Page 1390 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Additionally, the outreach services and travelling exhibitions of the national institutions provide valuable educational and cultural connections and access to the arts for people outside the ACT. Commonwealth government reductions to operational budgets have typically resulted in a paring back of these outreach activities to refocus on the provision of core services, consequently limiting these institutions’ ability to collaborate, innovate and provide equitable access.
The annual impact of the Australian government’s efficiency dividend contributes to an increasingly challenging operational environment for the institutions. The Council of Australian Museum Directors, representing leaders of the major cultural institutions, including the Australian Museum, the Australian War Memorial, Questacon and the National Museum of Australia, has previously described the use of efficiency dividends as a “blunt instrument” that does not reflect the operating environment of cultural institutions compared to other larger agencies. Additionally, the institutions generally hold large numbers of very valuable assets and are often mandated to expand these collections, which creates a high proportion of relatively fixed costs relating to preservation, maintenance and storage.
Museums Australia, the national association representing museums and galleries, notes that issues caused by ongoing funding limitations include the loss of expertise, compromised long-term strategic planning, reduced options for creativity and innovation and risks to organisational sustainability.
It was noted in the Australian government Senate estimates on 15 March 2016 that six flagship institutions in Canberra—the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the National Museum, the Museum of Australian Democracy, the National Film and Sound Archive and the National Library—were forced to repeatedly absorb massive budget cuts between 2015 and 2019. This is estimated to reach around $20 million in cuts to those institutions. These funding decisions are clearly unsustainable and will result in the long-term loss of organisational capability across the institutions.
There is a clear role for the Australian government to play in developing a long-term strategy for the future development of our nation’s national institutions. We need to see longer term planning from the commonwealth for investment in and development of our cultural institutions consistent with the expansion and diversity of our national story.
We also note that there is currently no formal channel for the ACT government to engage with the institutions as a group. I do my best to meet each of the directors individually and collectively where I can but there is no doubt that the lack of a formal structure is a barrier for the institutions themselves in developing a common purpose and agreed high level strategies. It hinders the potential of a collective approach between the institutions and the ACT government to leverage a collective investment to promote our city’s greatest cultural assets.
I am pleased to note that the joint standing committee inquiry has also recommended that the Australian government, in consultation with the national institutions, the NCA and the ACT government, develop a formal consultative structure for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video