The Liberal Party has moved in the Upper House for parliament’s Statutory Authority Review Committee to examine the reforms proposed by SA Museum management, with a vote expected at the next parliamentary sitting on May 1.

An inquiry is also backed by the Greens and MLC Frank Pangallo, with the Opposition hoping to secure the support of SA Best MLC Connie Bonaros and One Nation’s Sarah Game.

As reported in InDaily in February, the museum management proposes to shake-up the institution by reconsidering exhibitions and replacing 27 positions in the Research and Collections Division with 22 new roles focusing on curatorial research.

The move has prompted a backlash from the scientific community and a warning from former SA Museum director Tim Flannery that the changes could  “destroy” the institution.

On Saturday, hundreds attended a Parliament House rally against the planned reforms, brandishing signs saying “Save Our Science!”, “Not everything at the Museum is stuffed – but it might be soon!” and “Research is a fundamental purpose of Museums”.

Speakers included senior Ngarrindjeri elder uncle Major “Moogy” Sumner, conservation biologist Isabelle Onley, South Australian Public Service Association General Secretary Natasha Brown, Ramindjeri elder Mark Koolmatrie, Lord Mayor Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, SA Liberal deputy leader John Gardner and Greens MLC Tammy Franks.

A speaker at the weekend rally. Photo: Charlie Gilchrist/InDaily

Moogy said that “it has taken many years for the Museum to be at the stage now with the Ngarrindjeri where the community has trust in who they are working with” and that “we can’t get our ancestors back to Country without the Museum’s help”.

“The spirit of our ancestors…they want to go home to their own land, they don’t want to be sitting in cardboard boxes,” he said.

“And to do that we need the people that have been doing it for a long time. We need them to be there at the Museum organising it.”

Onley said that research done into the natural history collections was vital to conservationists working on the reintroduction of species and revegetation programs.

“By reducing the number of specialist collection managers and scientists; limiting the management and access of these collections; and hampering the capacity of museum staff to conduct research, the potential for biodiversity conservation in South Australia into the future will be seriously challenged,” she said.

Brown said museum researchers were “highly regarded, experienced professionals who have made incredible contributions to South Australia and the wider scientific world through their work at the Museum”.

“But unfortunately for them, being reimagined means that they and their life’s work is being dismissed,” she said.

“The shift away from research activities would see the loss of the Museum’s reputation as a world leader in biological sciences research. It would result in a general degradation of the institution and of South Australia’s place in contributing to discoveries of national and international importance.”

Koolmatrie said that the proposed changes “pose a threat to the safekeeping of Aboriginal sacred objects and the maintenance of Aboriginal knowledge and collections”.

He said “the Aboriginal community is concerned about the repatriation of heritage to communities” and “the proposed gutting of professionals, who are suggested to be replaced by I’m sure good people who will do their best under severe duress, will come at the expense of the Aboriginal collections”.

Lomax-Smith said she did not blame the board or the director for their efforts because “this is about finance”.

“The Museum has had so little investment over the last century,” she said.

“It’s not just the government; it’s our fault because we never told the government that we’re not just interested in cars and footy and golf,” she said.

Gardner said that “one of the things that’s really troubled me throughout this whole process is the disrespect and the disregard that has been shown to all the work that’s been done for the Museum over more than a hundred years by those who’ve come before us – they need to be respected”.

Franks said that “for something called reimagining, it doesn’t seem to have a lot of imagination”.

“It doesn’t allow us to dream big – it asks to cut staff,” she said.

“It asks them to do more with less and it does not address the elephant in the room, which is: the Museum is doing more with less already, and has been doing so for far too long.”

Photo: Charlie Gilchrist.