2. Overview
Defining heritage: `things we want to keep'
2.1 `Heritage' has been aptly defined as `things we want to keep' [1]
- things that we have inherited, and wish our children to inherit in turn.
To use the definition of the `national estate' in the Australian Heritage
Commission Act 1975:
`...those places, being components of the natural environment of Australia
or the cultural environment of Australia that have aesthetic, historic,
scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations
as well as for the present community.' (Australian Heritage
Commission Act 1975, section 4(1))
2.2 That definition was made for heritage places, which are the
business of the Register of the National Estate, but when read up to include
things other than `places' it applies well enough generally. It includes
the key concept of conserving for future generations as well as providing
value to the present generation (the need for compromise when these conflict
- typically, when there is a need to limit access to fragile items - is
a commonplace among heritage professionals and was mentioned in several
submissions to this inquiry). The catch-all phrase `other special value'
allows for the fact that what is heritage is not a matter of scientific
objectivity, but rather of community attitudes: if enough people think
something is heritage, for whatever reasons, it is. [2]
Community attitudes can and do change over time: what was not valued as
heritage a decade or a generation ago may be valued as heritage today,
as with passing time the merely old becomes interestingly antique, or
because of raised consciousness about different types of things. The 19th
century national park movement, for example, was focused on public recreation;
nature conservation as a goal in its own right came much later. [3]
2.3 The Department of Communications and the Arts suggests that Australia's
heritage includes -
intangible heritage, such as song, dance, stories and beliefs
Commonwealth, State/Territory, local government, non-government and private
sector museum collections
Commonwealth, State/Territory and local government libraries [we would
add `and archives']
National Trust properties
natural and cultural places listed in on statutory lists (such as the
Register of the National Estate, state registers)
natural and cultural places listed on non-statutory lists (such as National
Trust Registers)
nature reserves, conservation parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas
and fossil reserves
world heritage properties.
(Dept of Communications and the Arts, submission 50 p437)
2.4 Such a listing emphasises the range of ownerships and administrative
arrangements, which is salutary - in particular, it makes the important
point that many, perhaps most `heritage' things are in private ownership
(the different problems of providing public access to these was raised
in several submissions). A point to emphasise in relation to official
lists such as heritage registers is that they are not exhaustive: there
are heritage places that are not officially recognised, just as there
are heritage objects that are not held in museums. Official recognition
comes later, and is done because of heritage value; official recognition
does not create the heritage value.
Things may have multiple values and uses
2.5 In a diverse world almost any categorisation of things has overlappings
and grey areas at the edges. The above listing emphasises that heritage
is found in many places and many institutions; as well many of these have
other functions apart from conserving heritage. Libraries serve many current
information needs; museums do scientific research; historic buildings
provide shelter; natural conservation areas may be important for downstream
water quality, and so on. The importance of heritage conservation and
other functions differs greatly in different situations. Some of
the information in libraries is heritage; most of the information
in public archives (let us assume) and probably all of the contents
of museums. Similarly in respect of the public's use of heritage assets:
people's experience may involve the `heritage' characteristics of the
place to a greater or lesser degree. A visitor to a national park may
be in search of oneness with nature, or simply a picnic on the grass;
a visitor to the local library may pick up the works of Henry Lawson or
a glossy magazine. Often in practice (although these examples are chosen
to look black and white for the sake of the argument) a distinction between
`heritage' and `non-heritage' uses or experiences may be either inappropriate
or immeasurable. In this inquiry the implications of this were closest
to the surface in arguments over the place of education versus entertainment
in museums and galleries, and in calculating the private benefit deriving
from recreational visits to museums/galleries and national parks.
2.6 These practical differences and multiple functions imply different
policies on access, and different public attitudes to rights of access,
in respect of different types of heritage. For example: many heritage
objects are held in publicly owned museums; this gives the public the
opportunity to have access and a sense of a right to access; it
also gives the operator the opportunity to charge for access, and so causes
debate about whether the operator should charge for access. By
contrast, most heritage buildings are in private ownership: public `access'
is free by viewing from the street, generally impossible otherwise (and
this is accepted without complaint); where properties are set up for closer
inspection (usually by non-profit co-operatives such as National Trusts
or local historical societies) a charge is almost always made, and is
never questioned. People's attitudes about right of access may be different
again in relation to national parks. [4]
2.7 A point not well captured by lists like that quoted in paragraph
2.7, or by referring simply to `wide public acclaim' as the definer of
`heritage', is that `the community' is not a homogenous mass. Some people
value as heritage things that other do not; some things are valued by
different people or different groups for different reasons. [5]
Conflict arises when these differences suggest different management policies
- as for example, when landowners abutting the alpine national parks of
NSW and Victoria say that grazing cattle in the high country (contrary
to management for nature conservation) is part of their heritage.
[6] Heritage professionals' shorthand for this
is `conflicting values', though the term is slightly confusing: `values'
in themselves do not conflict; different management options that different
values suggest may conflict. The point may be relevant to policies on
access - for example, when compromises must be found between the demands
of walkers and four wheel drivers in national parks.
2.8 In particular, indigenous people value sacred sites or objects, and
their `country' in general, for reasons very different from the reasons
of white visitors or collectors. Some submissions to this inquiry spoke
of `white sacred sites' to emphasise that white people too may have a
deep spiritual or emotional attachment to places of their heritage. [7]
For that purpose the image is effective, but we hesitate to use it too
freely since it may tend to gloss over the very different relationship
that indigenous people have to their land.
All forms of heritage conservation are part of a single endeavour
2.9 We mention all this to emphasise that our heritage includes many
things, tangible and intangible, and to emphasise the underlying unity
of purpose of the heritage conservation endeavour in all its superficially
different forms. The present report focuses on museums, art galleries
and national parks not because they are more special than other sorts
of heritage, but because, for practical and philosophical reasons, they
are where the debate over user pays is located. The main practical reason
is that, by and large, it is possible to exclude non-payers, making it
possible to charge - by contrast with viewing historic buildings from
the street, for example. The main philosophical reason is that these things
are usually in public ownership, giving rise to the `we've-already-paid-through-our-taxes'
argument (see paragraph 4.10) - by contrast with the situation of privately
owned house museums.
Why conserve heritage?
2.10 Why do we want to keep these things? The answer can be expressed
in many ways:
`Cultural heritage material and information is a national asset in so
many tangible and intangible ways. It enriches people's experience and
understanding. It reflects the community's sense of cultural identity....'
(National Association for the Visual Arts, submission 34 p276)
`With the decline in traditional religious attendance, the decline in
rural village life and the changing structure of families, museums and
national parks have come to function in part as cultural keeping places
of social memory and natural processes...' (J Lennon, submission 13 p111)
`...the record of the achievements and struggles of ordinary people,
in creating a life of peace, security, justice and well-being in this
continent.' (Dr C Nobbs, submission 39 p333)
2.11 More instrumental or pragmatic reasons for conserving heritage come
along for the ride: `developing intellectual capital' [8];
`a rich database of information which is used by a range of researchers...'
[9] The contribution of `the cultural industries'
to the economy, and the importance of heritage in earning tourists' dollars,
are often put forward. [10] But we should never
forget that the fundamental reasons for conserving these `things we want
to keep' are spiritual and emotional: a sense of belonging and cultural
identity, a sense of tradition, a sense of humanity, a wonder at nature
and oneness with nature.
`We can show them the heritage. We can show them song by song and tell
them how far they have to go with the song...We do not have paper. We
have stories.... They are the things that I teach my grandchildren to
memorise... You have to learn your culture properly.' (M Stuart, Central
Land Council, evidence 3 July 1997 p200)
Heritage conservation is not about current utility or commercial value
2.12 However these reasons are expressed, their fundamental commonality
is that they are not to do with current utility or commercial value.
If there is also commercial value (such as tourism in natural areas; the
value of a historic house as shelter) or other utility that perhaps cannot
be captured in markets (such as water quality in natural area catchments;
scientific discoveries from museum specimens), so much the better - providing
these benefits can be captured without detriment to the heritage values
which are the primary reason for conservation. [11]
2.13 Expressed thus in black and white, the argument naturally glosses
over the grey areas that are the constant concern of heritage managers
in the real world. What if a great deal of current utility can be gained
at the expense of only a little detriment to heritage values? What if
a big boost to tourist income can be obtained with only a little encroachment
on the national park? What if a modest unsympathetic alteration is necessary
so that the historic house can continue to be habitable? What if the museum
specimen must be destroyed for the scientific experiment - but the experiment
is an important one?
2.14 There are no objective answers to these questions. They depend on
people's feelings about how important the thing is, how valuable the other
benefits, how great the detriment. These things cannot be quantified rigorously.
People may have different feelings about any of them - for example, different
people have different feelings about the importance of keeping places
pristine or unspoilt. [12] These questions
are the stuff of conservation versus development disputes every week,
and resolving them is essentially a political matter.
Priority must go to fundamental conservation goals
2.15 Nevertheless, the Committee thinks it is important always to keep
in mind the basic principle of priority to fundamental conservation goals.
This is important as a precautionary approach: heritage, once destroyed
or sullied, can rarely be recovered. As well, it is important for avoiding
the tyranny of little decisions, whereby incremental developments - perhaps
done under the aegis of improving access - end up destroying the attractions
for which the place was set up in the first place. In the case of national
parks, we can read cautionary tales from other parts of the world. [13]
Submissions to the inquiry generally did not see this as a significant
problem in Australia - yet. But in the longer term the risk is real, particularly
for the few most significant and most popular places, where the results
of overdevelopment would be most tragic.
2.16 This risk is relevant to our topic of `user pays' through the argument,
which many submissions made, that reliance on cost recovery through user
charges will encourage inappropriate developments in order to maximise
income (see paragraph 7.53). It is relevant particularly because most
of the places we are considering are in public ownership and are conserved
at public expense for the benefit of the community as a whole (including
future generations). [14] If a place is in
private ownership and the owner wishes to make money from its beauty or
its history, we may grant that it is the owner's private, profit-maximising
decision whether to niche market an exclusive experience or to mass market
a degraded experience; and if foolish development destroys the place's
appeal, and customers go elsewhere, we may call it simply bad business
management. [15] But a public authority entrusted
with managing public heritage property at public expense does not have
the right to act in a profit-maximising way at the expense of degrading
heritage values, because that is not the purpose for which the community
has entrusted the place to it. In managing a national park or a public
museum or art gallery, a percentage of cost recovery from user charges
may sometimes be possible without detriment; but management must not be
primarily about cost recovery.
The right of access to heritage
2.17 The view that heritage is `special', and heritage values are not
expressed in money and markets, leads naturally to the view that access
to heritage should be a birthright of all. Markets are where the poor
are excluded; heritage is not traded in markets; the poor should not be
excluded. [16] Heritage is about cultural identity;
cultural identity is intrinsically to do with group identity and
shared values; all Australians should be able to share.
`The things we want to keep should not be kept for any reasons other
than to be seen, enjoyed and uplifting of the human spirit. Their quality
is part of being Australian and all our people should be free to enjoy
them.' (Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia, submission 55 p519-520)
2.18 In statements like this the premise - `uplifting of the human spirit'
as the purpose of heritage conservation - leads easily and unconsciously
to the conclusion - access should be a right of all - without any need
being felt for further justification. By implication, where heritage is
in public ownership access to it should be considered a public service
available to all, like access to public education or health care.
2.19 The Committee agrees. Access to heritage is a right of all Australians.
Almost all submissions agreed: supporters of user charges invariably added
that charges should not be so high as to discourage visitation. [17]
Some argued strongly for using charges to improve management of the resource,
but no-one took this to the logical extreme of saying that charges should
be set to maximise income - an approach which could lead to far fewer
visitors paying charges much higher than those usual now. [18]
2.20 Of course, what the motherhood statement means on the ground is
the stuff of the user pays debate, as well as several other debates on
other aspects of `access' - the need for affirmative action programs to
encourage people whose cultural scene does not include visiting museums
and galleries; the need for special programs for country people; the right
balance between wide access and fundamental conservation charters, where
these conflict; the different implications of `access' for indigenous
people and other minorities; what is a reasonable amount of public planning
control over heritage properties in private hands.
User charges in museums, galleries and national parks: the status quo
User charges in national parks
2.21 The extent of `user pays' in national parks varies greatly around
Australia. The position is summarised in the APPENDIX
4, which is extracts from the Queensland Department of Environment's
report for ANZECC, Benchmarking and Best Practice Program: user pays
revenue, 1996. Some states have a fixed entry fee for all national
parks; others charge in some places but not others, or have fees that
vary from place to place depending on the facilities offered (`This appears
to be well accepted by the public, and may assist in their perception
of paying for a product rather than for the right to be on the land -
an important philosophical difference' [19]).
Queensland and the Northern Territory charge no entry fees, but have various
`value-adding' charges such as camping fees; ACT has entry fees at one
site only. There are a variety of schemes for charging for `extra' services
such as formed camping areas. There are various types of multi-visit passes
and various approaches to offering concessions for families, children,
pensioners, or local residents. Typical methods of collection include
ticketing in advance, tollbooths, roving staff at campgrounds and honesty
boxes. Charges are mostly in the region of $3 to $10 per person or per
car for entry, similarly per person or per site for camping. By and large
it seems that decisions on how much to charge are based on local experience,
intuition and political pressure more than on clear knowledge of people's
willingness to pay. [20]
2.22 The Committee has little overview information on cost recovery through
user charges in national parks comparable to that mentioned for museums
and galleries just below. As examples only: in 1991/2 user pays revenue,
averaged across five world heritage areas (Great Barrier Reef, Wet Tropics,
Kakadu, Uluru and Tasmanian wilderness) was 8.5 per cent of total costs.
[21] The Australian Nature Conservation Agency,
managing national parks in the territories, in 1995-96 had expenditure
of $45.6 million on `conservation through reserves' and revenue of $6.5
million in park fees. [22] In New South Wales,
1996-97, user charges revenue was about 9 per cent of relevant costs.
[23] In Victoria, 1995-96, expenses associated
with managing land declared under the National Parks Act 1975 were
$32.1 million, and revenue $3.7 million. [24]
In Queensland, 1996-97, user-pays revenue associated with protected areas
and recreation areas represented 14 per cent of expenditure on the estate.
[25] The Australian Capital Territory levies
entry fees at only one site, and predicts that this will recover about
10 per cent of costs associated with that site in 1997-98. [26]
The Western Australia Department of Conservation and Land Management (which
charges fees at 25 of its 63 national parks) says that `…revenue
from user fees in [WA] national parks amounts to approximately 10 per
cent of the overall costs of maintaining and providing facilities.' All
such figures should be quoted cautiously, as they may not be comparing
like with like. Differences may include different characteristics of different
states' national park estate, different out-of-park statutory responsibilities,
and different ways of defining budgetary programs and accounting for overheads.
2.23 The Western Australia Department of Conservation and Land Management
also comments, `The proportion of expenses in individual parks which are
recovered by fees varies significantly, according to the size of the park
and its infrastructure requirements, and its visitation levels. Comments
by other national park agencies echo this. [27]
User charges in museums and art galleries
2.24 In 1993 the Australia Council surveyed the 271 museums and public
art galleries in Australia which had paid staff. Among the 198 respondents,
about 50 per cent charged general admission fees. The practice is more
common with museums than with art galleries. Many museums and galleries
introduced entry fees in the 1970s and 80s, but this includes not only
older places introducing fees but also places that opened during those
years and charged entry fees from the start. Many museums and galleries
did open during those years, and a point of interest which the Australia
Council's published figures do not show is whether those introducing entry
fees were predominantly the new starters. [28]
Overall the proportion of respondents that charged entry fees increased
from about a third in 1978 to about half in 1993. [29]
See APPENDIX 5.
2.25 A variant is the `strongly encouraged donation':
`If you go into that museum [Metropolitan Museum of Art] in New York,
they say that entry is free but you would not want to walk in there without
one of those little stickers that they invite you to pay for on the way
in... You would feel so exposed...' (T O'Loughlin, Arts South Australia,
evidence 2 July 1997 p146)
2.26 The Committee has no information on the extent of this practice
in Australia. [30]
2.27 According to Australia Council surveys, over the period 1988-89
to 1993-94 average cost recovery from entry fees (including regular door
charges and charges for special exhibitions or special events) has increased
from 6 per cent to 12 per cent for `larger' museums (30 or more paid staff)
and from 4 per cent to 9 per cent for larger galleries. [31]
Whether the increases arise from places introducing charges for the first
time, or increasing existing charges, is not shown. The figures are averages
for the whole of the Australia Council's museum and gallery `larger' groups
respectively, which include free entry institutions. The average cost
recovery from entry fees among the institutions which charge entry
fees must be higher: how much higher cannot be calculated from the
Australia Council's figures. [32] As well,
any average figure probably conceals significant differences between different
institutions. According to the Australian Museum, among museums that charge
entry fees (whether general entry fees or fees for special exhibitions)
the proceeds varies from 5-75 per cent of total income. [33]
2.28 The Committee has no more detailed information on the profile of
charges in museums and galleries comparable to the ANZECC report on national
parks mentioned above. The anecdotal evidence suggests that most charges
in larger museums/galleries are in the region of $5-10. In context of
the argument that cultural barriers to access are more important than
money it is often pointed out that `...in all of the societies that we
are aware of, entry charges are nowhere set higher, and are often lower
than, the average ticket price to the cinema.' [34]We
have the impression that, as with national parks, the size of charges
is more often influenced by ad hoc pressures and intuitions than by clear
knowledge of people's willingness to pay: [35]
`What tends to happen in these places is that they lick the finger, put
it up in the air and say, “What do you think might be acceptable?”
“I don't know. Eight or ten bucks.” “Let's whack that on
and see what happens and the government can pick up the rest.”' (G
Morris, Museum of Victoria, evidence 15 September 1997 p415)
2.29 The Committee has no information on the user charging profile of
the 1,500-odd museums and galleries around Australia which have no paid
staff. Research in this sector is notoriously hard because of the impermanent
character and shoe-string administration of many of these volunteer-run
operations.
The `trend' to user pays
2.30 Many submissions referred (whether with approval or disapproval)
to the `trend' to greater cost recovery of these public institutions through
user charges. Many referred in the same breath to `budgetary pressures'.
The Committee has no doubt that the underlying reason for these pressures
is the broader trend to `user pays' in government businesses that has
been dominant over the last decade.
2.31 On the other hand, the polarisation of opinions in this inquiry
suggests that debate over the wisdom of `user pays' in museums, galleries
and national parks is still very much alive, not only amongst user groups
(who one would expect to dislike user charges) but also within governments
and management authorities. Here we must distinguish charges for `value-added
services' (generally accepted, with the proviso that deciding what services
should be called `value-added' may not be obvious: see paragraph 7.3ff)
from charges for `core services/basic access' (that is, entry fees: still
controversial). Based on the evidence of the inquiry the Committee would
call charging entry fees not exactly a `trend' (with the connotation of
inexorable advance) but rather an option which some have embraced and
others consciously rejected.
2.32 Some national park authorities charge entry fees, others, as a matter
of policy, do not. [36] Some major state museums
have imposed entry fees in recent years; [37]
others have deliberately refrained; [38] and
some have removed them. [39] (Whether such
decisions are made freely by boards of management, or are directed from
higher in government, may vary from place to place.) We have noted that
the proportion of museums and galleries with paid staff that charge entry
fees has risen from about a third to about half over the last twenty years;
but whether it will continue to rise at the same rate over the next 20
years is impossible to predict from history alone. [40]
2.33 The Committee suspects that where user charges have been introduced,
more often than not they have been driven more by government demands for
more cost recovery, and management's intuition about what level of charge
would be `acceptable', than by orderly prediction of the effects they
would have on access and equity. [41] The philosophical
debate over the rightness of charging for basic access to public cultural
institutions and national parks is still very much alive.
Overview of submissions
2.34 There were no predictable factions in the submissions. They did
not divide into governments and management authorities in favour of user
charges, and user groups against. In relation to entry fees, some site
managers were in favour, some against; some government agencies were in
favour, some against; some non-government interest groups were in favour,
some against. In respect of both national parks and museums/galleries
there were advocates on both sides. To oversimplify the arguments elaborated
in the rest of the report, the most common argument in favour was the
opportunity to use the revenue for better management; the most common
argument against was a philosophical commitment to free access.
2.35 Most who opposed general entry fees accepted the concept of user
charges for value-added services, usually with conditions, of which the
most prominent were:
retaining the money for the purposes of the organisation
safeguards to prevent management from becoming biased towards making money
at the expense of fundamental conservation/ education goals
charges to be `modest' so as not to discourage visitation
acknowledging that in general such `modest' charges cannot earn more than
a small percentage of total costs, and the place must remain primarily
taxpayer funded in recognition of its community benefits. [42]
2.36 However, the boundary between core services and value-added services
is not necessarily obvious - user pays advocates tending to call more
things value-added, free entry advocates tending to call more things `core'
(roads or `basic camping' areas in national parks, for example).
2.37 Most submissions supporting user charges said they should be `modest'
so as not to discourage use, and accepted that in general we cannot expect
more than a small proportion of cost recovery through charges. Hardly
any ventured to suggest particular numbers. Given the diverse circumstances
of different places, this is prudent, and the Committee will not try to
suggest particular numbers either. It is the principles for decision-making
that are important. To set up arbitrary cost recovery targets is fundamentally
in conflict with the principle of setting charges for these public institutions
at a level that will not inhibit the public's use of them. Note also that
the oft-put principle of `modest charges so as not to discourage visitation'
depends on the assumption that at low prices elasticity of demand is low
(and presumably, rises at higher prices). If even modest charges
do discourage visitation, the claimed principle, and the case for
user charges, is severely undermined (see paragraph 5.52 and following).
2.38 The submissions focused on major institutions in public ownership,
and had little information on heritage conservation in the private sector,
or on the `user pays' profile of the 1,500-odd museums and galleries in
Australia, mainly small local museums, which have no paid staff. The Committee
considers that smaller museums and galleries have an important place in
our cultural life and this omission is unfortunate. [43]
The Committee recommends further research to fill this gap.
RECOMMENDATION 2
2.39 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
influence of `user pays' on access and equity in the regional, local and
volunteer-operated museum and gallery sector.
Footnotes
[1] Hope R M, Report of the National Estate,
Canberra 1974, p20
[2] This `wide public acclaim' criterion is
a sufficient but not a necessary criterion of heritage. In other cases
we may allow the opinion of a few experts to prevail. If scientists assure
us that an item has scientific value, or if historians assure us that
a place has historic value, we are likely to accept it. This of course
depends on a more fundamental community consensus that doing science or
doing history, even if we do not all do it, are worthwhile activities
in a civilised society.
[3] `The first national parks were not established
for reasons of conservation, except to the extent that the landscape aesthetics
and sensibilities of the elite who were the first tourists to such areas
were to be met. Ecology was only a minor consideration; indeed, up until
the Second World War grazing, hunting and timber cutting were relatively
common in national parks and reserves.' Hall C M & McArthur S, Heritage
Management in Australia and New Zealand: the human dimension, OUP,
Melbourne 1996, p128
[4] `There is a strong Australian cutural tradition
of free public access to public lands...' Environment Australia, submission
46 p397.
[5] In the limiting case, a souvenir or family
heirloom may have high heritage value to one or two people and none at
all to anyone else.
[6] Australia ICOMOS, submission 48 p429.
[7] For example, D Chinner, submission 1 p7
[8] National Association for the Visual Arts,
submission 34 p277
[9] Prof D Dolan & Dr A Witcombe, submission
18 p157
[10] for example, National Association for
the Visual Arts, submission 34 p277; Department of Industry, Science and
Tourism, submission 26 p218; Government of the Northern Territory, submission
41 p355
[11] It might be argued that the `utility'
of heritage is simply the user's enjoyment of it. This formulation is
logically acceptable, but implies a different value system. It implies
that scanning the pictures in an art gallery is an experience of `enjoyment'
no different in type from scanning the magazine covers on a newsagent's
rack. This misses the extra emotional, spiritual or communal dimension
of the heritage experience, which should be contrasted with the utility
of things in everyday life (this theme is picked up from paragraph 4.41).
It also tends to downplay the interests of future generations.
[12] In this inquiry this was most obvious
in comparing submissions from nature conservation groups, who ranged across
the spectrum in the amount of development they regarded as acceptable
in national parks.
[13] `Overcrowding - including daunting lines
of cars and campers - strains `superstar' parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite
and Great Smoky Mountains.' CQ Researcher [USA], vol. 3 No. 20,
May 1993, p459
[14] From the public expense we subtract direct
user charges, if any; but submissions were unanimous that user charges
can rarely be more than a small proportion of total management costs.
[15] Where such a privately owned place has
a level of heritage significance warranting public recognition (as is
common) it raises the question of how much public control and regulation
is reasonable - an important question but not part of this inquiry, whose
focus is the publicly owned places where the user pays debate is located.
[16] Heritage values are sometimes expressed
in markets - as when an authentically restored house fetches a higher
price.
[17] Any charge may be expected to discourage
visitation to some degree. The more cautious supporters of user charges
said that charges should not be so high as to `significantly' discourage
visitation. The statement contains assumptions about the price elasticity
of demand (considered from paragraph 5.7) and the qualification `significantly'
is important. A special case is where charges are proposed to mitigate
congestion or to ration access to fragile areas - on this there were arguments
on both sides (see paragraph 7.107ff).
[18] Income could be maximised by much higher
prices if elasticity of demand at present prices is low. This is probably
the case in some more popular national parks, and is probably not
the case in most museums. See chapter 5, paragraph
5.3 and following.
[19] Queensland National Parks & Wildlife
Service & Department of Environment, Benchmarking and Best Practice
Program: user pays revenue, report for ANZECC September 1996 p17
[20] For example: `All we can do is recommend
what we think is appropriate... our recommendations might generally be
higher than the political level of tolerance... the level of fees that
is set is probably an average out of all the different forces that are
on people...' G Wellard (Queensland Dept of Environment), evidence 21
May 1997 p101. The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service
has made several recent studies estimating people's willingness to pay
for particular national parks; see APPENDIX 6. The
Committee is not aware of any retrospective research which would compare
the estimates of such studies with the actual results of acting upon their
estimates.
[21] Driml S & Common M, `Economic and
financial benefits of tourism in major proteced areas', Australian
Journal of Environmental Management vol. 2 March 1995, p27
[22] The `conservation through reserves' program
includes some off-park activities. Australian Nature Conservation Agency,
Annual Report 1995-96, p12,140
[23] This percentage sums annual and day entry,
camping fees, `miscellaneous fees' and `minor user charges' (but excludes
lease and rental of premises $5.8 million): total $14.0 million; set against
the total expenditure of program 2 (broadly, environmental management)
and program 3 (broadly, visitor services): $65.4 million + $90.9 million
= $156.3 million. Program 2 includes some statutory responsibilities (protected
species, Aboriginal heritage) which are not limited to the Service's land.
New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service, Annual Report
1996-97, pp118,125
[24] [Victorian] National Parks Service, Annual
Report 1995-96, p16. The revenue is not further explained.
[25] Revenue from `camping, commercial activity
use, guided tours and other special access': $5.3 million; operational
expenditure $29.5 million, capital expenditure $7.1 million. Queensland
Department of Environment, additional information 15 December 1997 p6.
[26] Environment ACT, additional information
16 October 1997 p4
[27] Western Australia Department of Conservation
and Land Management, additional information 31 October 1997, p2. Queensland
Department of Environment, additional information 15 December 1997 p7
[28] Of the 237 museums and galleries with
paid staff for which dates are known, 86 per cent were established after
1960 and 46 per cent were established in the 1980s. Spring J, Museums
1993: art museums, museums and public galleries in Australia, Australia
Council research paper no. 12, May 1994, p1
[29] Spring J, Museums 1993: Art Museums,
Museums and Public Galleries in Australia, Australia Council research
paper no. 12, May 1994, p6ff
[30] At the Australian War Memorial, Canberra:
`...a donations display was erected in the Memorial's introductory gallery
on 9 October 1995 that informs visitors about the Memorial's activities
and the need for increased resources to support the continuation of these
activities. Visitors are asked to assist by making a voluntary admission
donation prior to their visit to the gallery areas. this has raised annual
visitor donations from approx. $80,000 to approx $200,000. This return
is well below projections of an entrance fee ($1.4million).' Australian
War Memorial, submission 23 p202
[31] Spring J, Museums 1994: Art Museums,
Museums and Public Galleries in Australia, Australia Council research
paper no. 14, June 1995, p2,13
[32] How much higher cost recovery from fees
is among fee-charging institutions as a sub-group, compared with the total
census, depends on whether the fee-charging sub-group tend to be the bigger
or smaller places - a point which is not shown.
[33] Australian Museum, submission 30 p242
[34] Prof. T Bennett, evidence 21 May 1997
p78
[35] This is consistent with the evidence below
of situations where entry fees have caused unexpectedly high drops
in visitation. See paragraph 5.54.
[36] Queensland Department of Environment,
submission 28 p228; Government of the Northern Territory, submission 41
p355
[37] For example, Australian Museum [Sydney],
Powerhouse Museum [Sydney], Museum of Victoria, all in 1991-2.
[38] For example, Art Gallery of New South
Wales, Museum of South Australia (submission 38 p319), Museum of Western
Australia (submission 53 p464), Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (submission
21, p178ff), Queensland Museum (evidence 21 May 1997 p111), Queensland
Art Gallery (evidence 21 May 1997 p119)
[39] National Gallery of Victoria and Newcastle
Regional Museum, from 1 July 1996; Otago Museum - see paragraph 5.55.
[40] Apart from the vagaries of fashion in
public policy, the question involves knowing to what extent the newly
charging places are the newly opening places, and observing the rate at
which new museums and galleries continue to open.
[41] The public's willingness to pay for entry
to museums, art galleries and national parks (as distinct from response
to actual charges) is discussed from paragraph 5.3 below. The information
appears to be patchy for national parks, and minimal for museums and art
galleries.
[42] Higher cost recovery may be possible in
exceptional cases where the site has rare attractions and price elasticity
of demand is low. How much management should aim to profit from this situation
by loading up charges was debated - see paragraphs 7.33ff and 7.95ff.
[43] `In the last fifteen years hundreds of
small museums have been founded as a result of quickening interest in
Australian history. This has been primarily a grassroots movement, one
of the most unexpected and vigorous cultural movements in Australia in
this century. Its strength lies outside the capital cities...' Pigott
P H, Museums in Australia 1975: report of the Committee of Inquiry...Canberra
1975, p21
Top
|