DOCSLIB.ORG

Corporate Governance and the Duties of Company Directors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND THE DUTIES OF COMPANY DIRECTORS Editor Ian M Ramsay Harold Ford Professor of Commercial Law The University of Melbourne CENTRE FOR CORPORATE LAW AND SECURITIES REGULATION FACULTY OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE 1997 ii Published in Melbourne by The Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation Faculty of Law The University of Melbourne Parkville Vic 3052 Australia Phone:61 3 9344 5281 Fax:61 3 9344 5285 Email:[email protected] Website:http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/choose.htm National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Ramsay, Ian M Corporate Governance and the Duties of Company Directors ISBN 0 7340 1343 4 ©1997 The individual contributors (in respect of each of their chapters) and Ian Ramsay (in this selection and arrangement). This publication is subject to copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or oth- erwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the publisher. iii Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation The Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation was established in January 1996. Its objectives are to: • undertake and promote research and teaching on corporate law and securities regulation • host conferences to disseminate results of research undertaken under the auspices of the Centre or in other programs associated with the Centre • develop and promote links with academics in other Australian universities and in other countries who specialise in corporate law and securities regulation • establish and promote links with similar bodies, internationally and nationally, and provide a focal point in Australia for scholars in corporate law and securities regulation • promote close links with peak organisations involved in corporate law and securities regulation • promote close links with those members of the legal profession who work in corporate law and securities regulation. The Director of the Centre is Professor Ian Ramsay who is also the general editor of the monograph series published by the Centre of which this monograph is a part. The Centre has an Australian Advisory Board chaired by The Hon Mr Justice Ken Hayne of the High Court of Australia and comprising senior legal practitioners, compa- ny directors and directors of the Australian Securities Commission and the Australian Stock Exchange. The Centre also has an International Advisory Board comprising lead- ing judges and corporate law academics. Previous publications of the Centre include: • Phillip Lipton, The Authority of Agents and Officers to act for a Company: Legal Principles • Ian Ramsay (ed), Gambotto v WCP Ltd: Its Implications for Corporate Regulation • Geof Stapledon and Jeffrey Lawrence, Corporate Governance in the Top 100: An Empirical Study of the Top 100 Companies’ Boards of Directors • Megan Richardson (ed), Deregulation of Public Utilities: Current Issues and Perspectives • Cally Jordan, International Survey of Corporate Law in Asia, Europe, North America and the Commonwealth • Ian Ramsay and Richard Hoad, Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices by Australian Companies Further information about the Centre is available on the Centre’s Website, the address of which is: “http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/choose.htm”. The Administrator of the Centre may be contacted on tel 61 3 9344 5281; fax 61 3 9344 5285; e-mail: “[email protected]”. iv v Contents PART I - INTRODUCTION 1. The Corporate Governance Debate and the Role of Directors’ Duties Ian M Ramsay 2 PART II - CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 2. The Defining Tension in Corporate Governance in America Chief Justice E Norman Veasey 16 3. The Role of Corporate Governance Practices in the Development of Legal Principles Relating to Directors Justice Alex Chernov 33 4. Corporate Governance, Corporate Law and Global Forces Justice Michael Kirby 49 PART III - DIRECTORS’ DUTIES 5. Directors’ Duties: The Governing Principles Chief Justice David Malcolm 60 6. The Duty of Care of Company Directors in Australia and New Zealand John H Farrar 81 7. The Duty of Care of Directors: Does it Depend on the Swing of the Pendulum? Robert Baxt 92 8. Directors’ Statutory Duties of Honesty and Propriety Michael J Whincop 125 9. The Role of Nominee Directors and the Liability of Their Appointors Justice E W Thomas 148 10. Shadow Director and Other Third Party Liability for Corporate Activity Robyn Carroll 162 11. Safe Harbours or Sleepy Hollows: Does Australia Need a Statutory Business Judgment Rule? Paul Redmond 185 12. The Perspective of the Australian Securities Commission on the Enforcement of Directors’ Duties and the Role of the Courts Alan Cameron 205 Part 1 Introduction Chapter 1 The Corporate Governance Debate and the Role of Directors’ Duties Ian M Ramsay* Introduction This book explores a number of the important aspects of the corporate governance debate and, in particular, it examines the role of directors’ duties in corporate governance. This introductory chapter is divided into three sections. First, I discuss some of the key issues relevant to the corporate governance debate. I include in this section definitions of cor- porate governance and I identify mechanisms that play a role in corporate governance. In the second section I examine a number of specific issues relating to directors includ- ing the corporate governance implications of the structure of the board of directors. Finally, in section three, I review the role of directors’ duties in corporate governance. Corporate Governance Definitions of corporate governance There are many definitions of corporate governance. A number of definitions refer to corporate governance as the system by which companies are directed and controlled. This is the definition provided by the Cadbury Committee in its Report on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance.1 It is also the definition provided by the Working Group on Corporate Practices and Conduct.2 Some definitions of corporate governance are narrow while others are more open-ended. A narrow definition is provided by Professors Shleifer and Vishney who state that corporate governance is concerned with “the ways in which suppliers of finance assure themselves of getting a return on their investment”.3 A broader definition of corporate governance encompasses a range of stakeholders in companies. Professor Prentice states that at its broadest level, the cor- porate governance debate “involves the issue of the relationship between the stakehold- * Harold Ford Professor of Commercial Law and Director of the Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation, Faculty of Law, The University of Melbourne. 1 Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (chaired by Sir Adrian Cadbury), Report (1992) at para 2.5. 2 Working Group on Corporate Practices and Conduct (chaired by Henry Bosch AO), Corporate Practices and Conduct (3rd ed, 1995) at 7. 3 A Shleifer and R W Vishney, A Survey of Corporate Governance, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No 5554, 1996, quoted in W Vessler, F R Kaen and H Sherman, Going Public: A Corporate Governance Perspective, Working Paper, April 1997 at 2. The Corporate Governance Debate and the Role of Directors’ Duties 3 ers in a company and those who manage its affairs (the board of directors)”.4 Monks and Minow define corporate governance as: ...the relationship among various participants in determining the direction and performance of cor- porations. The primary participants are (1) the shareholders, (2) the management (led by the chief executive officer), and (3) the board of directors...Other participants include the employees, cus- tomers, suppliers, creditors, and the community.5 These definitions reflect different perspectives on the functions and role of corporate governance. As Vessler, Kaen and Sherman note: One perspective approaches the corporate governance debate as part of the larger question of how to organize economic activity to achieve more fundamental societal objectives related to equity, fairness, freedom and citizen responsibilities. The other perspective is more narrowly concerned with economic efficiency objectives and, at the risk of exaggeration, considers economic efficien- cy to be an end in itself rather than a means to non-economic societal objectives.6 According to one of these perspectives, good corporate governance should have as its objective the maximisation of shareholders’ wealth. The broader perspective (which might be called the stakeholder perspective of corporate governance) focuses upon com- panies being “socially responsible” and often subordinating profit maximisation to other goals. It can therefore be seen that the corporate governance debate is intrinsically linked to the important question: For whom do directors govern? Do they govern for share- holders or for a broader range of stakeholders? This issue is further discussed below.7 Why is corporate governance an issue? According to Oliver Hart,8 corporate governance issues arise in an organisation whenev- er two conditions are present. First, there is a conflict of interest (or an agency problem), involving members of the organisation; and second, the conflict of interest or agency problem cannot be dealt with through a contract. In relation to the second point, Hart observes that there are several reasons why
Recommended publications
  • The Australian Directors & Officers Liability And

    The Australian Directors & Officers Liability And

    Registration Form & Tax Invoice Speakers ABN: 67 117 633 931 Michelle Dalton Bernard Murphy Directors & Officers Liability Symposium Director, Professional Risks Pty Ltd Maurice Blackburn Cashman 28 - 29 August 2006 - Sheraton on the Park, Sydney Michelle is admitted as a solicitor in Australia, New Zealand and the United Bernard Murphy is the Chairman of the Board of Maurice Blackburn Cashman Please note: (i) One delegate per Registration Form (The Registration Form can be copied). Kingdom. She has 10 years experience working for major insurance broking and is the senior principal of the Major Projects department which is (ii) This Registration Form can only be accepted if accompanied by full payment. houses in Australia, Sedgwick and Marsh as head of their Professional Lines Australia’s largest class action legal practice. (iii) Hotel rate is per room per night. Division in Melbourne. Michelle has been instrumental in establishing the D&O He has 26 years experience in litigation practice. He has acted in, supervised Delegate Details insurance policies for Australia’s largest corporations including Telstra, BHP, or advised on 16 class actions, including 6 shareholder class actions. and Coles Myer. In late 2003 he successfully concluded the GIO class action on behalf of the c Prof c Dr c Mr c Ms c Mrs c Miss In 2000 Michelle set up her own consulting business specialising in Directors shareholders which resolved for $112 million, the largest ever class action Surname: Given Name: & Officers Liability Insurance and Risk. settlement in Australia. Company/Organisation: He is currently acting on behalf of the shareholders in the Aristocrat Class Presents Position: Nick Foord-Kelcey Action which is a claim for between $120 - $200 million in damages, and the Address: Marsh Ltd, London largest claim of its type in Australia.
  • Contemporary Australian Corporate Law Stephen Bottomley , Kath Hall , Peta Spender , Beth Nosworthy Frontmatter More Information

    Contemporary Australian Corporate Law Stephen Bottomley , Kath Hall , Peta Spender , Beth Nosworthy Frontmatter More Information

    Cambridge University Press 978-1-316-62827-0 — Contemporary Australian Corporate Law Stephen Bottomley , Kath Hall , Peta Spender , Beth Nosworthy Frontmatter More Information CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN CORPORATE LAW Contemporary Australian Corporate Law provides an authoritative, contextual and critical analysis of Australian corporate and inancial markets law, designed to engage today’s LLB and JD students. Written by leading corporate law scholars, the text provides a number of fea- tures including: •a well-structured presentation of topics for Australian corporate law courses • consistent application of theory with discussion of corporate law principles (both theoretical and historical) •comprehensive discussion of case law with modern examples • integration of corporate law and corporate governance, all with clarity, insight and technical excellence. Central concepts are enhanced with dynamic and relevant discussions of corporate law in context, including debates relating to the role of corporations in society, the global convergence of corporate law, as well as corporations and human rights. Exploring the social, political and economic forces which shape modern cor- porations law, Contemporary Australian Corporate Law encourages a forward- thinking approach to understanding key concepts within the ield. Stephen Bottomley is Professor and Dean of the ANU College of Law at the Australian National University. Kath Hall is Associate Professor of the ANU College of Law at the Australian National University. Peta Spender is Professor and
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    LAWS2014/LAWS5014 Notes Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 2 What is a company? ................................................................................................................................... 2 Historical development of the corporate form .............................................................................................. 2 Theories and conceptions of the corporation ............................................................................................... 5 Policy concerns .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Types of companies ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Corporate constitution and organs ................................................................................................................ 8 Corporate groups ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Administration of Australian companies ..................................................................................................... 10 CORPORATE PERSONALITY AND LIMITED LIABILITY ...................................................................................... 11 The doctrine of corporate
  • The Privatisation of Australian Corporate Law Ross Grantham1

    The Privatisation of Australian Corporate Law Ross Grantham1

    1 The Privatisation of Australian Corporate Law Ross Grantham1 Anyone looking at the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) would be justified in thinking that company law in Australia was both wholly statutory and an instrument of public regulation. Although Anglo-Australian company law may have originally grown out of the law of partnership and been built, largely by the courts, from the material of the private law, the growth over the last 30 years in the complexity, range of matters covered and sheer volume of the Corporations Act would seem to confirm the intuition that Australia’s company law is now both statutory and public. However, while there is no denying the shift in the source of company law, the particular form corporate regulation now takes is actually making Australian company law more, rather than less, private. This trend has at least two important implications for the future of Australian company law and the Corporations Act in particular. First, the primary audience of the law must now be understood to be those who are involved in the operation of companies – business people rather than lawyers and the courts. If that is the case, then the form, language and complexity of the Corporations Act seems wholly ill-suited to that task. Second, privatisation brings to the fore the issues of the legitimacy of corporate power, and the purposes for which as a matter of policy we 1 Professor of Commercial Law, T C Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland. 27 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR Law IN AUSTRALIA should recognise the corporate form.
  • 30 July 2018 Mavis Tan ASX Corporate Governance Council C/O

    30 July 2018 Mavis Tan ASX Corporate Governance Council C/O

    30 July 2018 Mavis Tan ASX Corporate Governance Council c/o ASX Limited PO BOX H224 Australia Square NSW1 By email: [email protected] Dear Ms Tan Draft Fourth Edition of the Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations INTRODUCTION 1. The Law Council of Australia (LCA) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s draft fourth edition of the Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (CGPR). These comments have been prepared by the Corporations Committee (Committee) of the Business Law Section (BLS) of the LCA, which is a specialist committee of corporations and securities law practitioners and academics. 2. The comments below respond to the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s Review of the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s Principles and Recommendations Public Consultation, released 2 May 2018 (Consultation Document). 3. The Committee notes the significant place that the CGPR have come to occupy in Australian corporate governance theory and practice since the first edition was released in 2004. Their impact is not limited to the ASX listed entities to which the CGPR directly apply; many of the Principles and Recommendations have been adopted formally and informally elsewhere, including in other self-regulatory codes. This is noted in the Consultation Document. However, these comments focus specifically on the application of the CGPR to listed entities. 4. In preparing these comments, the Committee recognises that the CGPR comprise both Principles and Recommendations and that the two serve distinct functions in the architecture of the CGPR. The Principles are (or ought to be) seen as “non- negotiable” – that is, they are foundational principles of corporate governance with which all listed entities should comply.
  • Corporate Theory and Corporate Law Reform in Australia

    Corporate Theory and Corporate Law Reform in Australia

    Agenda, Volume 1, Number 2, pages 179-188 Corporate Theory and Corporate Law Reform in Australia Ian M. Ramsay f n the last few years Australian corporate law has been significantly reformed. The I reforms include: • increased duties imposed upon company directors; • regulation of transactions between public companies and their related parties; • increased disclosure requirements for public companies; • new liability upon parent companies where a subsidiary trades while it is insolvent and heightened liability upon directors for the insolvent trading of their compa­ nies; • a wider definition of insider trading; and • increased regulation of public unit trusts. Tliis article evaluates some of these reforms in the light of a range of current theories of the corporation. Two Theories of the Corporation Recent debates about corporate law focus mainly on two contrasting theories of the corporation: the managerialist (or institutionalist) theory and the contractual theory (Symposium, 1989; Macey, 1993). The theories have different implications for cor­ porate law and therefore corporate law reform. They are both concerned with corpo­ rate governance; in particular, they both endeavour to formulate ways to ensure that the managers of companies act in the interests of shareholders. But they differ fun­ damentally on how this objective is to be accomplished. The managerialist theory of the corporation emphasises corporate management and the power that it wields. The issue is whether management holds and exercises this flower legitimately (Bratton, 1989:1476). Critics of management argue that man- Ian Ramsay is Harold Ford Professor of Commercial Law at the University of Melbourne. 180 Ian Ramsay agers often exercise power without accountability to shareholders; in public compa­ nies, shareholders are unable to monitor effectively the managers of their companies, so that legal intervention is needed to protect the interests of shareholders.
  • Research Working Paper Series

    Research Working Paper Series

    Research Working Paper Series Securities Lending, Empty Voting and Corporate Governance Associate Professor Paul Ali Melbourne Law School University of Melbourne Professor Ian Ramsay Harold Ford Professor of Commercial Law Melbourne Law School University of Melbourne Benjamin B Saunders Research Assistant Melbourne Law School University of Melbourne WORKING PAPER NO. 023/2014 MAY 2014 www.cifr.edu.au This research was supported by the Centre for International Finance and Regulation (project number E019) which is funded by the Commonwealth and NSW Governments and supported by other Consortium members (see www.cifr.edu.au). All rights reserved. Working papers are in draft form and are distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only and may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the author and do not represent the official views or policies of the Centre for International Finance and Regulation or any of their Consortium members. Information may be incomplete and may not be relied upon without seeking prior professional advice. The Centre for International Finance and Regulation and the Consortium partners exclude all liability arising directly or indirectly from use or reliance on the information contained in this publication. www.cifr.edu.au 2 Centre for International Finance and Regulation Project: Evaluating the Impact of Securities Loans on Shareholder Rights and the Governance of Listed Companies RESEARCH REPORT 2: Securities Lending, Empty Voting and Corporate Governance Paul Ali, Associate Professor, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Ian Ramsay, Harold Ford Professor of Commercial Law, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Benjamin B Saunders, Research Assistant, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Overview This paper examines the corporate governance implications of securities loans, in particular the impact of securities loans on shareholders’ voting rights and the control of listed Australian companies.
  • Reliance on Experts from a Corporate Law Perspective Alexandros N

    Reliance on Experts from a Corporate Law Perspective Alexandros N

    American University Business Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 2 Article 2 2013 Reliance on Experts from a Corporate Law Perspective Alexandros N. Rokas Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rokas, Alexandros N. "Reliance on Experts from a Corporate Law Perspective." American University Business Law Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 323-352. American University Business Law Review 2, no. 2 (2013): This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Business Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RELIANCE ON EXPERTS FROM A CORPORATE LAW PERSPECTIVE ALEXANDROS N. ROKAS* In discharging their duty of care, directors of corporations are not expected to independently investigate all parameters affecting a decision they are about to make. In fact, statutory provisions encourage or sometimes require directors to seek the advice of experts, such as auditors, lawyers, investment bankers, and tax specialists. In this Article, emphasis is placed on Section 141(e) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, according to which directors are entitled to rely on the advice of such experts as long as they believe that the advice was within the expert's professional competence, the expert was selected with reasonablecare, and reliance is in good faith. Apart from systematizing the elements of this rule, as they were interpreted by a significant number of court decisions, this Article sheds light on the interaction of the reliance defense with basic concepts of Delaware corporate law, mainly the businessjudgment rule, as well as good faith, after Caremark.
  • Corporate Law Teachers Association

    Corporate Law Teachers Association

    CORPORATE LAW TEACHERS ASSOCIATION REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 2001 Professor Ian Ramsay I was re-elected President of the Corporate Law Teachers Association (CLTA) at the annual general meeting of the Association held on 13 February 2001. The AGM was held during the annual CLTA conference. This Report outlines the activities of the CLTA for the year ending December 2001. Members will see this has been a very active year in terms of organising seminars and conferences. Executive Committee of the CLTA in 2001 Clause 4(b) of the CLTA constitution provides that the members of the Executive Committee shall be a President, Secretary, Treasurer, the immediately preceding past President and four other members. In addition, clause 6(d) provides that the Executive Committee may co-opt up to three additional members to form part of the Executive Committee. Based upon these provisions of the constitution, the Executive Committee of the CLTA for 2001 comprised: • Ian Ramsay, University of Melbourne (President) • Michael Adams, University of Technology, Sydney (Immediate Past President) • Christopher Symes, Flinders University (Secretary and Treasurer) • Stephen Bottomley (ANU) • Ross Grantham (University of Auckland) • Jennifer Hill (University of Sydney) • Dimity Kingsford-Smith (Monash University) • Phillip Lipton (RMIT) • Vanessa Mitchell (Victoria University of Technology) • Ralph Simmonds (Murdoch University) • Michael Whincop (Griffith University). 2001 CLTA conference The 2001 CLTA conference was held at Victoria University of Technology and there was a very good range of papers presented during the two days of the conference. There were both Australian and international speakers as well as speakers from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
  • Reform of the Broadcasting Authority's Enforcement Powers

    Reform of the Broadcasting Authority's Enforcement Powers

    Reform of the broadcasting regulator’s enforcement powers A report prepared by Professor Ian Ramsay Sydney November 2005 ISBN 0 642 27074 0 © Commonwealth of Australia 2005 This work is copyright. Apart from fair dealings for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means or process, without the written permission of the publishers. Published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority 201 Sussex Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australian Communications and Media Authority ii Foreword The commencement of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ushered in many positive changes to the regulation of broadcasting in Australia, particularly in the area of industry responsibility for codes of practice and the expansion of various new categories of service. While the regulatory framework has generally operated well, experience over the years has highlighted a lack of flexibility in enforcement measures available to the regulator under the Broadcasting Services Act. In particular the absence of a set of graduated powers did not always allow the then Australian Broadcasting Authority to deal with non-compliance with broadcasting rules in an appropriate manner. Accordingly, in 2004, the ABA asked Professor Ian Ramsay of Melbourne University to examine the effectiveness of the ABA’s existing enforcement powers and to make proposals to enable the ABA to deal more effectively with breaches of the rules. The Australian Communications and Media Authority is now pleased to release the results of Professor Ramsay’s research—his report on the regulator’s enforcement powers under the Broadcasting Services Act.
  • Selskapsrettsnytt Nr. 3/2013

    Selskapsrettsnytt Nr. 3/2013

    SELSKAPSRETTSNYTT NR. 3/2013 SelskapsrettsNytt formidler nyheter med selskapsrettslig relevans, samlet inn av forskergruppen Selskaper, markeder, samfunn og miljø ved Det juridiske fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo. SelskapsrettsNytt gis ut kvartalsvis som en ren informasjonstjeneste, uten noen krav på fullstendighet, og distribueres kun elektronisk. Våre kilder er offentlige databaser slik som lovdata.no, regjeringen.no, EU-domstolen og EFTA-domstolen. I tillegg benytter vi det private initiativet europalov.no og vi har gleden av å legge inn en rekke linker til europalovs gode oversiktssider i vårt nyhetsbrev. Enkelte av linkene er knyttet til databaser som krever innlogging. Foreliggende utgave, SelskapsrettsNytt 3/2013, presenterer nyheter fra tiden medio april til medio august 2013. Tidligere utgaver er tilgjengelig på våre nettsider. INNHOLD Nytt i lovgivningen m.m. ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Norge .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 EU/EØS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Ny rettspraksis, forvaltningspraksis m.m. ............................................................................................................... 9 Norge
  • Art Gallery of New South Wales Annual Report 2005 Art Gallery of New South Wales General Information

    Art Gallery of New South Wales Annual Report 2005 Art Gallery of New South Wales General Information

    ART GALLERY ART GALLERY OF NEW SOUTH WALES NSW Art Gallery Road The Domain Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 9225 1700 Information Line: (02) 9925 1790 Email (general): [email protected] For information on current exhibitions and events, visit the Gallery’s website www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au ART GALLERY OF NEW SOUTH WALES ANNUAL REPORT 2005 ART GALLERY OF NEW SOUTH WALES GENERAL INFORMATION ACCESS RESEARCH LIBRARY AND GALLERY SHOP PUBLIC TRANSPORT The Gallery opens every day except ARCHIVE Open daily from 10am to 5pm and until Buses: the 441 bus route stops at the ‘I have been in many museums around the world. You have a Easter Friday and Christmas Day The Gallery’s Research Library and 8.45pm each Wednesday night, the Gallery en route to the Queen Victoria between the hours of 10am and 5pm. Archive is open Monday to Friday Gallery Shop offers the finest range of art Building. The service runs every 20 national treasure here. Very impressive.’ Gallery visitor, 27 Feb 05 The Gallery opens late each Wednesday between 10am and 4pm (excluding books in Australia and also specialises in minutes on weekdays and every 30 night until 9pm. General admission is public holidays) and until 8.45pm each school and library supply. The shop minutes on weekends. Call the STA on free. Entry fees may apply to a limited Wednesday night. The Library is located stocks an extensive range of art posters, 131 500 or visit www.131500.info for number of major temporary exhibitions. on ground floor level and has the most cards, replicas and giftware.