Unacceptable Secrecy Over National Museum Review

Media Statement - 29 May 2003

The review of the National Museum's exhibitions and public programs is a political exercise, being conducted in secret. The review, being conducted by Dr John Carroll, Reader in Sociology at La Trobe University, has held no public hearings.

This is despite a pledge by the chairman on the Museum's council, Mr Tony Staley, that there would be public forums to which members of the public could contribute.

A later press release, dated 3 January 2003, retracted this, saying: ‘The Review Committee will consult widely by calling for public submissions and holding meetings with historians and other academics to gauge the broad spectrum of opinion on existing exhibitions and programs and to identify the key issues that should shape the Museum's future direction.'

Questioning at Senate Estimates hearings revealed that this public consultation had consisted of some 100 submissions and about 40 meetings with academics and historians. This is completely inadequate for such an important review, which will have far-reaching consequences for the Museum and for the interpretation and communication of Australian history. This small number of contributors could not possibly be representative of the broad range of views and opinions that should be considered by the review panel.

The way the Museum presents our history is very important for the way we see ourselves, and how we recognise Australia's triumphs and failures. What is at stake here is the re-writing of Australian history.

The Senate was told that two senior officers of the Department had read and commented on a draft of the report. Arts Minister Rod Kemp agreed that there are differing views about Australia's history, and Ms Dawn Casey, the Director of the Museum commented that the report is sure to be controversial, and that there will probably be argument about it.

But the Museum council, nominally in charge of the Review, has had very little input into it. This leads to the suspicion that the Review is writing to the Government's conservative agenda, and is responding to criticisms of the Museum's collections that they give too much emphasis to indigenous issues and some of the less worthy events in our past.

The Government should have no role in directing the Museum as to how it displays our history. We call for the Minister to publish the report and then allow ample time for public discussion before any recommendations are implemented.