RE: Public Collections held by Local Govt And the Draft Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery Legislation
Firstly it is with considerable pleasure that I write to you in regard to the draft legislation for the Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery (TMAG). Once the Act is in place you can justifiably expect to significantly raise standards in regard to museum and art gallery governance in Tasmania. This is something people with an interest in Tasmania’s museum and art gallery collections will appreciate and reward you for.
As you would be well aware, Tasmania already stands out in that such a significant and diverse component of the nation’s ‘cultural estate’ is held in Tasmania within the TMAG’s collections along with other public collections throughout Tasmania. Importantly, this draft Act underscores the importance of the Tasmanian component of the nation’s collections that altogether add growing value to the ‘Australian cultural reality’. And, all this becomes all the more important against the backdrop of the increasing importance of cultural tourism in Australia and Tasmania.
I was provided a copy of the draft Act circulated to Royal Society members one of whom was asking my opinion of it. He knew that I had working knowledge of the Act this Act replaces as I once held the position of Senior Project Office (Visual Arts & Crafts) with the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board – albeit quite some time ago now.
What is so impressive, and indeed so very reassuring, about the draft Act is its provisions that underpin the TMAG’s accountability. Likewise, the rigor of the security the Act offers to Tasmania’s cultural community – indeed people beyond the state – is notable. Importantly, the draft Act provides a new and enhanced level of protection for all those people who:
- Have important research outcomes and intellectual property invested in institution – and for a long time;
- Have cultural and intellectual property invested in the institutions collections – history collections, scientific collections and the various collections of cultural production, etc.;
- Use the institution as an educational resource in a myriad of ever expanding ways;
- Have donated money, and equally importantly, significant cultural and scientific material to the institution’s collections since the TMAG’s foundation; and all those who have
- Sponsored the institution and volunteered their time towards ‘investing in’ and thus enriching the institution’s programs over time.
Arguably more so now than ever in the past the states’ museums and art galleries can offer new opportunities and especially so if they were to be operating collaboratively and cooperatively. It also needs to be acknowledged that all this is now taking place in a changing world with new demands and within shifting social, cultural and economic realities.
That said, and against this background, I have serious concerns about how the increasing importance of museums and art galleries throughout Tasmania are governed and managed. It’s especially so for those ‘operations’ that fall outside the influence of the TMAG Act. My concerns are to do with the ways ‘public collections’ can be both capitalised upon and protected in the way the TMAG Act allows for. In particular, I have in mind the ‘deemed accountability’ of those institutions operating under the aegis of the Local Govt. Act 1993.
These institutions and their collections are in a position to offer so much more in the way of fiscal, social and cultural ‘dividends’ than currently. However, this will be less likely if they are not required to manage their collections with the same levels of security and accountability that is embedded in the draft TMAG Act 2016. Currently under the aegis of the Local Govt. Act they are not required to meet such standards!
What is clearly being overlooked in regard to all this is SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Local Govt. Act 1993. These provisions call upon a general manager to guarantee that the councillors/aldermen (notionally museum cum art gallery ‘Trustees’) are making their policy determinations on expert advice – an all too often this is not the case. Within the context and circumstances of the 21st Century, museum and art gallery governance and management this does not sit at all well within the local government paradigm.
Based on performance, all too often the ineptitude of local government can be demonstrated relative to the management of ‘public collections’ operating under its aegis. This is so given that there is sufficient ambiguity in the Local Govt. Act 1993 to allow for the ‘deeming’ of expertise. Concerningly, it is ever likely that such deeming can happen without the slightest need to demonstrate the expertise nor by necessity to objectively demonstrate the genuineness or substance of the expertise being relied upon.
It is generally overlooked that by default it’s the councillors’/aldermen’s role to determine collection and other related policies as the ‘Trustees’ of these collections. Likewise it does not always follow that it is management’s role to implement these policies – advise on them possibly but not determine them. The ambiguity entrenched within SECTIONS 65 & 62 is concerning given that under the Act SECTION 62(2) “the general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act.”
All this is particularly alarming in regard to Tasmania’s museum and art galleries’ governance and management – and especially so in regard collection management in a 21st Century context and under the Local Govt Act.
The inappropriateness of SECTIONS 65 & 62 is only compounded by the fact that ‘museum management’ is not regarded as a council’s “core business” – indeed nor should it be. Therefore, the governance and management roles can become, arguably has become blurred and thus accountability becomes compromised via bureaucratic pragmatics.
It is quite clear that all this comes about due to the lack of relevant legislation that ensures accountability. By extension, the security of important cultural and scientific material is arguably compromised – and is at risk of being lost. The consequent and almost unavoidable lack of museum governance expertise should be alarming for anyone with a professional interest in these ‘quasi national estate collections’. Contemporary museum policymaking, within a cultural context and/or within the representative wing of councils is arguably an impossibility under the aegis of the Local Govt. Act 1993.
Unfortunately, those ‘public collections’ held by organisations not incorporated as not-for-profit organisations, council managed collections, hold within them important and highly valuable material that, collectively, is quite vulnerable to inappropriate dispersals and disposal. Moreover, there are the added risks that dubious accountability brings with it given that this ‘property’ is regarded as being the “property” of ‘the council’ – not the people’s or the Crown’s.
The looming risk here is to do with the very real potential for the inappropriate dispersal or disposal of important cultural and scientific material. Why is this risk there? At its simplest, if there is a need to find ‘cash’ to meet some perception of a fiscal requirement, or some other imperative, then using the investment in ‘cultural material’ to fulfill such an aspiration may well come into play – and concerningly it would have legal effect under the Local Govt Act 1993. The histories of museums and art galleries the world over are littered with such stories – most with appalling outcomes.
International standards applying to ‘public museums and art galleries’ demand rigorous collection policies designed to mitigate against this kind of outcome discussed here. However, this is not the case for museums and art galleries operating under the aegis of Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act 1993. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Rafferty’s Rules apply on rudderless ships.
I submit that now is the appropriate time to address the issue of the security of Tasmania’s public collections and to ensure that 21st Century standards of accountability also apply. In addition, there is a need to ensure that cultural sensibilities and sensitivities are actually applied to all of the state’s important museum and art gallery collections. This would especially be so in the context of what these collections have to offer Tasmania looking forward – especially so in concert with the TMAG collections.
It is of some importance that the NSW Govt has initiated such an inquiry, an Upper House Inquiry in fact, and that it is due to report Nov 14 2016 – see https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2403#tab-timeline AND http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/
Tasmania’s public collections held under the aegis of Local Govt. deserve to be better protected. An independent public inquiry commissioned to survey and interrogate the ‘public collections paradigm’ in the state would be a positive step forward. Such an inquiry should involve appropriate evidence focused experts, the Auditor General, community representatives, academics, researchers, sponsors, donors, et al.
I look forward to your response but most of all I look forward to the growth in importance of Tasmania’s museums and art galleries and the collections they hold.
Regards,
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept ” David Morrison
No comments:
Post a Comment