# data[].attributes.headline
The National Museum of Australia - the history of a concept

# data[].attributes.subject
The National Museum of Australia - the history of a concept

# data[].attributes.body
Includes references to Pigott Report and Creative Nation by
Dr John Gardiner-Garden

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr John Gardiner-Garden
Social Policy Group
Major Issues Summary Introduction The 1970s-the original concept The 1980s-an enactment without enactment? 1993-a forward step? 1994 and 1995-a different vision? Early 1996-a new commitment? December 1996-the right decision?
The idea of a National Museum of Australia has been around since Federation, but despite repeated promises from the major political parties to proceed with permanent National Museum facilities, a vast collection remains unexhibited. Financial constraints, pressure to consider other sites, varying personal and bureaucratic visions, and lack of political will have meant Australia remains one of the few countries in the world without an easily identifiable National Museum. Issues of site capacity, urban design, economics and environmental impact have all been debated. Despite a recent Federal Government decision, debate over what and where the National Museum should be continues.

Key developments have included the following:

In 1975 the Committee of Inquiry set up by the Whitlam Government developed the concept of a low profile museum with three themes/galleries (Aboriginal Australia, Social History and the Environment) and recommended it be sited at Yarramundi Reach in Canberra. The Act to establish a National Museum was passed in 1980. An invaluable collection was developed, links were forged with Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and other communities, and travelling tours, open days, public exhibitions were organised. The construction of permanent facilities, however, was deferred by successive governments.

In 1993 the Keating Government committed $3m for preliminary design work on a National Museum at Yarramundi Reach and pledged $26m towards its construction, conditional on the private sector providing the remainder of the anticipated $60m. Within 18 months, however, the Commonwealth was advancing a new concept. The October 1994 Creative Nation document described a Museum without any permanent exhibition galleries at Yarramundi Reach. The Museum would organise travelling or electronic exhibition and produce educational programs, information databases and multi-media resources. A permanent Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, not necessarily part of the National Museum, would be built at Acton Peninsula. In 1995 the Federal Arts Minister and the ACT Government arranged to swap the Commonwealth's land at the Kingston foreshore for the ACT's land on Acton Peninsula.

In the March 1996 Federal election the Coalition promised to go ahead with a full three gallery Museum-stating that its preferred site was Yarramundi Reach. In December, the Coalition Government committed $750,000 for design work to commence on a three-theme Museum, but it was to be located on the site recommended by the Advisory Committee which they had set up, Acton Peninsula.

The idea of a National Museum of Australia has been around since Federation in 1901. The concept of a tripartite museum sited at Yarramundi Reach in Canberra has been around more than 20 years and the Act to establish such an institution was passed nearly 17 years ago. Over the last ten years an invaluable collection of over 170 000 items has been developed. Links have been forged with Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and other communities. Travelling tours, open days, public programs and Old Parliament House exhibitions have been organised. Promises to proceed with permanent National Museum facilities have been repeatedly made by all the major parties, but financial constraints, pressure to consider other sites, varying personal and bureaucratic visions, and lack of political will have meant Australia remains one of the few countries in the world without such facilities. For many years, while most of the Museum's vast collection has remained in a warehouse, a debate has raged over what and where the National Museum should be. A recent Federal Government decision, intended to end the uncertainty, has given rise to further debate.

In April 1974 the Whitlam Government announced the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections to recommend, among other things:

... measures which should be taken in the immediate future to ... institute new developments and institutions, with particular attention to the establishment of a national museum of history in Canberra.

The Committee of Inquiry, chaired by P H Pigott, presented its Museums in Australia Report in 1975 and among its recommendations was an area of more than 90 hectares be reserved for a National Museum:

In putting forward this recommendation, we may well be criticised on the grounds of extravagance and over-ambition. Our defence against such charges is that we have taken a long-term view of the museum's development. Too many museum planners in other lands have encumbered their capital city with a museum site and building which now prevent innovative planning. The proposed museum must not be viewed as just another building which could equally be designed for a library or an art museum. We believe that, with the right approach, Australia could lead in museum planning.(1)

Site-related specifications endorsed were:

it should be reasonably close to the centre of Canberra

it should serve the particular need of the museum

it should have reasonable road access from a number of directions

it should allow the museum building to be an identifiable landmark

it should be reasonably distant from residential areas and other major institutional buildings.

The Committee found that a site west of Black Mountain 'meets all the specifications outlined above' and recommended that 'an appropriate area of land on the site identified above be reserved for the proposed Museum of Australia'.

This same general area was endorsed by the Planning Committee on the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, chaired by Dr D J Mulvaney:

The attention of the Planning Committee was drawn to several possible sites. Only one met the Committee's desiderata but it did so superbly. A close inspection was made of the open tract surrounding 'The Cork Plantation' adjacent to the intersection of Caswell Drive and Lady Denman Drive south-west of Black Mountain. The particular part of the tract which appealed to the committee as in every way suitable was the higher ground towards and including the main ridge. The slopes fall on one side towards Lake Burley Griffin and on the other towards open bush, with a distant view of the Brindabellas. The members of the Committee were unanimous that they could recommend without qualification the site as suitable for the construction of the kind of Gallery they have in mind.

The place recommended is within five kilometres of Civic Centre, which is sufficiently near to attract visitors and tourists, yet far enough away to be undisturbed by urban noise and commotion. It can readily be reached from a main traffic artery, but a road and parking space can be concealed so as not to obtrude upon the gallery's special areas. The topography of the site is such that service buildings, perhaps even the main building or buildings, can be constructed and/or placed so as not to dominate the natural landscape. It should be possible by landscaping and 'dioramas without walls' to create for visitors a mounting impression of entry into 'blackfellow country' and the Committee hopes that by architectural ingenuity, ways will be found of using the magnificent views of the lake and of the Brindabellas so as to become natural backdrops for dioramas within the main buildings. Here, if anywhere in Canberra, it would seem practicable to create a convincing representation of the physical settings in which Aboriginal societies humanised the continent from ocean to ocean.(2)

This planning committee went on to stress that a gallery which:

opened on to crowded streets or was foreclosed by urban conglomerations or had no vista of the bush, could only reinforce the distorted outlook that has been so common in the past, when Aboriginal social forms and cultural achievements were either not understood at all or were 'understood' only as they appeared through European spectacles.

Both the planning committee on the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia and the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections recommended the co-location of the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia with the galleries devoted to environmental, historical and other cultural matters. As the Planning Committee noted:

If they were all set contiguously on a single broad-acres site, it permits their symbolic juxtaposition, and possibly even an architectural complementarity. It could also allow for the future possibility of integrated cross planning of certain major display themes between all three institutions.(3)

Both committees also supported a complex of indoor and outdoor exhibition areas, rather than grand buildings. As the Committee of Inquiry noted:

We have come down firmly against an inordinately expensive monumental, multi-storey building, with all the granite or marble facings of a prestige institution.(4)

In 1977, in line with the recommendations of the Pigott and Mulvaney Reports, an 88-hectare site was reserved at Yarramundi, on the western side of Lake Burley Griffin.

In 1980 the Museum of Australia Act was passed with bipartisan support. A new inquiry into the best site for the Museum was soon under way, with the Museum's interim Council joining with the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) to investigate the suitability of 12 sites submitted by the NCDC. In 1982 the interim Museum Council presented the Government with a vision for the museum in a report entitled The Plan for the Development of the Museum of Australia and in March 1984 the NCDC published the site inquiry's conclusions and reasonings as Technical Paper 39. After a thorough examination of overseas experiences and possible Canberra sites, the Museum Council had concluded that a National Museum in the form of a series of low-key pavilions at Yarramundi would be outstanding by world standards.

In the debate on the 1980 bill, Mr Barry Cohen was recorded as claiming that the Labor opposition wanted an assurance that passage of the bill would not simply create a fanfare of publicity 'followed, after the election of 1983, by the project being quietly shelved.'(5) This is exactly what happened but, somewhat ironically, it was the Labor party which, after the election, oversaw the building of a temporary Visitor Centre and headquarters at Yarramundi reach, and then 'quietly shelved' the project.

In 1988, following a review of the Commonwealth's involvement in the museum sector, the Government agreed to defer the construction of the Museum for five years.

In September of that same year the Coalition parties declared their commitment to the Museum. Their Arts Policy noted that:

The Coalition Parties are committed to the Museum of Australia and wish to see it built and grow to a pre-eminent national collecting institution and significant tourist attraction for the A.C.T. We will give a clear financial commitment to the Museum for the next five year period, redefine its future building programme and require it to stress its particular role in relation to the preservation of our Aboriginal cultural heritage.

During the 1993 election campaign the Government's Distinctly Australian Statement declared:

Labor will proceed with the development of the National Museum of Australia, with a Commonwealth contribution of $26 million over four years. Its completion will be a co-operative exercise between the Commonwealth, the Government of the Australian Capital Territory and the corporate sector ... Concurrently, over the next four years, there will be a staged development of the Museum's site at Yarramundi including exhibition, education and conservation facilities.

In its August 1993 Budget the Labor Government committed $3.3m for 'preliminary design and documentation work associated with the proposed construction of the National Museum of Australia in Canberra, and for the pursuit of private sector support towards the estimated $60m total cost.'(6) The Commonwealth's budget papers that year also restated the Government's 'in-principle agreement to contribute $26m towards the project provided the additional funding sources can be secured'. The process of choosing an architectural firm to design the National Museum complex for the Yarramundi site was begun, with the support of the then ACT Chief Minister Rosemary Follet. In November 1993, however, the process of choosing a design firm was put on hold pending a resolution of renewed uncertainty over the site. The National Capital Planning Authority rejected the Museum's proposal for a private-sector housing development on part of the museum's Yarramundi Reach site (intended to help raise the private-sector funding upon which the rest of the Commonwealth funding was contingent) but seemed to support a mixed-use concept for Acton Peninsula. This was the old Royal Canberra Hospital site, and had not been available when the Hospital was open in the 1980s.(7)

In January 1994 the president of the Friends of the National Museum of Australia, Jack Thompson, urged the Prime Minister to give his official imprimatur to the museum as without it raising $26 million from private sources would be impossible.(8) Supporters of the National Museum were disappointed that not only had the Prime Minister withheld his official imprimatur, he had continued to express his doubts about the desirability of the museum. For example, at the opening of the new National Portrait Gallery in the Old Parliament House in March 1994 the Prime Minister said:

It can always be said, and often with irresistible logic and passion, that we need one more gallery or museum. One more place to put our heritage on show. It may have reached the ears of some of you that I have sometimes resisted this logic and this passion. It is true. I have not always been persuaded that another huge and hugely expensive building on the banks of Burley Griffin ranked high among the things we need for a better national life.(9)

The Prime Minister suggested that one of the main reasons he supported the concept of a National Portrait Gallery was:

... because it is not going to be left sitting in Canberra locked up in yet another massive mausoleum. The works on display here are all on loan from both public and private collections... Even better, these exhibitions will not be confined to Canberra... It seems to me that in a country of our size and demography, all our collecting institutions - all our cultural institutions - should be exploiting modern transport and technology to take our heritage out to the people.(10)

The remark surprised many commentators, as the vision for the National Museum had never been a vision for 'yet another mausoleum'.

In August 1994, the Centenary of Federation Advisory Committee, chaired by Joan Kirner, called on the Council of Australian Governments to consider, among other national infrastructure projects with a possible 2001 completion date, the 'National Museum proposed by the Government of the ACT and many community organisations'.(11)

In the beginning of October, the week before the Government's Creative Nation cultural statement, Arts Minister Michael Lee proposed to the Federal Cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee that the museum be abandoned and its Aboriginal collection transferred to the South Australian Museum.(12) The proposal, which brought an outcry from many quarters (including Aboriginal groups, Institutes and individuals who had donated objects, and friends of the National Museum), was rejected.(13)

In October 1994 the Labor Government and the Coalition opposition both released cultural policy statements, the former's entitled Creative Nation and the latter's The Cultural Frontier. Considering that the Bill for a National Museum was passed by a Coalition government in 1980, it was perhaps surprising that the Coalition made no mention of the Museum in its statement. Similarly, considering that the Museum's construction was a central, if conditional, promise of the Labor Government's 1993 arts election policy, it was also perhaps surprising that the Government only obliquely indicated that the original vision was to be abandoned.

The Government's statement made much of the National Museum's role in organising 'a range of static and travelling exhibitions and educational programs and its potential as an Internet provider, a CD-ROM producer and a developer of 'interactive multi-media resources, electronic exhibitions and pilot information databases'. Of the three permanent gallery complexes which had been originally envisaged, however, only the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia was mentioned. It was to be co-located with a new Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) building on the Acton Peninsula and its relationship with the National Museum was left open:

The Government believes that the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia should form part of the network of the National Museum, but considers it most appropriate that Aboriginal people themselves determine the precise nature of the relationship between those two institutions they wish to pursue.(14)

The decision to separate out the Aboriginal collection from the rest of the National Museum's collection attracted wide criticism in the press. It was suggested that the decision was made in haste, noting that only a week before the statement the Minister had attempted to gain approval for depositing the Aboriginal collection with the South Australian Museum and that at one point the statement put the new Gallery on the East Basin peninsula (a place that doesn't exist). It was noted that the decision was made without public consultation and that there was no reference to the work of any of the committees who gave birth to and sustained the vision of a National Museum of Australia at Yarramundi. It was said that an opportunity to place Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australian history in a joint context would be lost. Professor John Mulvaney, the prominent prehistorian who had been a member of the Pigott Inquiry on Museums and served on the Interim Council of the National Museum, suggested, 'The cultural diversity of modern Australia merited better than a version of cultural apartheid'.(15)

Six months after the Creative Nation statement, on 11 April 1995, Federal Arts Minister Michael Lee and ACT Chief Minister Kate Carnell announced that they had agreed to swap the ACT's Acton Peninsula for the Commonwealth's Kingston foreshore. According to the Federal Minister:

... the ACT Government would provide the whole of the Acton Peninsula site to the border of the Australian National University, excluding the hospice and the cottage. The ACT Government will clear the site of existing buildings and provide up to $3 million for infrastructure work for the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. In return the Commonwealth will make available to the ACT Government land on the Kingston foreshore of Lake Burley Griffin.(16)

The ACT Chief Minister noted that:

While the ACT Government's preferred location for the National Museum project was Yarramundi Reach, it became clear the Commonwealth would never accept that site. This decision means the National Museum will now become a reality in Canberra rather than a long-held dream.(17)

The Chief Minister made it clear that she had proposed the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre be co-located on the Peninsula with the Gallery, and this proposal appears to have been accepted by the Commonwealth.

The Territory's Labor opposition condemned the proposed land swap as disastrous deal for the territory which would be left with the multi-million dollar cost of both demolishing the hospital buildings at Acton and cleaning up the industrial site at Kingston. The ACT Assembly Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment started to hold hearings into the land swap.

In July 1995 the National Capital Planning Authority published advertisements calling for expressions of interest in designing the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, AIATSIS and the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre.

Twelve months after the Creative Nation statement, public debate was reignited by the confirmation in the National Museum's Corporate plan for 1995-96 that the single site tripartite museum concept would be abandoned. The Friends of the National Museum of Australia, a body with 1,000 members, renewed their call for the construction of all the museum at Yarramundi.(18) The president of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, Professor John Mulvaney, and the president of Museums Australia, Dr Des Griffin, were both reported as criticising the separating out of the Aboriginal Gallery, the basing of the Social History Gallery in Old Parliament House and the apparent abandonment of the Environmental Gallery.(19) Emeritus Professor J. Zubrzycki, member of the Interim Council of the National Museum of Australia form 1980-82, joined the debate, reminding the Minister that Australia belongs to the tiny minority of countries that do not have the political will, pride and resources to fund an National Museum.(20) Jack Kershaw, President of the Canberra Community Action on Acton Inc., suggested:

Yarramundi Reach is a site with a fine natural setting, largely free of established European elements, a destination in itself and not hidden away, but above all, free of the characteristic inherent in the configuration of Acton Peninsula in the Central National Area which automatically stratifies the importance of building placed there-something which is surely undesirable in an Australian nation museum complex.(21)

The Director of the Museum, Margaret Coaldrake, was at pains to remind the press that a National Museum did exist-with 400,000 people having come and seen the Museum's exhibits at various places around the country. The central showcase, she believed, would still come, but only as the support for the national network of services and national showcase became fully apparent. Moreover, she speculated that had the Acton site been available in the mid-70s it might well have been chosen as 'It's the better site in many ways'.(22)

At the beginning of 1996, with a Federal election on the horizon, both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition sought to clarify their position on the contentious issue of the National Museum.

In a statement on 25 January 1996 Prime Minister Keating elaborated upon his Government's vision for the National Museum.(23) The Gallery of Aboriginal Australia would be co-located with a new facility for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies on Acton Peninsula. The Government would provide $12m over 3 years to allow the Museum to develop exhibitions at the Old Parliament House which, together with extensions of the National Portrait Gallery and the Australian Archive, would celebrate Australia's social history. There would be a national competition to design a facility for Yarramundi Reach which would focus on environmental history and issues and would 'be developed so as to provide links with the National Botanical Gardens and to develop public programs in conjunction with bodies such as the CSIRO, the Australian Heritage Commission and Greening Australia'. $6m would be allocated to the Museum over the next three years 'to facilitate the funding of a number of specific partnership projects with State and regional museums, to increase the rate of their digitising program, to enable more Australians to get in touch with their cultural heritage and to extend the range of travelling exhibitions developed and toured by the Museum.'

On 9 February 1997 Senator Bob McMullan was reported as saying the Labor Government had promised more than $40 million for the National Museum ($25m for the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, $12m to Old Parliament House and $6m to a regional access program).(24) The soundness of the estimate was soon being debated.(25) The Prime Minister had not put a figure to the Aboriginal Gallery promised in his speech on 25 January and the relationship of this gallery to the National Museum had not been finalised. $11.3m of the $12m which the Senator, and before him the Prime Minister, would seem to be counting as going to Old Parliament House to establish National Museum exhibition space, had already been counted in the 1995-96 Budget Statement as going to Old Parliament House over the following 4 years for 'refurbishment to address deterioration and safety standards'. The Museum, as a lessee of only part of the Old Parliament House, would only benefit from a small portion of this. The remainder of the $12 million may be double counting of the $0.8m recorded in the Budget statement as going to Old Parliament House over 4 years for the 'National Film and Sound Archive exhibition program'. Similarly, the $6 million for partnership projects with state and regional museums to increase the rate of digitising the collection and to extend the travelling collections was not all going to the National Museum.

The Arts Policy released by the Federal Coalition in February 1996, just prior to the March 1996 election, declared:

The Coalition will honour Labor's broken promise and establish a National Museum of Australia. In the first year $1.5 million will be allocated to determine the best possible site, employ architects and establish an appropriate tendering process. In each of years two and three $7 million will be provided with additional funding being sought from corporations and individuals. Funding beyond this period will be considered at the appropriate time.

The National Museum will reflect Australia's society and history, our interaction with the environment and our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage.

The Gallery of Aboriginal Australia will not only be a significant part of the National Museum but will be located at the same site, thereby symbolising an important step in the reconciliation process. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies will also be co-located with the National Museum.

It is the Coalition's preference that the National Museum be located at the Yarramundi Reach site which has been earmarked for this purpose for well over a decade.

The Coalition will consult extensively with all the major stakeholders, including the ACT Government, the Friends of the National Museum and representatives of the indigenous community, to ensure the most appropriate location and structure for the National Museum.

Identical wording is to be found in the Federal Coalition's 1996 policy on the Australian Capital Territory. The Coalition's arts spokesperson, Senator Richard Alston, was reported on 16 February 1996 as 'rejecting suggestions that the Coalition would renege on its undertaking to develop the museum on the Yarramundi site', and as claiming 'that the Coalition had always regarded the Yarramundi site as "overwhelmingly the preferred site"'.(26) In a press release Senator Alston declared:

Yarramundi had been identified more than a decade ago as the most obvious and suitable location for a National Museum complex incorporating a Gallery of Aboriginal Australia.

and criticised Minister Lee for attempting 'to demean the National Museum board by refusing to fill vacancies as they occurred.'(27) Similarly, it was widely reported that Canberra Senator Margaret Reid supported proceeding with a three-theme Museum at Yarramundi.(28)

The Coalition's package, did not fare much better than the Government one, in the local Canberra press. Robert Macklin suggested:

For $15.5 million these days you get a bit of site clearing, a couple of well-appointed out-houses and maybe a barbecue... and the first year's funding, $1.5 million, is for "site investigation". Now if any site in Australia has been thoroughly investigated its Yarramundi Reach.(29)

Within months of the election some sought to question the new Coalition Government's commitment to the concept of a National Museum. The new ACT Labor Senator Kate Lundy suggested that the money the Government had committed could only build a 'glorified barn' (a realistic cost would be $150 million) and, curiously, put the outgoing Labor Government's commitment at $58 million.(30) Others noted delays in filling several senior vacancies at the National Museum (the same reason given by many commentators to question the previous Arts Minister's commitment to the Museum). These vacancies included the positions on the Council and the position of Director. Dr William Jonas, the principal of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, who the outgoing Arts Minister, Mr Michael Lee, had appointed to succeed Margaret Coaldrake as Director, had been unable to take up his appointment for health reasons.

In early August 1996 the appointment of Jim Service, prominent businessman and arts patron, as head of the Museum Council and the reappointment of Dr Jonas, who had recovered from his illness, as the museum's new director was seen by some commentators as representing 'the first positive moves for the development of the museum in almost half a decade' and as signalling that 'the Howard Government is serious about its election commitment to the project'.(31) These appointments were followed in late September 1996 with the appointment of the museum professional Andrew Reeves to the Museum Council.

The Government's intention of returning to the concept of a unified National Museum on a single site in Canberra would seem to have been confirmed by the decision-upon recommendation of the National Museum's Council and despite representations from Sydney's Lord Mayor-not to proceed with establishing a presence at the Sydney Customs House. No money was allocated for establishing the presence in the August 1996 Budget. It was still, however, not clear which site a unified Museum might occupy. In that same budget the Government committed $1.5m 'for the establishment of, and the provision of research facilities and administrative support services for, the Advisory Committee on New Facilities for the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.'(32) Although this measure was detailed under a heading 'National Museum of Australia-Design of Facilities', the Minister explained in the Senate Estimates Hearings on 25 September 1996 that no money was going on architectural design. The committee is primarily to advise the Minister on the most appropriate location for the facilities. When Senator Schacht reminded the Minister of Senator Margaret Reid's February statement, the Minister argued that the Government's actions were strictly in line with their policy 'that the coalition will honour Labor's broken promise and establish a National Museum of Australia and that in the first year $1.5m will be allocated to determine the best possible site, employ architects and establish an appropriate tendering process'.

In November 1996 the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee published information it had received from the Minister in response to earlier Senate Estimate Hearings into expenditure by the Department of Communication and the Arts. The budgeted $1.5m was broken down into $305,000 for administration, $995,000 for site studies and associated consultancies and $200,000 for communication strategies. The Senate Committee heard that although the Coalition at the time of the election had said it preferred the Yarramundi site, the Advisory Committee would also consider Acton Peninsula, Kings Park and the Parliamentary Zone foreshore sites, and the development of a fully fledged National Museum would be planned for in the 1997-98 Budget.

In early December 1996 the Advisory Committee on New Facilities for the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies handed its completed report to the Federal Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston. The Committee had been chaired by the current Chair of the NMA Council, James Service, and other committee members were Dr Robert Edward's, former NMA Chairman, former Museum of Victoria Director and head of Art Exhibitions Australia; William Henderson, Government Relations and International Trade Adviser; Winnifred Rosser, President of the Friends of the National Museum; Aye Sculthorpe, Museum of Victoria Head of Indigenous Studies and member of the AIATSIS Council; and Hon. Robert Webster, Executive Director, International Banks and Securities Association.

On 13 December 1996, following the presentation of the Advisory Committee's report, the Prime Minister Mr Howard announced that the Federal Government would provide $750,000 immediately so that design work could begin for the Museum of Australia on Acton Peninsula.

On 16 January 1997 the Advisory Committee's report to the Government was finally released publicly. The Committee considered the advantages and disadvantages of several sites with respect to site capacity, urban design, economics and environmental impact. Use of the Kings Park site was not recommended primarily because the required amendment to the National Capital Plan could place a Museum opening by 2001 in doubt. The need to preserve the vista between the Australian War Memorial and Parliament House was identified as the major difficulty in building the Museum in the Parliamentary Zone Foreshore, the committee's third preference. The Committee's second Preference was the Yarramundi site:

Yarramundi is considered to be a highly desirable site on which to build the NMA. It is ranked a close second by the committee who noted the nostalgic attachment of many Canberrans for the site-the majority of public submissions support the development of the NMA and the AIATSIS facilities at Yarramundi.

While the committee found Yarramundi the most suitable to accommodate additional buildings for future expansion, it noted that the dearth of physical infrastructure to the site meant this was by far the most expensive option.

In relation to accessibility and viability, Yarramundi is not considered to be as attractive to potential sponsors as Acton. It is the site furthermost from the CBD and other national cultural institutions and therefor will not easily attract visitors other than those who are specifically interested in visiting the NMA.(33)

The Committee's first preference was the Acton Peninsula:

Acton Peninsula is widely regarded as a site of national significance. It is highly visible, centrally placed within the ACT and consequently its ability to attract sponsorship should be significant. The site is also easily accessible for visitors and reasonably close to other national cultural institutions.

The other important determining factor for the committee in selecting Acton Peninsula as the preferred site was cost. The cost of developing the NMA and the AIATSIS facilities on Acton Peninsula is substantially less than at Yarramundi. The ACT Government will proceed with demolition of the buildings if the Commonwealth Government confirms it will establish the NMA on Acton Peninsula. It will also contribute $3 million towards the cost.(34)

The Committee estimated the cost of providing services to and on the Yarramundi site as $23.61m, $10 million more than to providing the same services to and on the Acton site ($13m more expensive if the ACT Government contribution towards infrastructure at Acton is taken into consideration).(35) It also noted that the Yarramudi Reach site contained several significant animal habitats which could constrain development on part of the site.

Reaction to the Government's announcement and to the Advisory Committee's report was mixed.

The ACT Labor Senator Kate Lundy welcomed the go-ahead for the museum but criticised the choice of site:

The Choice of Acton conveniently gets Kate Carnell and the ACT Government off the hook in relation to the Kingston land swap.

Winnifred Rosser, a member of the Advisory Committee and the President of the Friends of the National Museum and a body which had supported Yarramundi as the preferred site, was quoted as saying:

The decision to build the Museum on Acton, whilst disappointing, is an economically rational decision given the importance of having the National Museum ready in time to celebrate the Centenary of Federation.(36)

Professor David Ride, who was a member of the interim council and, later, the Council of the National Museum, found it 'difficult to imagine how that [original] concept, requiring broad acres, native vegetation and open vistas, can be accommodated in a contained site (that could be as small as 11ha), limited by heritage-listed buildings and plantings.'(37)

Professor John Mulvaney, who was a member of the Pigott Inquiry on Museums and served on the Interim Council of the National Museum, regretted that the 1996 committee had been 'subjected to political and commercial pressures', suggested that the Acton site did not fit the criteria put forward by the Interim Council in 1982 and raised several questions concerning the nature of development at both Acton and Yarramundi.(38) He also regretted the lack of weight given in the report to the need to have a site with room to accomodate research facilities (not just for the Aboriginal collection) and new acquisitions-suggesting environmental factors would not hem in a sensitively designed 'museum without walls' at Yarramundi in the same way geological features, flood areas and utility easements will hem in a museum at Acton.(39) Looking to the future again, he suggested 'to claim that Yarramundi is too distant, or to cite a bus company which questions service viability ... is to fossilise cultural expectations and transport systems.'(40)

The strength of the report's economic argument in favour of Acton Peninsula over Yarramundi Reach was called into question by the president of the Canberra Community Action on Acton group, Jack Kershaw, who suggested that the cost of building at Acton should include the $15m given by the former Labor Federal Government to the ACT for clearing the Acton site ('Add that to Acton and it becomes at least as expensive as Yarramundi Reach').(41)

It is expected that the Government will announce further funding for the National Museum in the May 1997 Budget and that the first stage of the museum will be completed by 2001 to help mark the centenary of Federation.(42) How much funding will be allocated in May and how much of the Museum will be completed by 2001 remains, however, unclear.

1. Museums in Australia 1975, Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections including the Report of the Planning Committee on the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, Canberra, 1975: 79.

2. ibid: 8.

3. ibid: 12.

4. ibid: 79.

5. Geoffrey Maslen, 'Hidden Treasures', The Bulletin, 12 December 1995: 28.

6. Budget Paper No1, 1993-1994: 3.143. See also theBudget Paper Press Release.

7. Canberra Times, 25 October 1993 and 6 November 1993.

8. Canberra Times, 27 January 1994.

9. Speech by the Prime Minister, the Hon P.J. Keating, MP, Opening the National Portrait Gallery and Inaugural exhibition "About Face: Aspects of Australian Portraiture", Old Parliament House 30 March 1994: 2.

10. ibid: 5.

11. 2001. A report from Australia, A report to the Council of Australian Governments by the Centenary of Federation Advisory Committee, August 1994: 80.

12. Canberra Times, 12 October 1994; Canberra Times, 13 October 1994.

13. Ibid.

14. Creative Nation, Commonwealth cultural policy, October 1994: 76.

15. Canberra Times, 19 October 1994.

16. Minister for Communications and the Arts, Minister for Tourism, the Hon. Michael Lee MP, News Release, 11 April 1995.

17. Kate Carnell, ACT Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Health and Community Services, Media Release, 11 April.

18. Marion Frith, 'Museum plan dogged by controversy', Age, 9 October 1995.

19. Australian, 9 November 1995.

20. Canberra Times, 27 September 1995.

21. Canberra Times, 27 September 1995.

22. Frith, op.cit.

23. Statement by the Prime Minister, the Hon P J Keating, MP, National Museum of Australia, 25 January 1996.

24. Canberra Times, 9 February 1996.

25. Canberra Times, 1 March 1996; Canberra Times, 2 April 1996.

26. Canberra Times, 16 February 1996.

27. Senator Richard Alston, Shadow Minister for Communications and the Arts, Press Release, 26 January 1996.

28. For example, Canberra Times, 15 June 1996.

29. Canberra Times, 1 March 1996.

30. Canberra Times, 27 May 1996.

31. Canberra Times, 18 August 1996.

32. Portfolio Budget Statement 1996-97, Communications and the Arts Portfolio, Budget Related Paper No.1.2: 23.

33. Report by the Advisory Committee on new facilities for the National Museum of Australia and ustralian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, December 1996: 8.

34. ibid.

35. ibid: 35.

36. Canberra Times, 4 January 1997.

37. David Ride, 'Economic reasoning is difficult to understand', Canberra Times, 4 January 1997.

38. John Mulvaney, 'A diminished vision of the National Museum', Canberra Times, 21 December .

39. John Mulvaney, 'Museum needs to look centuries on', Canberra Times, 21 January 1997.

40. ibid.

41. Canberra Times, 17 January 1997.

42. Canberra Times, 14 December 1996.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The National Museum of Australia - the history of a concept

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Major Issues Summary Introduction The 1970s-the original concept The 1980s-an enactment without enactment? 1993-a forward step? 1994 and 1995-a different vision? Early 1996-a new commitment? December 1996-the right decision? The idea of a National Museum of Australia has been around since Federation, but despite repeated promises from the major political parties to proceed with permanent National Museum facilities, a vast collection remains unexhibited.