The National Museum of Australia saga continues. The latest is that the museum should go on the Kingston lake shore. It was suggestion by the ACT Government as one of several options to be considered for the museum, but not necessarily the preferred site. Four other options are being considered by the federal government site study: the original large Yarramundi Reach site; Acton Peninsula; Kings Park on the Parkes Way side of the lake and on the lake shore between the National Science and Technology Centre and the High Court.
The ACT Government would like the museum to go ahead as quickly as possible to generate jobs during construction and permanent jobs and a boost to tourism when it is completed. Its view seems to be that it is willing to make compromises on the site just to get the project moving. That is not a wise approach, especially in a planned city like Canberra where the long view whould be taken.
It is an appalling shame that artifacts are being kept in warehouses and not put on optimum public display while politicians, bureaucrats and others argue about the site, wasting time, money and opportunity in doing so.
Much of the site debate has been about matters tangental to the main issue of what is best for the museum and the best for the people of Australia in the future. Issues like filling in the triangle and spin offs for tourism tend to predominate over how best are Australian culture and the existing artifacts to be exhibited.
When the National Museum of Australian Act was passed in 1980 the then Labor Opposition urged that it not be pigeon-holed, but followed through with construction. But Labor allowed the dream to turn into a nascent nightmare by 13 years of delay. Much of that can be laid at the door of Paul Keating who argued that Australia did not need “”another mausoleum” down by the lake. No-one in the Ministry dared dissent. Mr Keating’s description shows how he misunderstood the original concept. A mausoleum is a large monumental building used to house a dead body. The original idea for the Museum of Australia was to do precisely the opposite. Its buildings were not to be large or monumental. Much of the museum was to be outside. And its displays were to be moving, interactive and designed to portray living Australia.
Then the idea of an Aboriginal museum on Acton Peninisula took hold. This was supported by many power centres with aims tangental to the best for a museum, including the ACT Government which saw it an an opportunity to push ahead with the Acton-Kingston land swap.
By an accident of history, at the time of ACT self-government, a local-state facility, the hospital, was on a patently national site, Acton Peninsula, and various federal facilities, like the printery, were on state-type land at Kingston. So when the land was being designated it was designated according to current use, rather than future use. But once the facilties were cleared, it was obvious a swap should go ahead.
But if Kingston is to be used for a national function, such as a museum, the land swap would obviously be unnecessary, though it would have major implications for Kingston development. Incidentally, it appears the Kingston Foreshore Development Committee was not included in the discussion when it should have been.
As for Acton, it is too small to have the full museum. The idea of a site between the High Court and the science centre carries the danger of wrecking the solemn vista from Parliament up Anzac Parade. And a Parkes Way site, like others in the triangle, have been promoted more as a triangle-filling exercise focused on tourism than creating an excellent museum that will of itself draw visitors.
The museum has been a plaything for too long for those who want to fill the triangle, grab some land, be seen to be giving something to Aborigines, or to boost jobs and tourism.
We should hold out for the best possible institution on the best possible site, Yarramundi, and the city and nation will be best served.