CHAIR —We welcome the National Gallery, in particular the new director, Mr Radford. Over the weekend I read in the papers a very interesting article about your plans for the Gallery. We look forward to hearing from you on a regular basis in this estimates process.

Senator LUNDY —Welcome, Mr Radford. I would like to start by asking you what implications the Auditor-General’s report Safe and accessible national collections has for the National Gallery of Australia.

Mr Radford —Could I pass that on to my trusty deputy? That is his area.

Senator LUNDY —By all means.

Mr Froud —Senator, the report contained a number of recommendations, and I think that nine of those recommendations had application to the National Gallery. Each of those recommendations is currently now being actioned. We are progressing our work in addressing the matters that the Auditor-General has raised. They go to issues like making our acquisitions policy and acquisitions strategy more focused and more detailed. The director and the curatorial staff in particular have been focusing on the development of an acquisitions strategy that looks out some years. Some of the collections are in the possession of but not owned by the Gallery; they are in fact Commonwealth collections which have been housed by the Gallery. It has been identified that we should seek to finalise issues regarding ownership of and intended destination, I suppose, for some of those works. Some of those works might even be repatriated to other countries, for example. Those are all possibilities that we are working through. A number of issues, such as IT and IT security related issues and collections management issues, are being looked at. So we are dealing with those issues progressively.

Senator LUNDY —Did the report raise the issue of intellectual property of the digital images of the works in the Gallery?

Mr Froud —It has. We have been invited to develop a collections management policy in terms of the digital images. That is certainly something we have been active on. We have developed a draft policy in response, but that has not yet gone through all of the hoops that it needs to within the organisation before we will commit and publicly release our policy on that.

Senator LUNDY —Do you have an existing policy?

Mr Froud —Just to put that into context, the Gallery is well versed in and has long practised intellectual property and management of copyright. I think the issues that this report raised were particularly directed at the opportunities that the digital environment afforded and our need to in fact make our policy more robust in that regard.

Senator LUNDY —Perhaps you could provide it to the committee once it is completed.

Mr Froud —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —What about the physical environment at the Gallery?

Mr Froud —I think the report made one recommendation about how we might improve the monitoring of or how one would develop appropriate key performance indicators about physical environment. This report was written from a collections perspective, of course. So a couple of institutions, the Gallery included, were invited to look at what key performance indicators might be appropriate. The Auditor-General actually offered advice about one that they thought was a good model. I believe they invited us to consider one that was used at the War Memorial. So we have been looking at that.

Senator LUNDY —You have mentioned a couple of recommendations out of the nine applicable to the Gallery. Could you nominate now any other specific actions or initiatives that you have taken arising directly from that report?

Mr Froud —I would happily take that question on notice, just to be accurate.

Senator LUNDY —I will get you to do that too.

Mr Froud —I would need to refresh my memory by looking back at the recommendations. I mentioned previously a more focused collection development policy and acquisitions criteria, and that is actively being developed at the moment.

Senator LUNDY —That will go to the board at some point?

Mr Froud —Correct.

Senator LUNDY —Is there a time frame?

Mr Radford —We are developing a 10-year acquisitions strategy which will in May go to a special all-day board meeting especially for that purpose. It is a 10-year acquisitions strategy.

Senator LUNDY —So big?

Mr Radford —Very big. Enormous, in fact.

Mr Froud —The third recommendation related to that matter that I have mentioned is Commonwealth collections and giving a high priority to the assessment and possible disposal of those collections. There was a recommendation about a detailed security risk assessment to underpin our information technology security plan. The Gallery has developed an IT security plan which has been recently endorsed. So we have done that.

I mentioned there was an issue about key performance indicators on the care of the collection, and that is still under consideration. There is another which is related: developing key performance targets set for facilities repair and maintenance, looking at how critical the environment would be. So that is likewise being addressed.

Senator LUNDY —But not completed?

Mr Froud —No, not at this point, and not adopted at this point. There was another that recommended that each institution evaluate current exit procedures and ensure staff ceasing work do not retain security access cards and systems access. So that has been picked up as part of our IT security policy in the improvements in and the tightening of that. There was a recommendation for the Gallery specifically to review access to storage areas. Again, that was looking at security issues et cetera—who comes in and for what purpose. That has been addressed, but it is part of a broader policy that is tightening in that area. I think we are just about there.

Senator LUNDY —I am happy for you to take the rest on notice. But a full explanation as to each recommendation, the Gallery’s response and its status would be helpful.

Mr Froud —Yes, I am happy to do so.

Senator LUNDY —It is a nice segue into a very interesting article I read the other day in the Financial Review about some of Mr Radford’s ideas about the future of the Gallery. Mr Radford, what is the current status of that vision as you expressed it in the article, particularly as it relates not just to quite substantial changes to the entrance, which is an issue we have canvassed at many a Senate estimates hearing, but also to a new Indigenous gallery and, from my reading of it, to substantial changes around the front of the building? Use this opportunity to update the committee as to your direction, please.

Mr Radford —We do not now call it the front entrance. It is now the Indigenous galleries, which also has a front entrance and also a function room, which we do not have at the moment. That is all in stage 1. Each of the Indigenous galleries is designed specifically around the various natures or different aspects of Aboriginal art, like Western Desert dot painting or early bark paintings or Kimberley. So we are designing galleries around Indigenous art.

However, even before stage 1 and independent of stage 1, this year we will be doing a completely new display of Asian art, bringing Asian art from the basement to the main collection area, starting first in August with a new gallery of Indian art, then at the end of September with a new gallery of South-East Asian art, and then towards the end of the year with totally new galleries of late 19th century and 20th century international art. So virtually the whole of the main exhibition floor will be changed, totally redone and relit by the end of this year.

Senator LUNDY —That is not contingent on stage 1?

Mr Radford —No, that is independent of stage 1. The rest are contingent on stage 1. Also, connected with that, we will have commenced by then a new reinstallation of the sculpture gallery. The sculpture gallery was created for sculpture when the Gallery first opened and has subsequently been used for other things. We are returning it to its original use, with the Brancusi birds being installed as our major international early 20th century works and gradually adding installations of 20th century Indigenous and even Pacific art in that same gallery. That, again, is not contingent on stage 1.

Senator LUNDY —What does stage 1 involve?

Mr Radford —Stage 1, as I mentioned, is the new Indigenous galleries. We have never had a special space for Indigenous art. Now it is one of the most popular and largest areas of the collection. We own the largest contemporary Indigenous collection that exists anywhere. Most of it is in storage. So that is very important. The design is day lit, so the works can be seen in natural daylight, except those fragile works like Indigenous watercolours, prints, textiles and baskets that need to be in smaller galleries without any daylight because of the nature of their fragility.

The new entrance area will be much more accessible and noticeable on the ground level. It will have a new enlarged bookshop, and a new area for openings and functions. In the daytime it can be used for orientation of children. That will spread out into a new garden of Australian native trees, and that area can be used for orientation of school groups in the daytime and openings and events at night. We will have accessible lifts, which we do not have at the moment, for the disabled and escalators to the next floor. The ramps at the moment are not compliant with occupational health and safety standards. So all of that will be addressed.

I forgot to mention that where the current bookshop is there will be a new gallery especially for the Sid Nolan Kelly series, which is our most popular Australian work. Senator Lundy, you have even been known to admire a key work from that quite recently.

Senator LUNDY —Indeed I have.

Mr Radford —The Nolan series will be one of the first works you will see as you enter the special gallery created out of where the rather squashed, inadequate bookshop is now.

CHAIR —Will we have a new bookshop? It is a very good bookshop, I must say.

Mr Radford —Yes, a much enlarged bookshop. It is looking a little bit shabby at the moment.

CHAIR —Cramped.

Mr Radford —And it is rather extending too far down the corridor for aesthetic reasons. It is not looking the best at the moment.

Senator LUNDY —Thank you. I would like to place on notice a request for any further information you would like to add to your description, particularly about stage 2. Given there is a stage 1, I am presuming there is at least a stage 2.

Mr Radford —Yes, there is a stage 2. Do you want me to talk about stage 2?

Senator LUNDY —No, because I have such a tight schedule. But please do take the opportunity to provide it on notice.

Mr Radford —Okay.

Senator LUNDY —I would be very interested to follow through and I might seek a further briefing on the issue. You had better give me an outline of stage 2. How can I not hear about stage 2—and stage 3, for that matter?

Mr Radford —We do not have a stage 3. Stage 2 is to bring the non-Indigenous Australian art down to the ground floor to follow Indigenous art, to have a new enlarged display accessible on that main level. The current space is too small. The ceiling is too low. There is no natural daylight. It is very inaccessible in that you access it by a very large staircase into a corridor, which is not a very inviting space to show our own culture. We believe the National Gallery of Australia should show our visual culture much more expansively, more beautifully, and with special galleries designed specifically for the history of Australian art. So they are to be brought downstairs.

Underneath that will be what we like to call study storage, where most of the collection will be stored and accessible one or two days a week. A new library will also be down there. We have the largest art library in Australia. There will also be special study rooms to access our large works on paper collection. The whole new expansion is to be called the Centre for Australian Art. So it is a centre for studying Australian art; it is a centre for viewing Australian art. In that gallery, however, we are planning a special gallery for Pacific arts. We do not have a designated space for the arts of the Pacific. We have identified that as an area that we want to expand on in our 10-year acquisitions strategy as a very important area—both contemporary and historical works from the Pacific.

On the other hand, the spaces vacated upstairs are ideal to show our large textile collection, particularly our Indonesian and Indian textile collections, which are the largest that exist anywhere in the world; our very large American print collection; and our prints and drawings collection of European art of the 19th and 20th centuries. So those spaces upstairs, while inadequate to show Australian art, are perfect to show with great density our vast stored collection of textiles and works on paper. The main problem is that we have not had extra collection display space since the building was conceived in the late 1960s. It was conceived to show 1,000 works. We now have 130,000 objects.

Senator LUNDY —So how much increased floor space do you envisage there will be with both stage 1 and stage 2 completed? Will you double the floor space or treble it?

Mr Radford —Treble the display space, yes.

Senator LUNDY —Treble the exhibition space?

Mr Radford —Yes. The permanent display space will be almost trebled.

Senator LUNDY —The big question of course is: what is the current status of stage 1 and stage 2 with respect to budget funding? I have not seen an announcement by the minister, so I presume this is the subject of budget consideration.

Mr Radford —Yes. Stage 2 is a twinkle in our eye at the moment.

Senator LUNDY —So you have not even asked for the money for stage 2 yet?

Mr Radford —No. Stage 1, however, is in the budgeting process.

Senator LUNDY —I know there is no point asking the minister about that. Are you anticipating some sort of budget decision for stage 1 in this coming budget?

Mr Radford —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —Perhaps I could leave on notice a question for the minister as to what is the minister’s attitude towards this request from the National Gallery of Australia for additional funding. I know better than to try to get a figure put on it, but we will see.

Senator Ian Campbell —I do not think it is a sensible question to take on notice because, I think as the secretary said, these sorts of decisions go through normal budget processes. As someone who is on the ERC, I am beginning to understand those processes.

Senator LUNDY —We will find out.

Senator Ian Campbell —I would wait until that famous night in May. But the minister is an outstanding minister for arts and sports. I always have a lot of sympathy for him when he gets to the ERC.

Senator LUNDY —Could you also take on notice to provide the committee perhaps with some indicative drawings of your stage 1 and stage 2?

Mr Radford —Yes, we will.

Senator LUNDY —I think that would be very interesting.

Mr Radford —Very much so.

Senator LUNDY —I am sorry I cannot spend more time on this issue, but I know that the National Gallery of Australia is working closely with the National Library on their exhibition National Treasures from Australia’s Great Libraries.

Mr Radford —Yes, that is right.

Senator LUNDY —My understanding is that the fee for the National Gallery of Australia’s services to the National Library in relation to the national treasures exhibition was established on a cost recovery basis and totalled some $120,000. I am interested as to how that service fee of $120,000 was calculated and what it effectively buys the National Library.

Mr Radford —I will give that over to Alan to answer. We certainly were absorbing and wanted to absorb as many costs as we possibly could, because we thought this was a fabulous show and a wonderful collaboration. But we had to put on extra staff to actually deal with the quite complex loan requirements that are now expected to get indemnity. Indemnity does actually cost money.

Mr Froud —The $120,000 figure was determined having regard to the actual costs that the Gallery would incur. Largely it relates to staff costs. An additional person was actually engaged to facilitate the project, in addition to the time that other staff were required to devote to the task.

I think the dimension of the exhibition and why it is so expensive to manage as the managing organisation for this indemnified exhibition is that it does actually have a very extended period over which the project is to be delivered. The national tour is something like two years. There are ongoing obligations with each of the venues, with each of the lenders, and to satisfy the government’s indemnity requirements, which are essentially risk based and managed on that basis. But, nonetheless, the strength of the indemnity scheme has been that there has been considerable attention to detail. It takes a good amount of time to attend to those requirements, to anticipate what issues might be associated with the logistics in each of the venues, the movement of works in and out, condition reporting and moving things around. I know it might sound an expensive figure, but when one looks at the project from its inception and the engagement of the managing organisation until the end one sees that it runs for something like two and a half years. We have some extra people who have had to commit to basically manage that process over that time.

Mr Radford —We did make suggestions on a cheaper figure if staff from the Library could do a lot of that, and they chose to go that way. We had worked out a cheaper way using their own staff, but they preferred to do it this way.

Senator LUNDY —Thank you for that. I will place further questions on notice, given the time constraints. Thank you for being here. It is good to see you at estimates, Mr Radford.

CHAIR —Thank you very much, Mr Radford.

[2.53 pm]