Interference in the National Museum puts Australian culture under siege

Just how important is the independence of our national institutions? It is essential in a modern democratic civil society. So the fact that the Howard government is interfering in a most blatant, offensive and partisan way in the management and exhibitions of the National Museum of Australia represents a new, despicable low in cultural policy.

I believe that a series of events spanning the last two years provide the evidence of a concerted Howard government plan to attack the cultural independence of the National Museum, and replace this independence with John Howard's biased view.

The headlines tell the story: "Diversity is in boy's own history", "Museum director's dumping disappoints", "Howard puts museum on funds tightrope", "Museum on brink, thanks to its Council", "Greatest becomes a no-frills fiasco", "Museum held to ransom in history wars", are all indicative of the increasing politicisation of the National Museum.

This politicisation is the realisation of the Howard government's deliberate plan, complete with acts of secrecy and deceitful sabotage stemming back to the year the museum opened.

Recently evidence came to light that demonstrated John Howard's plans to politicise the Museum had their sinister conception within a year of the Museum opening. He commissioned a funding review in the Museum's first year of operation. The resulting report canvassed three funding options, warning that choosing the minimal option would severely jeopardise the Museum's future development as a major cultural institution and lead to rapidly declining visitor numbers and a significant downgrade in exhibitions. The Howard government chose the minimal funding option ($9.138m Option C) despite these warnings.

Reinforcing the view that a plot was being hatched lies in the fact that this report was not only never released to the public, efforts were made to hide it. The Australian newspaper had to undertake a year long battle to obtain it under the Freedom of Information Act.

But many other elements to Howard's plot played a crucial role. First came the carping, subjective criticisms about the Museum's portrayal of Australian cultural history by mates made members of the Museum's Council, including John Howard's authorised biographer, David Barnett, and former speechwriter, Christopher Pearson.

Professor Graeme Davison was then asked in March 2002 to assess complaints made in an internal memo by Mr Barnett. The complaints included that the Museum's stolen children exhibit was a 'victim episode'.

In December 2002, the Minister for the Arts, Senator Kemp, quietly announced that the Museum's inaugural director, Dawn Casey, had her re-appointment unjustifiably shortened.

Then came the National Review of Exhibitions and Public Programs, headed up by Dr John Carroll, who set about establishing an agenda for the politicisation of the Museum's exhibitions.

When the report was eventually made public in July 2003 it advocated a whitewashing of Australian history. Misinterpreted by some as an innocuous vindication of the Museum, it actually laid the foundations for John Howard's view to be given form and substance in the Museum. It argued that the institution should focus on the achievements of white men in Australia and echo the dismal retelling of the stories we learnt in school, rather than adding to our understanding of all facets of Australian cultural history.

Following the leaking of the Museum Council's response to the Carroll Review, we know the Council explicitly asked for a large injection of funding. Funding which will be used to rebuild the museum according to Howard's view of how Australian history should be perceived and communicated. Hence the Carroll Review and the predictable response is the mechanism to implement Howard's changes.

According to the draft response: "The review panel's ambitions for the Museum are not achievable with the available resources and existing constraints. The Museum is funded according to option C of the Funding Review, 2002-2003. Under this option, resources allow for permanent galleries to be changed only to meet loan, conservation and preservation requirements; for one module to be updated every year; and for refurbishment of a gallery every 10 years."

But wait, there's more. All of this has been underpinned by systematic political appointments to the NMA Council. The Council continues to be chaired by former Liberal Party president Tony Staley, who has complied with political instructions to clean out any independent professionals within the Museum.

With the Director's re-appointment unjustifiably shortened, supporters of Ms Casey were soon to follow. Council members Sharon Brown and Ronald Webb, whose terms on the Council expired this month, will not be renewed. It has to be said that these decisions are as blatantly political as the appointments of well known Howard acolytes.

Two weeks ago the extent of this politicisation spilled over into the one forum presented to the parliament to pursue accountability of the Howard government: Senate Estimates.

When specific questions were asked of Ms Casey relating to the partisan Carroll Review recommendations, which will determine the future of the Museum's collections and exhibitions, the Minister unreasonably intervened.

Ms Casey was allowed to express her concern about the Museum being caught in the middle of 'the history wars', but when questioned further about how this impacted on the Museum, she was not permitted to continue answering.

In an outrageous move the Minister gagged the outgoing Director of the National Museum, refusing to allow her to answer any of my questions about the politicisation of both the Museum Council and the Museum itself.

The Howard government members of the Senate estimates committee then threatened to shut down the committee if questioning continued.

Further questioning aimed at the Department then provided an insight into exactly how the Howard government has and will continue to exert its political influence on the Museum, in addition to the appointment of compliant mates to the Council.

Deputy Secretary of the Department, Dr Stretton, is an observer on the Museum Council. It was revealed that departmental officers through Dr Stretton, played an improper role in drafting the Museum Council's response to the Carroll Review. In other words a key mechanism to facilitate the 'Howard-isation' of the Museum was prepared within the Department!

Our cultural agencies must surely be alert and alarmed by now, all the more so because the Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts seemingly has the Minister's permission to participate in this politicisation.

The story of the Museum is frightening and raises serious concerns about the ability of any institution or agency to effectively maintain its cultural independence.

I have outlined the chain of events which have unfolded during the life of the Museum because I think it is a story which needs to be told. Dawn Casey's lament of the Museum being the battle ground for the Howard government's war on culture constitutes a warning for other institutions - a warning to be heeded.

I believe that the ramifications of this government exerting its influence in such a partisan way damages the Museum and is designed to prevent the honest exploration and portrayal of Australian cultural heritage and identity.

The National Museum of Australia has become John Howard's personal story board through which he can make his image of Australia and pretend it is real: an anglo-centric society, patronising of migrants, in denial of indigenous injustice and glory for those who share this narrow, ill-informed conservatism.