8. Conclusions
8.1 We now try to draw together the key elements of the discussion. The
Committee suggests that decisions on user charges for publicly funded
museums, galleries and national parks need to consider the following hierarchy
of questions:
8.2 1. Are there powerful emotional or symbolic reasons why access ought
to be free of charge, as a fundamental value statement? (chapter
4)
8.3 It may be argued that free entry powerfully symbolises the fact that
the value of these places is not measured in money. It may be argued that
imposing charges, however little, is objectionable in principle because
it degrades the community standing of the place as a public institution
and changes us, when we visit, from citizens to customers (paragraph 4.45ff).
A prime case was the community outrage at the imposition of entry fees
in the museum galleries of the Australian War Memorial in 1991. The question
may be posed separately in respect of entry fees and charges for value-added
services, and the answer may well be that entry ought to be free while
extras may be charged for. [1]
8.4 If a proposal to impose charges passes this hurdle, the next question
is:
8.5 2. If an entry fee is not objectionable for fundamental symbolic
reasons, is it still objectionable because it excessively discourages
use (particularly by poorer or disadvantaged people (chapters
5 and 6)
8.6 This question refers to the discussion of elasticity of demand: how
much does an entry fee discourage visitors? Museums, galleries and national
parks are (in respect of most of their benefits) textbook `public goods':
where demand is elastic, discouraged would-be visitors represents a deadweight
loss of benefit to the community as a whole which is not compensated by
reduction in running costs (see paragraph 5.15ff). The deadweight loss
is an unavoidable consequence of any public policy decision to throw some
of the cost burden of a non-rival public good onto direct users. If the
deadweight loss is significant the policy is misguided. As well (particularly
in relation to museums and galleries), there is the possibility that the
discouraged visitors may be disproportionately people of lower socio-economic
status who (as all submissions agreed) managers should be making special
efforts to attract.
8.7 3. If an entry fee/ user charge is still under consideration, how
can it be implemented so as not to inhibit wide access, and to minimise
the risk of diverting management from core missions?
8.8 In the Committee's opinion the answers to these questions are, in
summary:
Conclusions on museums and art galleries
8.9 1. There are powerful emotional and symbolic reasons
why access to education and cultural enrichment through museums and galleries
should be free of charge. Charging entry fees does change the relationship
between the institution and the public. The change from a community resource
serving us as citizens to just another business serving us as customers.
This is regrettable, and threatens longer term public support for the
institution (as well as putting at risk other benefits such as volunteerism
and sponsorship). Accordingly the Committee believes that entry to key
national and state cultural institutions should be free.
8.10 2. Based on the evidence of the inquiry, it appears that
imposing entry fees in museums and art galleries significantly discourages
visitation and so causes a deadweight loss of community welfare which
is regrettable. As well, it probably accentuates the upper-class bias
among visitors, working against museums' access and equity programs. This
is most regrettable.
8.11 A general application of the philosophical position that `users
should pay for private benefits' is not appropriate: the rational
course is to consider the likely effects case by case. Wherever entry
fees significantly discourage visitation entry should be free (or fees
held at a level which does not discourage visitation) on purely
economic grounds whether or not it is also suggested for symbolic `citizenship'
reasons. This would probably extend the desirable scope of free entry
a good way beyond the `key national and state institutions' mentioned
above. Where entry fees do not significantly discourage visitation (demand
is inelastic) they are not objectionable on grounds of economic efficiency
or equity, though they may still be objectionable for symbolic reasons
depending on the case.
8.12 3. In cases that have passed the first two hurdles, entry
fees and/or user charges for value-added services are acceptable providing
they are managed so as to maintain wide access and to minimise the undoubted
risk of distracting managers from their core mission of conserving our
heritage for public enjoyment and for future generations. The main conditions
suggested by these principles are:
1. It must be accepted that user charges can usually raise no more
than a small percentage of total costs. Budget funding for these public
institutions should ensure that total funding is appropriate to management
needs; it should not be tied to user charges revenue as a reward or punishment
for high or low revenue-raising.
2. Charges for non-commercial use of value-added services
should generally be based on no more than marginal cost recovery: budgets
must acknowledge that the fixed costs of maintaining the resource for
future generations are a charge on the whole community.
3. For commercial users higher charges are acceptable (whether
entry fees or value-added charges) to the extent of a fair contribution
towards maintaining the resource from which they draw profit.
4. There should be suitable concessions for access and equity purposes.
5. Revenue should be retained locally to improve management.
6.There must be orderly, open and consultative strategic planning
to allow informed community input to future directions for management
and to avoid the tyranny of little decisions.
Conclusions on national parks
8.13 1. Emotional and symbolic arguments for free entry can be
raised for national parks as for museums and galleries. Outdoor temples
house the wonders of nature, and we may hope that visitors' experience
of them is something deeper and more lasting than mere `recreational use.'
For many people this spiritual dimension warrants free entry to national
parks as surely as it does to churches. As well, we acknowledge the `strong
Australian cultural tradition of free public access to public lands.'
[2]
8.14 Nevertheless, the Committee refrains from making a recommendation
on free entry corresponding to that for museums and galleries just above.
To suggest a category of `key' national parks creates too many difficulties.
With national parks there is no obvious `first eleven': the circumstances
of individual parks are too varied. To define `key ` national parks in
terms of nature conservation may seem to undermine the goal of having
a comprehensive and representative reserve system. To define them in terms
of public recreation would suggest that `key' national parks are the most
popular ones; but the most popular national parks are the very ones where,
on economic and equity grounds, entry fees are least objectionable
(see chapters 5 and 6). Entry
fee policies for national parks need to be decided on a case by case basis.
8.15 2. The extent to which entry fees discourage national park
visitation is uncertain, and the situation probably varies greatly from
one national park to another. However the same principle applies: where
fees do significantly discourage visitation, entry should be free (or
at least limited to covering marginal costs) on grounds of economic efficiency.
8.16 3. In cases that have passed the first two hurdles, entry
fees and/or user charges for value-added services are acceptable providing
they are managed so as to maintain wide access and to minimise the undoubted
risk of distracting managers from their core mission of conserving our
heritage for public enjoyment and for future generations. The main conditions
suggested by these principles are:
1. It must be accepted that user charges can usually raise no more
than a small percentage of total costs. Budget funding for these public
institutions should ensure that total funding is appropriate to management
needs; it should not be tied to user charges revenue as a reward or punishment
for high or low revenue-raising.
2. Where there is a non-trivial elasticity of demand (discouraged
visitors), suggesting that entry should be free, free entry must be retained
as a real option: charges for value-added services must not become a proxy
for entry fees.
3. Charges for non-commercial use of value-added services
should generally be based on no more than marginal cost recovery: budgets
must acknowledge that the fixed costs of maintaining the resource for
future generations are a charge on the whole community.
4. For commercial users higher charges are acceptable (whether
entry fees or value-added charges) to the extent of a fair contribution
towards maintaining the resource from which they draw profit.
5. There should be suitable concessions for access and equity purposes.
6. Revenue should be retained locally to improve management.
7. Commercial development inside national parks should be discouraged
to prevent the creation of a cycle of dependence.
8. There must be orderly, open and consultative strategic planning
to allow informed community input to future directions for management
and to avoid the tyranny of little decisions.
Footnotes
[1] For example, the Australian War Memorial
abandoned the entry fee to its museum galleries because of public protest;
but it does charge for various value-added services without controversy.
Australian War Memorial, submission 23 p204
[2] Environment Australia, submission 46 p397
Top
|