Future funding musingplaces in Tasmania

Since writing to the Editor of the Examiner in response to Saul Eslake’s contribution to what is now being referred to in some circles as ‘the cultural funding debacle’, I’ve received quite a bit of feedback. In the end, it comes down to a musingplace funding model that requires a level of accountability that would be quite unfamiliar to many of these institutions to date.

Also, remembering that arguably funding models are being put forward in the apparent absence of any alternative being presented by anyone to either the State Govt. or Federal Govt. – and in the sense of funding timelines, at ‘a minute to midnight’ .
Apparently one of Saul Eslakes proposals was to reinstate/impose(?) death duties for the purpose of cultural funding. He seems to have missed the one thing in the past that worked much better, indeed rather well, and still does in Britain – the lottery. In Australia it was used successfully to fund the building of the Sydney Opera House – arguably the world’s most successful cultural funding imitative.

Britain’s national mission via the lottery is to provide access to 'great art and culture for everyone'. Via the lottery’s proceeds it has been possible to champion, develop and invest in arts and cultural experiences that enrich people's lives within a strategic framework, running from 2010-2020. Britain has won many great cultural outcomes and the cultural nay-sayers who advocate more money for hospitals and schools etc. have been largely sidelined by this ‘crowdfunding model’.

The UK lottery has funded projects ranging from iconic public art projects, great museum projects plus the funding of instruments for brass bands and equipment for village halls. Thus audiences throughout the UK enjoy new and refurbished arts buildings, and a huge range of arts activity much of which feeds into Britain’s cultural tourism and broad scale economic development flowing from it. Interestingly, this is crowdfunding at work!

All this is here to contextualise a proposal that has been floated and is in need of a champion/s if it were to go anywhere. Set against:

• Regional musingplaces being a significant fiscal burden for ratepayers, some of whom are themselves are under fiscal stress, and some/many of whom assert that they receive a minimal or no dividend – social, cultural or fiscal;
• Regional musingplaces potentially being aregion’s most significant asset in regard to cultural tourism  and community cultural development;
• Regional musingplaces being potentially a region’s most significant non-structured, open access, education facility – and a significant employer in the field; and
• Potential funding cuts initiated by the Federal Govt that could negatively impact Council budgets.

there are many reasons to argue for regional musingplaces’ continued funding – rather to continue to invest in such an institution. However, the second two dot points above contain the word “potentially”, often the most damming word in the assessment of anything. Consequently the environment presents cost pressures that seem unlikely to diminish coupled with severe cost pressures on ratepayers that mitigate against proportional increases in rates. As a result, some means of alleviating budgets coupled with methods to improve the value offered by the museum, appears to be indicated.

In summary, the proposition being put, and in its most basic expression, the proposal is:

1. Regional musingplaces’ levies be openly identified on Council rate notices as a tax deductible contribution;
2. That Council resident ratepayers, renter-residents and business tenants directly pay their musingplace levy collected by Council into a cultural trust – say something like a Regional Cultural Trust operating as a Community Cultural Trust – via the Council;
3. That ‘levy payers’, typically in a region, be entitled to be in a draw for a significant annual fiscal benefit/dividend/payout to an individual levy payer – say $100,000;
4. That levy payers be able to sell or gift their chance of being eligible to such a benefit to whomever they determine – family members, charity, organisation, whoever;
5. That levy payers be entitled to musingplace benefits determined by their Trustees from time to time;
6. That Councils themselves and possibly adjoining Councils also, from time to time, pay funds into the trust for ‘projects’ that deliver measurable short term outcomes in accord with LCC’s, or an adjoining Council’s, Strategic Plan;
7. That the Councils advocate in concert with ‘the trust’ that, adjoining Local Govts, the State Govt., Federal Govt., funding agencies, sponsors, corporate research funding bodies and private donors contribute to the trust directly via various means towards the achievement of specific targeted outcomes; 
8. Set against this funding model there would be an imperative to put in place:

• A constitution for the musingplace that reflected its funding and its consequential accountability;
• A governance mechanism that fitted the circumstance; 
• Consequent to that, an institutional management structure that delivered on policy sets determined by the constitution and institutional governance; and
• Perhaps more importantly all this is an exemplar of crowdfunding in action with inbuilt accountability imperatives.

As stated at the outset, this funding model requires a level of accountability that would be somewhat unfamiliar to many such institutions to date. Given that its being put forward in the absence of an alternative, and at a minutes to midnight, it is somewhat concerning.

To do or say nothing now could be regarded as Nero like behaviour and to be accused of fiddling while Rome burns. And yet again it’ll be the ratepayer body and taxpayers who care about their musingplaces that’ll bear the burden through the loss of amenity, the loss of opportunity and/or yet another increase in rates without a commensurate increase in service.

Admittedly the proposal is an audacious proposal but if there were the will to make it work, arguably it could work. In any event it’s worthy of independent assessment.

There needs to be more research here but I can see myself advocating this kind of funding model in concert with the ’4 Step Plan’ advanced before – Click here.