that is a great thing because, if they drop in, they then discover something they were not intending to discover and are often surprised at how much they enjoy the experience. It always great to capture new visitation in that way.

Senator LUNDY —In the period post the Portrait Gallery in Old Parliament House, what are Old Parliament House’s strategies for visitation and maintaining that general interest in old houses of parliament and institutions?

Ms Anderson —We are actually undertaking some planning at the moment to look at that and do some research on our visitors and where we see our market.

Senator Kemp —I think what we are planning with the Gallery of Australian Democracy is going to help attract visitors.

Ms Anderson —Certainly.

Senator Kemp —I am very keen to have what I describe as a ‘must see’ exhibition at Old Parliament House, a bit like some of the exhibitions at the War Memorial. ‘G for George’ is a must see exhibition and I think it would be a good thing if we could develop something like that for Old Parliament House. It is to make sure that people say, ‘You have been to Canberra if have you been to Old Parliament House.’ I can assure you we are very ambitious to maintain and increase those numbers to Old Parliament House.

Senator LUNDY —I have not been there lately but I understand the commercial establishment in Old Parliament House does reasonably well.

Ms Anderson —Yes, it does.

Senator LUNDY —How long is their lease?

Ms Anderson —The current lease expires next year, and has a five-year option.

Senator LUNDY —Are there any plans once the Portrait Gallery leaves and changes take place to dispense with that, or are your plans to keep the commercial establishment there?

Ms Anderson —I would say that we plan to keep a commercial establishment there. The patrons are certainly increasing in that area as well.

Senator Kemp —Which is great.

Senator LUNDY —And the function room, particularly the old dining room out the back, how are the usage rates of that?

Ms Anderson —That is also increasing. Last year we had 9,600-odd patrons to the Ginger Room; functions was 40,000; and the cafe 137,000. Indications for this year are that it will certainly exceed that.

Senator LUNDY —So it is trending upwards in terms of utilisation?

Ms Anderson —Yes, certainly. And the same with our own visitors and our students. We are already seeing at least a 20 per cent increase in our student bookings for next year already.

Senator LUNDY —Thank you very much. That is all I have.

ACTING CHAIR —I just have one question. There was a proposal several years ago to merge the National Portrait Gallery with the National Gallery of Australia. What would be your view on that proposal?

Senator Kemp —I think that was ALP policy, if I remember rightly. It certainly was not our policy.

ACTING CHAIR —I thank the minister, Ms Williams, Ms Bean and officers of the department and the various agencies for their attendance and assistance.

Proceedings suspended from 5.54 pm to 7.05 pm