eMAIL Minister for Local Govt.

Dear Minister Gutwein,

RE: Tasmania’s Local Govt Act 1993 and Museum and Art Gallery Governance in Tasmania

I write to you in regard to the draft legislation for the Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery (TMAG) and its relativity to museum and art gallery governance and management under the aegis of the Local Govt. Act 1993. Once the draft TMAG Act is in place your government can expect to significantly improve its standing in the community. The raised standards in regard to museum and art gallery governance cannot, and will not, go unnoticed.

As you would be no doubt 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. The draft Act underscores the  importance of Tasmania’s collection in the national context. Essentially, all this becomes all the more important against the backdrop of the increasing economic importance of cultural tourism in Tasmania.

What is particularly reassuring about the draft Act is that it provides for, and underpins, the TMAG’s accountability. The rigor of the security the Act offers to Tasmania’s cultural community is notable.  Importantly, the draft Act provides an 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 before the states’ museums and art galleries can offer new income and enterprise opportunities for an increasing number of Tasmanians and Tasmanian businesses. It also needs to be acknowledged that all this is now taking place in changing circumstances – economic, environmental, social and cultural – with new demands and within shifting economic realities.

That said I have serious concerns about how the increasing importance of museums and art galleries throughout Tasmania can be realised and capitalised upon. 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 important as well as being in a position to offer so much more in the way of fiscal, social and cultural ‘dividends’ than they currently deliver. This is more than disappointing!

I submit that all this can be overcome if these collections, and the institution that hold them, are required to operate outside the uncomfortable sponsorship of a council operation. Councils managing these ‘public collections’ within the funding paradigm of Local Govt. is more than problematic. 

Indeed, council operations are ill equipped to offer the same levels, appropriate levels, of security and accountability that are embedded in the draft TMAG Act 2016. In fact, under the aegis of the Local Govt. Act collection managers are not required to meet such standards, and or international best practice, and it would seem for whatever reason council operations are disinclined to provide for best practice collection management.

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 are making their policy determinations on expert advice. Within the context and circumstances of the 21st Century, museum and art gallery governance and management does not sit well within the local government paradigm and especially so in regard to securing the expertise and skill sets required to deliver expert governance for museum and art gallery collections. That is, outcomes relevant to 21st Century expectations and current international, best practice, museology standards.

Based on performance, Local Govt. providing governance and management for public collections can be demonstrated as being less than adequate.  Thus the management of ‘public collections’ operating under council sponsorship is to say the very least challenging. Given that there is significant ambiguity in the Local Govt. Act to allow for the ‘deeming’ of expertise this only compounds the situation – and gives far too much room for ‘dilettanteism’. 

Concerningly, it is ever likely that such deeming can happen without the slightest need to demonstrate appropriate expertise, nor any necessity to objectively demonstrate the substance of any expertise being relied upon. Consequently, aldermen/councillors – ‘Trustees’ – are placed in an impossible ( invidious?) position in ensuring appropriate standards are maintained – and to meet obligations they don’t believe they were elected to fulfill in any event.

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 follows that it falls to management to implement these policies. In practice it is clear that these two functions all too easily become compounded and detrimentally to the general value of the collections and their capacity to deliver the dividends rightfully expected of them. 

Against all this, 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.” And, it 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 – sometimes seriously. 

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. 

International standards applying to ‘public museums and art galleries’ demand rigorous collection policies designed to guard against the kind of outcomes 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 on a rudderless ship are ever likely to apply – and that it can be demonstrated.

I submit that the point has been reached in Tasmania when the appropriate time has arrived to address the issue of the security of Tasmania’s public collections. Additionally, there is a pressing need to ensure that 21st Century standards of accountability also apply. 

Likewise, 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 is especially 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 an inquiry, an Upper House Inquiry in fact, charged to inquire into NSW museums and art galleries’ governance and funding. That  inquiry’s report falls due Nov 14 2016. 
See https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2403#tab-timeline & Http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

Tasmania’s public collections held under the aegis of Local Govt. arguably need to be better protected. An independent inquiry commissioned to survey and interrogate the ‘public collections paradigm’ in the state would be a profitable step towards that goal. An inquiry of this kind should be held under the aegis of government and 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

EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com


“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