1. Introduction
Conduct of the inquiry
1.1 The Senate referred the inquiry to the Committee on 26 November 1996.
The terms of reference are -
`The question of balancing public access with the principle of “user
pays” in order to defray the public costs of maintaining natural
and cultural heritage assets such as national parks and museums, with
particular consideration to issues of fairness and equity.'
1.2 The immediate prompt for the inquiry was public controversy over
the Government's then plan, announced as part of the August 1996 Budget,
to increase the Great Barrier Reef Environmental Management Charge (levied
on commercial tourist operators) from $1 to $6 per person on 1 January
1997. [1]
1.3 The Committee advertised the inquiry in capital city daily newspapers
on 7 December 1996. The Committee received 60 written submissions and
heard 83 witnesses representing 43 of the submissions at 10 hearings.
Details are in APPENDIX 1 and APPENDIX
2.
1.4 Throughout the inquiry, and this report, we have treated `museum'
as including `art museum' or `art gallery' (except where a distinction
between them is discussed, which should be obvious from the context).
We use `national park' to mean all protected areas, whatever their official
names, that are managed for nature conservation and public recreation.
[2]
Limits of the inquiry
1.5 There can be no access to heritage for anyone, at any price, unless
the heritage is conserved in the first place. Thus `access to heritage'
is inextricably tied to the adequacy of heritage conservation - and that
in turn implies the whole debate, which has been constantly running for
at least thirty years, about what is heritage, where its limits are, who
wants to conserve it and why, and what public resources should be provided
to help. [3]
1.6 This report will not try to review or improve on the vast literature
on these more general topics. We will remain fairly closely focused on
the terms of reference, as most of the submissions did. The general comments
in chapters 2 and 3 are intended
only to emphasise in principle this interrelationship of topics, and to
set the scene for the discussion of `user pays' in museums, art galleries
and national parks.
1.7 The subject of the report is user charges in museums, art galleries
and national parks (and to a small extent libraries), not the economics
of heritage conservation more broadly (such as historic building conservation).
The discussion of museums and national parks as `public goods' (explained
from paragraph 4.29) is not concerned with how many of them the
State should provide (which is the main focus of most analysis in the
literature of `public choice' economics); it is concerned with how, given
the present level of provision, the costs should be apportioned between
government subsidy and direct user contributions. [4]
1.8 The Committee relied for most of its information on written submissions
and evidence at hearings. The Committee did not have the staff resources
to undertake any significant independent research. A little independent
research among secondary sources was attempted where it seemed most important
(mostly, on the elasticity of demand for museums, galleries and national
parks). New primary research such as some submissions urged on the committee
is unfortunately quite impossible within the usual Senate Committee staff
resources (but suggestions may influence our recommendations to others).
We thank all those who helped with our requests for supplementary information.
1.9 The strength of the Committee's approach is in giving a snapshot
of the current state of opinion among a range of interest groups on a
public policy issue. Its weakness is that evidence tends to be anecdotal,
and references to wider research patchy.
1.10 In light of such limitations this report is mostly about attitudes
and ideas rather than statistics. Where examples refer to particular States
or institutions they are only examples: we have not been able to verify
whether they are typical situations Australia-wide. Where a question seems
to require, but lacks, broader independent evidence, our conclusions are
tentative. In so saying we do not for a moment denigrate the evidence
of particular examples. It is very important for setting the scene and
(often) suggesting a question. In a diverse world where ethical values
are important both quantitative and qualitative evidence should inform
public policy decisions.
Structure of the report
1.11 Chapter 2 briefly talks about the meaning
of `heritage' and why we wish to keep it. It concludes that access to
heritage should be a right of all Australians (all submissions agreed;
accordingly, supporters of user charges commonly added that charges should
be `modest' so as not to `significantly' discourage visitation). Chapter
2 also gives an overview of the status quo on user charges in museums,
galleries and national parks, and a précis of submissions to the
inquiry.
1.12 Chapter 3, to give context, describes some
constraints on access other than price. In particular, in the case of
museums and galleries it is well accepted that cultural barriers associated
with low socio-economic status are the most important factor discouraging
people from visiting. The question for this inquiry is how significant
entry fees are as an added disincentive working against museums' and galleries'
access and equity programs.
1.13 The rest of the report tries to put in some logical order the varied
interrelated arguments made on both sides. Entry fees for `basic access'
(`core services') are distinguished from user charges for extra services
(`value-added services'): among those who opposed entry fees most accepted
user charges for value-added services.
1.14 Chapter 4 considers what we call `arguments
of principle' for and against entry fees - arguments that lean on some
underlying concept of fairness and are made without regard to particular
places. The main ones were `We've already paid for these places through
our taxes' versus `It is reasonable to charge visitors an additional sum
to account for the private benefit they get from the visit.'
1.15 Chapter 5 considers arguments about economic
efficiency and overall community welfare - mainly `fees discourage potential
visitors.' Chapter 6 considers arguments about equity
- mainly `free entry is a subsidy by poorer nongoing taxpayers to richer
goers' versus `fees discourage poorer/ disadvantaged visitors.' These
arguments depend on the facts about the socio-economic profile of users
and the extent to which charges discourage them - facts that are probably
different from place to place and different between museums/galleries
and national parks. The Committee's strongest conclusion, on the evidence,
is that museum/gallery entry fees may lead to a significant drop in visitation
which represents a deadweight loss of community welfare and is unlikely
to ameliorate any equity problems.
1.16 Chapter 7 considers various arguments of detail
about user charges generally; including arguments for providing free `core
services/basic access' and charging for `value-added services'. We conclude
that distinguishing core services from value-added services is not a matter
of fact or logic, but rather depends on society's value judgment about
the desirable extent of free access.
1.17 Chapter 8 summarises the Committee's views.
Treatment of museums, art galleries and national parks
1.18 Most submissions were either by national park authorities and nature
conservation groups, who spoke about national parks and similar protected
areas; or by museum/ gallery managers and related professional bodies,
who spoke about museums and art galleries. [5]
1.19 There are obvious correlations between these areas. For example,
the argument that relying on national park entry fees encourages managers
to pay more attention to visible developments at the expense of nature
conservation correlates with the argument that relying on museum/gallery
entry fees encourages managers to pay more attention to `popular' shows
at the expense of the core function of conservation and education.
1.20 But there are also some noteworthy differences. The effect of an
entry fee on demand may well be different in national parks from museums
and galleries (see paragraph 5.49 and following). Some witnesses obviously
regarded the private benefit versus the community benefit of a visit as
different in national parks (more recreation?) from museum and galleries
(more education?) (see paragraph 3.10). Submissions that tried to speak
of national parks and museums/galleries in the same breath, without treating
these differences, sometimes sounded strained.
1.21 On balance the Committee considers that the similarities outweigh
the differences. Accordingly the report deals with museums, galleries
and national parks together under each heading. The overriding similarity
(which the report's structure is intended to emphasise) is that they are
all `things we want to keep': they are conserved and managed at public
expense primarily because of their heritage value, not because of any
commercial value or cost recovery potential which they may also happen
to have.
Treatment of libraries and archives
1.22 The effect of `user pays' policies on public libraries and archives
is a related and very important topic. A few submissions mentioned it,
and most arguments correlate to arguments on museums/galleries or national
parks. For example, the oft-put distinction between `core services/basic
access' (which, according to the typical argument, should be free) and
`value-added services' (which may be charged for) applies (see paragraph
7.3). The arguments about community benefits versus private benefits apply
(see paragraph 4.25ff). The cost of computerising library information,
the ethics of charging for it as a `value-added' service, and the risk
that paid access to library computers will gradually oust free access
to books, as the books go out of print, is a most important issue (see
paragraph 7.10ff).
1.23 However, the Committee has not tried to deal with user pays in libraries
and archives in any detail. We received few submissions about libraries,
and we hesitate to comment without more submissions from the `library
community' on what is probably a contentious matter. As well, the equity
issues discussed in chapter 6 are distinctly different
in the case of libraries, because the socio-economic profile of public
library users, on average, is lower than that of museum and gallery visitors,
[6] and because free `basic access' is well
accepted.
1.24 For these reasons `user pays' and access to public libraries
and archives deserves separate treatment. To keep the present inquiry
manageable comments in this report are minimal.
RECOMMENDATION 1
1.25 The Committee recommends that the Department of Communications
and the Arts, in consultation with State/ Territory authorities, local
government and relevant peak bodies, should sponsor research into the
effect of user charges on access and equity in libraries and archives.
Footnotes
[1] After consultation with the tourist industry
the Government amended its plan. The Environmental Management Charge was
increased to $2 per visitor per day from 1 January 1997 and to $4 (with
various concessions) from 1 April 1998.
[2] A definition of `national park' officially
used Australia-wide is: `...a relatively large area set aside for its
features of predominantly unspoiled natural landscape, flora and fauna,
permanently dedicated for public enjoyment, education and inspiration,
and protected from all interference other than essential management practices,
so that its natural attributes are preserved.' Categories of `other parks
and reserves' vary widely from State to State. Wescott G C, `Australia's
distinctive national park system', Environmental Conservation vol.
18 no. 4 winter 1991, p331ff
[3] National parks, `National Trust' type historic
building conservation, and public libraries and museums first appeared,
or had their first significant growth, in the second half of the 19th
century (community-based Mechanics' Institutes and Schools of Arts also
flourished at this time but are now mostly extinct). In Australia a burgeoning
of `heritage consciousness' took place in the 1960s and 70s, and was reflected
in the Hope report on the national estate (1974) and the Pigott report
on museums (1975). Hope R M, Report of the National Estate, Canberra
1974; Pigott P H, Museums in Australia 1975: report of the Committee
of inquiry..., Canberra 1975. As for national parks: `Most Australian
States declared their first national parks in the latter quarter of the
last century... These critical declarations were followed by a slow accumulation
of parks and reserves through to 1968. The pace of acquisition then quickened
dramatically with an eight-fold expansion in the total area of national
parks between 1968 and 1990...' Wescott G C, `Australia's distinctive
national park system', Environmental Conservation vol. 18 no. 4
winter 1991, p331ff
[4] These matters naturally interact, since
reduced government subsidy, if direct users are unwilling to pick up the
tab, will lead to reduced use and then, perhaps, reduced provision. But
the `perhaps' is important: for various reasons museum and national park
provision may not be easy to truncate at the margin. See paragraph 5.22ff.
[5] The relative absence from this inquiry of
community-based support groups concerned with museums and galleries, comparable
to nature conservation groups and national parks associations, is interesting.
[6] `The public library... has a much more demotic
user profile than museums, art galleries etc. It is also clear that, beyond
a certain point, use of public libraries decreases with education...
This is not because reading declines among the tertiary educated... However,
their reading habits are more likely to be supported by other means: by
buying books rather than borrowing them, or by using State or university
libraries.' Bennett T, `Consuming culture, measuring access, and audience
development', Culture and Policy vol. 8 no. 1, 1997, p23 [italics
added]
Top
|