A Portrait of Failure: Ongoing Funding Cuts to Australia's Cultural Institutions

Abstract

Three decades of government budget cuts have placed significant financial pressure on Australia's cultural institutions. Institutions are increasingly trying to attract non‐government funding to fulfil their legislative mandates to collect, maintain, and exhibit Australian and international art, to educate and inform the public, and preserve Australia's political, social, and cultural history. Evidence suggests that, despite these efforts, sources of funding have not changed significantly. Budget cuts are impacting a range of areas including acquisitions, preservation, digitisation, as well as limiting access to researchers and the public. This paper concludes that a public review of the roles played by cultural institutions is required, including consideration of the level of public funding provided. To do otherwise is to ignore the importance of Australia's cultural heritage.

Working with boards: The experiences of Australian managers in performing arts organisations

“…The Australian small–medium arts sector comprises diverse organisations and sits between individual arts practitioners and major arts organisations including state theatres and orchestras. The task of attracting and generating sufficient public and private support has led to increased competition within the arts and cultural sector (van Barneveld & Chiu, ). Small–medium organisations are characterised by small permanent workforces and the requirement to “juggle” their creative goals with near‐identical governance and reporting requirements to those of much larger and better‐resourced organisations.…”

Career volunteering as good work in do-it-yourself heritage institutions: A serious leisure perspective

“…Heritage institutions have, consequently, become more focused on securing non-government funding from private and philanthropic sources. However, van Barneveld and Chiu (2017) observe that, in Australia at least, these alternatives have failed to bridge the gap. These circumstances of ‘austerity-compelled precarity’ (Cunningham et al, 2016: 455) have influenced not only the efficacy of heritage institutions, but also the labour experiences of those who sustain them.…”

“…well documented in Australia and across Europe that funding cuts have impeded the basic functions (collection, preservation, public access and education) of mainstream heritage institutions (e.g. Fredheim, 2018;Lagerqvist, 2016;van Barneveld and Chiu, 2017). Heritage institutions have, consequently, become more focused on securing nongovernment funding from private and philanthropic sources.…”