Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 2012. The bill is intended to provide greater certainty and confidence in the minds of institutions, both internationally and domestically, when it comes to cultural objects borrowed from overseas for temporary exhibition in Australian libraries, museums and galleries. Let me say at the outset that there is no disagreement when it comes to the way that cultural objects, which include both works of art and cultural artefacts, can enrich the lives of all Australians. When these objects are borrowed from foreign sources there can be little doubt that they enrich the experience of Australians visiting our collecting institutions, museums, libraries and galleries. They also add to the viability, utility and economic success of the institutions.

This bill is intended to address an issue relating to the manner in which cultural objects are borrowed by Australian institutions from overseas sources, when such arrangements are for the purposes of temporary exhibition. The bill establishes a scheme which provides some protection to these cultural objects for the duration of their loan to institutions approved by the minister. The scheme, as the minister has already explained, augments the existing Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 which gave effect in Australian law to the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. As I have said, we support the bill. We hope it has the effect over time of helping to build confidence, in the minds of the owners of cultural objects overseas, that Australia is a safe place for loan and exhibition of their works and pieces. We support and agree with the government when it comes to this bill and to the establishment of this particular scheme.

Having said that, it is regrettable that when it comes to borrowing, the government was not able to confine itself to bringing international works to Australian exhibitions. Instead, as we know, it is a government which is surviving very much on borrowed time. And it is a government which is surviving on borrowed money. When Australian galleries, libraries and museums borrow, the result is the enrichment of the cultural and artistic lives of all Australians; when the Labor government borrows, it digs all Australians deeper into debt and deficit.

As predictable as the Labor government borrowing money it can never repay is the minister taking every opportunity to talk about the national cultural policy.

In speaking to this bill the minister has this time tried to spruik how it will deepen our ties with Asia. Yet it remains a policy void—something that has long been said to exist, but something that no one has actually ever seen.

What is very real is the coalition's plan to deepen our ties with the region and to build cultural exchange. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, addressed the National Press Club and talked about our policy to engage with our region through the new Colombo Plan. It is going to be a two-way arrangement between Australia and other countries in our region, exchanging our best and brightest, and part of that cultural exchange will be building and connecting our next generation of Australians with the world.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow foreign minister, Julie Bishop, told the APEC Study Centre in Melbourne a few weeks ago:

We want it to be the norm not the exception that Australian students spend part of their tertiary studies in a university in our region—a rite of passage. The opportunity for our students to learn from the culture, politics and society of Australia’s neighbours will be of enormous, incalculable benefit, both individually and to our country.

Under the coalition's policy, more young Australians would grow in an appreciation and understanding of the cultural, social and political differences and challenges of our world. That is our policy, and it is a real policy. But the minister's national cultural policy is not a policy, it is a fairytale; a fairytale that is carried along from one generation of Labor arts minister to the next generation of Labor arts minister. With an election having now been called for 14 September, no doubt many in the arts community will have by now concluded that the Gillard government could be finished before its national cultural policy is.

We support the objects of this bill. It is a sensible bill that will build the confidence of people overseas if they were going to loan objects and art to Australian institutions, and therefore it has the support of the opposition.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 2012. The bill establishes a scheme to protect cultural objects on loan from overseas.

This is very important. As the previous speaker said, it does give places overseas the confidence to lend institutions their objects, and having recently been to the National Gallery and having seen some of the pictures on loan for the Toulouse-Lautrec: Paris and the Moulin Rouge exhibition, it was very much appreciated by many people that they could see these wonderful pictures on display from around the world. In fact, some had first been displayed in the Louvre overseas in the late 1800s. It is very important that Australians here on Australian soil are able to see some wonderful things from around the world in our special institutions, and to ensure that countries, organisations and individuals that have possession of these wonderful items have the confidence to loan those to Australian institutions. This is a sensible bill, and not a controversial bill, so I commend the bill to the House.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government takes its responsibility towards the protection of cultural objects very seriously. That is why I speak in support of the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 2012, introduced by the Minister for the Arts to ensure the protection of objects brought to this country for the purposes of loan for exhibitions to recognised institutions. I understand from the minister that this bill has had a lengthy gestation period to ensure appropriate input from arts institutions in Australia, and indeed from overseas, so that they have had sufficient opportunity to consider and respond to the government's discussion paper on the matter. I note from the list of submissions on the arts department website that almost all the major Australian cultural institutions have responded. I also note input from the British Museum, referencing the legislation passed by the UK government in 2007.

The minister outlined the reasons for the need for this legislation succinctly in his second reading speech. I note he said the following:

... in the past 10 years it has become increasingly difficult for Australia's major galleries, libraries and museums to secure overseas loans.

He continued:

... foreign lenders are increasingly reluctant to loan to Australia's major cultural institutions in the absence of national legislation.

In essence, this legislation will apply to cultural objects if they are imported into Australia on loan for temporary public exhibition under arrangements involving an institution that has been approved by the minister. The protections will apply to approved collecting institutions which meet the criteria specified in the bill.

I note that the legislation provides special consideration be given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in relation to cultural materials. In addition, ATSIC objects defined as class A are exempt. These include: human remains; bark and log coffins; secret sacred ritual materials; rock art; and dendroglyphs—carved trees. Other ATSIC materials and objects—or class B—will be the subject of special consultation for the proposed loans, with the communities to be actively involved in discussions prior to any objects coming to Australia on temporary loan.

The provisions in the bill relating to ATSIC objects were an area where there were differing opinions in the submissions to the discussion paper. I am pleased with this outcome. It is useful to consider some specific examples of how the legislation as a whole might operate. The Council of Australasian Museum Directors provided an example in their submission to the discussion paper. They said:

The ban on museum loans to the United States of America by Russian museums, following a perceived threat to immunity for loaned objects, indicates the seriousness with which other countries take this issue.

The CAMD cites a journal article published online, 'US-Russia cultural cold war continues', The Art Newspaper, 26 May 2011, which describes a situation in the US. The US state and federal authorities became involved in proceedings involving the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Russian government over 38 works of art on loan. A group in Brooklyn had won a judgement that Russia return a group of religious manuscripts seized during the Bolshevik revolution after the Second World War. This had major repercussions for other cultural institutions in the US, not only in relation to Russia but also in relation to the precedent set for lending institutions around the world. It meant that objects on loan could be seized and not returned to the country or institution which had loaned the objects.

Closer to home, the National Library of Australia in its submission provided an example of the difficulties facing Australian cultural institutions prior to the introduction of this legislation. I quote:

For example, the Library is partnering with the State Library of New South Wales in 2012 to produce an exhibition of works on paper by J.W. Lewin, widely considered Australia's first professional artist. Under the terms of reference of the current PMCH [The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986] control list, all of the works that have been requested from British institutions could be considered Class B Australian Protected Objects. As this category does not give credence to how many other works by Lewin are held in Australian collections, the automatic exemption of such works from any anti-seizure legislation might be viewed by lenders as an attempt to repatriate this Australia-related material by proxy. This would render the loan of such material without an accompanying anti-seizure guarantee an unattractive prospect for the lending institutions involved.

The bill outlines specific requirements in relation to the nature of the Australian 'borrowing' institutions. The explanatory memorandum states on page 1 that:

Objects normally in a foreign country, will be protected if they are imported into Australia on loan for temporary public exhibition under arrangements involving institutions approved by the Minister. Certain institutions will be able to apply to the Minister for approval and the Minister may approve the institution for a specified period of not more than 60 months. Objects of any description will be protected from the time of their importation into Australia to their export, to a maximum of two years. Objects on loan for a period of longer than two years will not be protected unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Clause 5 provides the definition of those cultural institutions:

… an organisation in Australia that collects and publicly exhibits objects that are of interest for archaeological, artistic, ethnological, historical, literary, scientific or technological reasons. It must also be either established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (except for those laws prescribed in the regulations) or be prescribed in the regulations. A borrowing institution could include, but is not limited to, a Commonwealth, State or Territory art gallery, museum, library or archive and it may be a legal person or not.

The bill makes it clear that the institutions seeking approval must demonstrate the necessary expertise, rigour, capacity and resources to meet the demands of ensuring the object meets the high standards required in determining providence and be able to provide the curatorial standards required in relation to loan objects.

It supports the necessity for Australia to meet its international obligations under the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The bill also provides for potential exhibitors who do not fall within the clause 5 definition of borrowing institutions. This includes people who have a temporary loan arrangement with a lender of the object and who have a temporary loan arrangement with an exhibiting institution for the object or the parent of such an institution. Occasionally, an institution may be involved in a loan arrangement that has been organised by another party, in essence an exhibition facilitator.

Australia has a proud history in its support for the treatment of movable cultural objects. In 2009, the minister undertook a review of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 and the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Regulations 1987. One aspect of this review included discussion of whether Australia should ratify the Unification of Private Law Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995, the UNIDROIT convention. Currently, Australia, at the request of a foreign state, is able to seize illegally exported objects that have been imported. PMCH does not allow for private action to be taken through the courts to seek the return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. It is important that Australia continues to build on its past record to combat illicit trade in cultural heritage objects. This ratification is currently being considered. In appendix 2 of its 2011-12 annual report, the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport notes:

The Department, in response to requests from the relevant governments, returned more than 120 protected objects to the Arab Republic of Egypt, nine protected objects to the Republic of Peru and two protected objects to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

While Australia is determined to protect its own cultural heritage, it continues to honour its international obligations to assist in the protection and repatriation of the cultural heritage of other nations. I commend the bill to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 2012, which is a very important piece of legislation designed to provide protection for cultural objects on loan from overseas. The objective of the bill is to ensure overseas lenders of artworks continue to make available their collections so we can display them at public exhibitions. This bill has the full backing of the state and national collecting institutions, and state and territory arts agencies. Tourism bodies are equally supportive of this legislation and this is especially so here in the ACT. Before I talk about the other specific objectives contained in this legislation, I want to highlight the importance to Australia of bringing in from overseas great cultural works for public display.

Our ability to import and protect cultural artworks is critical to the ongoing viability and popularity of our museums and galleries. I am very fortunate that the National Gallery of Australia is located in my electorate of Canberra. The NGA is one of Australia's most significant and popular tourist attractions and cultural institutions. It attracts visitors from all over the country and all over the world. For example, its major summer display, the Renaissance exhibition of the 15th and 16th century Italian paintings, attracted over 200,000 visitors. Ron Radford, the current director of the NGA, noted in the latest annual report that the gallery has had over nine million visitors to its touring exhibition program, which the NGA began over 20 years ago.

The touring program is designed so that Australians in regional areas can see the world's great art and cultural works; over the past two decades the NGA has toured 119 exhibitions to 734 venues with exhibitions held in every state and territory around Australia. During the past financial year over 900,000 people visited the NGA in Canberra and its touring exhibitions. Almost 700,000 of these were visitors to Canberra, which makes a very significant contribution to the economy of my electorate and, indeed, the entire ACT region. It is important too, as the NGA highlights, that over four million people saw 1,675 National Gallery works on loan to exhibitions around Australia and the world. The ability to both lend and have on loan cultural works is vital to the ongoing success and viability of our cultural institutions.

The popularity of the National Gallery is due in part to its amazing Indigenous and Australian art collections and, of course, its international exhibitions. Currently the Toulouse-Lautrec exhibition is on display at the NGA—and if they haven't seen it yet I urge all members to visit the gallery before 2 April, when it concludes. This is the first time the Australian public have had the opportunity to see a major retrospective exhibition devoted to the art of French 19th century artist Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec.

After Toulouse-Lautrec, the National Gallery is hosting a Turner from the Tate exhibition. From June to early September this year Australians and tourists to Canberra will be able to see one of Britain's greatest artists—an artist who has been described as a major figure of the Romantic generation. According to the National Gallery of Australia:

Turner from the Tate includes many of the artist's most famous paintings. It provides a comprehensive overview of Turner's monumental landscapes and atmospheric, light-filled seascapes, while offering extraordinary insights into his working life and practices.

And many of you will have seen the hugely popular Impressionist exhibition which literally packed the gallery out day and night. The beauty of that exhibition was that it did not just draw people to the gallery and that wonderful exhibition; it drew people to Canberra and they stayed in Canberra for a number of days during which they toured the wineries in the region, they visited our restaurants, they shopped in our shops. It was a significant boon for Canberra and it had a huge knock-on effect for the economy. We were very happy with the outcomes not just in terms of the soul food that people got from the exhibition but also in terms of the economic impact that that wonderful exhibition had on Canberra and also the region.

I speak with some experience of the importance of looking after objects and artistic works that are lent to us here in Australia from overseas, because in the mid-1990s I was posted to India as the cultural attache with the Australian High Commission. One year we had what we called a huge intercountry promotion whereby we promoted Australia as a manufacturing nation, as a sophisticated technologically advanced nation, as a nation with a great depth of culture and artistic achievement. We had a range of performing artists coming over to India. We had a kind of 'chefs on show' program whereby we had Christine Manfield as well as Tony Bilson and Thai food chef David Thompson coming to India to showcase our culinary delights achievements. We had a range of exhibitions travelling right throughout the country. One of the most significant of them was an Indigenous art exhibition. It was the first time a body of work of this nature had ever been lent overseas.

In India there were many challenges and, unfortunately, the Indigenous art exhibition did not tour because it was too much of a challenge in terms of moving objects and artistic works around. It was held in Delhi in a very prestigious institution. Being involved in processing those works of art—those incredibly valuable works of art—was an extraordinary job, a challenging job for me as the cultural attache—and this goes for all the behind-the-scenes work that public servants do that is not really appreciated particularly by those opposite here in this chamber. When the works arrived, I had to arrange for them to settle in a hangar at the airport in the middle of an Indian summer when it was about 45 degrees. Trying to get the space organised in the hangar at the airport was a real challenge with the Indian authorities.

I spent much time going out to the airport, having meetings with officials out there, trying to get approval for the artistic works to be settled in the hangar so that they could get used to the environment and then they could be moved into this beautiful, prestigious gallery in Delhi. It probably took me about four months of going out to the airport nearly every second day and speaking to those officials to finally get that approval, but it was vitally important that these works were handled and managed carefully when they were moved and when they landed in Delhi in order to ensure that they would be preserved and well looked after for future generations to enjoy.

The purpose of this bill is particularly important in ensuring that we look after those objects that we borrow from overseas. As I just said, in my own experience we also value those who look after our objects when we loan them overseas, and this was particularly the case with this beautiful Indigenous exhibition that was very popular and very well received in Delhi when I was there for the intercountry promotion. That story underscores the need for us to be able to protect cultural objects so that lenders continue to have faith in our institutions. The provisions of this bill aim to limit the circumstances in which lenders, exhibiting institutions, exhibition facilitators and people working for them can lose ownership, physical possession, custody or control of the objects because of any legal proceedings in Australian or foreign courts.

The bill has four parts but, in essence, it protects cultural objects imported into Australia and details the considerations and arrangements for approval of an institution by the minister. The outcome of this bill is that it enhances the ability of our major cultural institutions to involve all Australians by providing temporary public exhibitions that include objects on loan from overseas.

It has been pointed out that our major cultural institutions often create activities specifically for children, and this enhances the experience of families and schools when they attend exhibitions. I know that when the beautiful Chihuly glass exhibition came to the NGA they had a fabulous program for kids. It did not involve glassblowing, because that would have been way too hazardous for the kids, but there was a whole range of activities that the kids were involved in, such as designing little glass artworks. I know that quite often they had a chance to do this with Chihuly as well, and it was incredibly well received. The NGA, as do all of our cultural institutions here in Canberra, do fantastic work in terms of kids' programs. There is always a touring program, there are always visiting speakers and there is always a kids' room and a range of kids' activities involved in these exhibitions. I think it is a wonderful way to introduce children to culture and art, to visual art particularly.

Australia has a very successful record of presenting national and international artworks and cultural objects, and this legislation builds in further protections that will allow for the continued security and protection of cultural objects. It is important that all Australians continue to have the opportunity to see the great artworks of the world.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members who have spoken in support of the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 202 and for the fact that there is bipartisan support for it. I also want to reiterate an aspect of the member for Canberra's speech: those members who have not seen the Lautrec exhibition at the National Gallery should do so. It is another great example of an institution that not just houses our collections but has the credibility to draw great exhibitions from all around the world.

When I introduced the bill I said that it was being introduced at a time that is exciting for the arts and culture in Australia.

We have, through the Prime Minister's Australia in the Asian century white paper, identified a key plank in that policy being cultural diplomacy. There is a recognition that it is the people-to-people links and the cultural links that are so important in building and strengthening relationships with our neighbours—and that they underpin so much of our relationships going forward. That is one of the exciting aspects and opportunities in terms of the development of the cultural exchanges.

So too is the fact that as a government we are finalising a National Cultural Policy—the first such policy in 20 years. The last time there was a creative cultural policy in this country was under another Labor government. It is true that there is bipartisan support for these things, but when you look at the big changes in history and the big changes in in terms of driving cultural policy and the importance of the arts, it was Whitlam, it was Keating and Hawke, and now it will be the Gillard government—started at the 2020 summit.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just wait and see. Then get in behind it and support it rather than bag it when you get the chance.

This is the bill that further develops an opportunity for cultural wealth, experience and engagement because it directly supports international cultural exhibitions coming to this country. It does it by establishing a scheme to protect cultural objects on loan from overseas. The legislation addresses a significant obstacle, up until now, that those institutions have faced in securing loans from overseas. In the absence of legislation, it has become increasingly difficult for Australia's major cultural institutions to secure loans of cultural objects from overseas—legislation that protects them whilst they are here. The bill addresses that obstacle. It deals with objects that are normally in a foreign country that come to Australia on loan for temporary public exhibition under arrangements made by institutions approved by the minister of the day. It seeks to achieve its objective by limiting the circumstances in which the ownership, physical possession, custody or control of the objects can be affected whilst they are in Australia. The legislation therefore reassures foreign lenders that Australia is a secure destination for loans of cultural objects and enables our great cultural institutions to successfully compete for world-class exhibitions.

The legislation also aligns Australia with numerous other countries that have implemented legislation to protect cultural objects on loan from overseas. It is legislation that will ensure that Australians continue to have access to artworks and cultural objects from the great collections around the world. As I noted when I introduced legislation, many of our leading cultural institutions are planning ambitious future exhibition programs, and I know some of them would not have been able to proceed were it not for the passage of this legislation. Therefore this legislation is commendable and it comes with bipartisan support, not only in this chamber and in this parliament, but also across all governments in Australia—support that was agreed at the inaugural meeting of cultural ministers that I convened a year and half ago. It shows how expeditiously we can move on important initiatives where we secure bipartisan support. I thank the House for it, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.