Gabriel Crowley. Email: gay.crowley@adelaide.edu.au
The South Australian Museum is recognised as one of Australia’s premier research institutions. Its research and repatriation activities are important for understanding, managing and restoring cultural values to the Australian rangeland.
According to a list of at least 350 eminent scientists, Indigenous leaders and politicians (Ellice-Flint et al., 2024):
“The collections housed at the South Australian Museum are not only one of the most significant cultural assets in SA, they are among the most significant in the world… They reveal to us the very beginnings of life on earth, in the extraordinary fossil record and the experts who work with it.
And they help us to prevent extinctions of critical species that underpin all human life.”
Some examples relevant to the Australian rangelands include:
In February this year, the Museum announced a major restructure with the aim of bringing the Museum “into the 21stCentury” (Litjens, 2024). The plan included replacing 27 research and curatorial roles with 22 – mostly more junior – positions, only ten of which would be dedicated to research (Gilchrist, 2024a). The remaining positions would undertake collection management, digitisation, access and preservation.
As these plans would severely reduce the Museum’s capacity for undertaking high quality research, they were not received well by the scientific community (Gilchrist, 2024b). An open letter from concerned scientists, Indigenous leaders and politicians, published on 10 April in the Adelaide Advertiser, asked the South Australian Premier, Peter Malinauskas, to review the proposed restructure, and adequately fund the Museum into the future (Ellice-Flint et al., 2024).
Concern was even more widespread. Hundreds of Save our Science supporters converged on Parliament House (Havrilenko, 2024). Over 10,000 people signed a petition objecting to the restructure (Anon., 2024), and some of the Museum’s major sponsors threatened to withdraw funding support (Gilchrist, 2024c). This reaction has been described as “an overwhelming public backlash” (Pickup, 2024). In response, the Premier ordered a Review into the restructure on 25 April (South Australian Government, 2024a).
The Review was to be undertaken by Damien Walker (Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet), Professor Craig Simmons (South Australia’s Chief Scientist), and Dr Jim Thompson (Chief Executive Officer of the Queensland Museum).
In June, Australian Rangelands Society President, Pieter Conradie, added our voice by writing to the Premier, the responsible minister, the Museum’s administration, and the review panel. Highlighting the value of the Museum’s past research, his letters concluded:
“We trust that the findings of the Review underpin the importance of maintaining the current level of research capacity leading to ongoing resourcing, so that South Australia can remain at the forefront of natural, cultural and palaeontological expertise for Australian rangelands.”
The Review was released on 19 September (South Australian Government, 2024b), with the following recommendations:
Underpinning these recommendations are a commitment to transparency and inclusive engagement – particularly with First Nations Peoples – and establishing clear goals to guide the Museum’s future development (Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2024).
The Government agreed to adopt all six recommendations, and a consultation process will be undertaken to develop the Museum’s strategic and marketing plan. $4.1 million will be made available to fund this process over the next two years (South Australian Government, 2024b).
The Malinauskas Government is to be congratulated for its preparedness to listen to community concerns about the adverse effects that the restructure would have had on the Museum’s scientific capacity, and for its swift response in undertaking and responding to the Review. However, it may not have done so if it weren’t for the groundswell of opposition that was so publicly displayed, and backed up with supporting evidence.
ARS has been grappling with the extent to which it has an advocacy role. The issue of the SA Museum demonstrates how effective advocacy can be, and what makes it effective. Perhaps the first lesson to be learnt is the importance of many voices and organizations singing the same tune. The Review acknowledged the input of 11 named individuals and 22 named organisations, approximately “thirty requests for input into the review process”, as well as wide-ranging consultation with Indigenous Elders (Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2024: 6). The messaging was simple throughout the protests and Review process. The research and repatriation activities of the Museum are significant, and must receive ongoing government support; and the community wants to have a say in any restructure.
ARS had a very minor role in overturning the proposed restructure, and was not specifically named within the Review’s report. Named “key stakeholders” were those deemed to have a national or statewide role “involved in the promotion of natural sciences and humanities” (Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2024: 5). Letters from ARS would have been included amongst the 30 also-rans. If ARS wants to be considered a peak body representing natural and cultural resource management in the Australian rangeland, it will need to lift its profile. Our role in hosting the International Rangelands Congress in Adelaide next year will facilitate this (Burnside, 2024). We are also grappling with how to improve our social media profile.
However, the main message to be gleaned from this issue is if the cause is worthwhile, then advocacy for it is also worthwhile. So for issues important to our membership, ARS should be prepared to raise our voice and collaborate with others with similar interests.
The saga of the SA Museum is not over, and the major donors who threatened to withdraw funding have not been mollified (Starick, 2024). Hopefully, the opportunity to influence the strategic and marketing plan should be announced soon. ARS will continue to advocate for adequate resourcing of research and repatriation activities. Both the ARS Council and individual members with an interest in the issue should keep their eyes on this newsletter and the yourSAy website (https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/) for further information.
Anon. (2024) Museum review petition. The Advertiser (Adelaide), 29 August 2024 p14.
Burnside, D. G. (2024). Update from the XII International Rangeland Congress, Adelaide 2-6 June 2025. Range Management Newsletter 24. doi:
Carty, J. (2019). To Imagine an Australian Museum. Anthropological Forum 29, 384-396. doi: 10.1080/00664677.2019.1706038
Department of the Premier and Cabinet. (2024). South Australian Museum Review South Australian Government. https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/1074115/Booklet-SA-Museum-Review.pdf [Accessed 17 October 2024].
Ellice-Flint, J., Flannery, T., Sumner, M., Downer, A., Laidlaw, D., et al. (2024) An open letter: The future of SA’s museum is at risk. The Advertiser (Adelaide), 10 April 2024, p 10-11.
Finkel, E. (2024) It could be the death of the museum’: why research cuts at a South Australian institution have scientists up in arms. The Conversation. Available at https://theconversation.com/it-could-be-the-death-of-the-museum-why-research-cuts-at-a-south-australian-institution-have-scientists-up-in-arms-228193 [Accessed 19 May 2024].
Gilchrist, C. (2024a) Tim Flannery warns SA Museum restructure could ‘destroy’ the institution. InDaily, 28 February 2024. Available at https://www.indaily.com.au/news/adelaide/2024/02/28/tim-flannery-warns-sa-museum-restructure-could-destroy-the-institution [Accessed 17 October 2024].
Gilchrist, C. (2024b) Hundreds sign open letter to Premier over SA Museum plans. InDaily, 10 April 2024. Available at https://www.indaily.com.au/news/adelaide/2024/04/10/hundreds-sign-open-letter-to-premier-over-sa-museum-plans[Accessed 17 October 2024].
Gilchrist, C. (2024c) SA Museum ‘downgrading scientific discovery’ says former researcher. InDaily, 27 August 2024. Available at https://www.indaily.com.au/news/adelaide/2024/08/27/sa-museum-downgrading-scientific-discovery-says-former-reseacher [Accessed 17 October 2024].
Havrilenko, D. (2024) Fight at the museum goes to parliament. Sunday Mail (Adelaide), 14 April 2024, p 25.
Litjens, D. (2024) Union lodges dispute in employment tribunal, as protesters rally against proposed SA Museum changes. ABC News, 14 April 2024. Available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-14/dozens-protest-sa-museum-restructure-south-australia-museum/103704426 [Accessed 17 October 2024].
Pickup, J. (2024) Outcry over SA Museum restructure reveals systemic government funding cuts. Arts Hub, 4 September 2024. Available at https://www.artshub.com.au/news/news/outcry-over-sa-museum-restructure-reveals-systemic-government-funding-cuts-2746425/ [Accessed 17 October 2024].
South Australian Government. (2016). The first animal life on earth: An action plan for South Australia’s Ediacaran fossilshttps://cdn.environment.sa.gov.au/environment/docs/ediacaran-fossils-action-plan-gen.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2024].
South Australian Government. (2024a). Premier’s Review – South Australian Museum Available at https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-archive/premiers-review-south-australian-museum [Accessed 17 October 2024].
South Australian Government. (2024b). Museum review complete Available at https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/museum-review-complete [Accessed 17 October 2024].
Starick, P. (2024) Big donors wash their hands of the museum. The Advertiser (Adelaide), 18 October 2024, p 6.