Senator SCHACHT (7:58 PM) —In the adjournment debate tonight I wish to speak on a matter relating to the National Gallery of Australia. But, before I do, I want to take this opportunity to pay my respects and express my condolence to the family of Ruth Cracknell, a great Australian who unfortunately passed away last night. I do not think there would be anyone on any side of politics in this chamber who would not want, at an appropriate stage over the next few days, to pay tribute to this great Australian. She was not only an outstanding actress but also an outstanding contributor to Australian society over her long distinguished life in Australian acting. Without being too provocative, I have to say that, though the Senate today paid a tribute to the passing of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, I believe that Ruth Cracknell's contribution to Australian society far outweighed the contribution by the Queen Mother, who was a citizen of another country.

I now turn to the National Gallery issue. From November 1997, Senator Kate Lundy and I, in the Senate estimates committee, had raised issues about the administration of the art gallery. Those issues dealt particularly with the operation of the airconditioning system and the complaints made by staff. It was a tedious and, at times—even for me— boring process, but it seemed to me, from the information I had received from a number of former employees of the gallery, that they had a substantial case to put to the gallery that was not being answered through the normal procedures. I am reminded, seeing Senator Boswell here, of the attitude he and I took when dealing with the COT cases of Telstra, and I took a similar one here. There seemed to be a case that only the estimates committee could raise and force some answers.

Through all of this, I placed many questions on notice. I spent hours questioning Mr Kennedy and other senior staff. At times I got answers I was not satisfied with and at times the written answers were not satisfactory, but I kept pushing on. I have to pay tribute here to former employees Brian Cropp and Bruce Ford, who quite openly provided me with information and background on many of the questions I asked.

Earlier this year, on 20 April, an article written by Alan Ramsey appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. His Saturday column went on at great length about how I had been obsessed and unfair in questioning Mr Kennedy and asked what I was doing. He said that I had the temerity to call Dr Kennedy `Mr Kennedy', that I had made snide remarks and generally had not performed well at the estimates committee. He did have the courtesy to ring me before he published the story. I did point out to him, because he was unaware of it, that only a month earlier Comcare Australia, in an investigation into the sacking of Brian Cropp, found that the National Gallery of Australia had contravened section 76 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1991 and recommended that procedures change in the gallery so that what happened to Mr Cropp would not happen to any other employee who had the temerity to question process and management issues to do with the health and safety of not only the staff but also the many visitors who go to our pre-eminent gallery. Mr Ramsey in his article made no mention of the fact that the Comcare investigator had found that the gallery had breached the act in the way it had forced Mr Cropp out of his job.

I take this opportunity of the adjournment debate—the first opportunity since the article appeared—to put the record straight. I certainly will be asking further questions of the gallery at estimates in June about what they are doing to compensate Mr Cropp for being dismissed and forced out of an occupation at the gallery. For the record, I will read a section of the report. I will also seek leave at the end of my remarks to table this report, and I have checked with the various whips and they will give me leave to do so. The conclusion of the report into Mr Cropp's dismissal by the independent investigator appointed by Comcare reads:

that is, the airconditioning system—

The report, and I will not read it all, concludes:

that is, the investigator—

There are then a number of recommendations made in the report to ensure that the NGA does not again act pre-emptively against Mr Cropp's activities.

Mr Cropp is in the best traditions of a whistleblower. He was concerned about the safety and health of the employees and he was concerned about the safety and health of all the people who visit the gallery, and because of that they forced him out of the job. It is now up to the National Gallery of Australia to invite Mr Cropp back to the job he applied for or, if that is not available, to offer some other suitable recompense to Mr Cropp for the loss of his job and the indignity that he has suffered. I only hope that Mr Ramsey has the courtesy to report again, now that I am tabling these reports on Mr Cropp's dismissal.

I also want to mention that a further Comcare report, from the end of last year, found:

So there are two breaches by the National Gallery of Australia of a Commonwealth act. If ever there is evidence that justifies the questions Senator Lundy and I asked at estimates over 3½ years, Comcare has proven that we were right. Comcare has proven that the estimates committee is the last place left standing when all other measures have been exhausted and when individuals cannot get justice.

This is a great defence of the estimates committee. Whether we are in opposition or government, the operation of the Senate estimates committee may be, in my view, the greatest thing that justifies the existence of the Senate itself. And here again I am very proud of the fact that I kept asking the questions. Mr Ramsay failed to mention that in February this year I went to the Senate estimates on Comcare and put the pressure, I have to say, on the head of Comcare. He agreed that a further broader inquiry into the management of safety and health issues at the gallery would be conducted. That inquiry is now under way, I think conducted by Mr Wray. I look forward to that report becoming available.

Above all else, I call on the government to ask the gallery board and its director to take action to stop the mismanagement that has been going on that is affecting the reputation and standing of the pre-eminent art gallery of Australia. All of us who have asked questions at estimates have never questioned the artistic merit of the director or of the gallery board or its acquisitions policy. We have only questioned whether the management and the processes are fair to the employees and to the Australian people. I seek leave to table these two reports.

Leave granted.