No entry charge for museum

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32459, 20 November 1970, Page 14

No entry charge for museum

Any decision to impose an admission charge at the Canterbury Museum would be the single, most disastrous policy decision in the long and honourable history of the museum, its director (Dr R, S. Duff) said yesterday.

In a statement given at a meeting of the Canterbury Museum Trust Board, Dr Duff criticised a suggestion by the Mayor (Mr A. R. Guthrey) that a museum admission charge be made. Members of the board agreed with Dr Duff’s remarks in deciding that no charge should be made. The Mayor, a member of the board, sent in a late apology to the meeting because of another he had to attend on council business. Dr Duff said that if a charge were made, there would be an incalculable loss in public good will. “The city’s Robert McDougall Art Gallery and the Canterbury Museum exist to serve a common community function in providing popular education and recreation through public access to their galleries and collections. Admission is free, in accordance with a tradition established 150 years ago when I the common man earned the right to go to school—a right possible only because society abandoned the “user must pay” principle in favour of the new- principle of community support of institutions considered vital to the educational welfare of all people. AN EXCEPTION “The example of the National Gallery of Victoria as cited by the Mayor is exceptional for Australia in levying a charge. Most of all, the pre-charge figures relate to I the drab and undistinguished setting of an earlier building I which failed to interest its local public. The attendance figures since charging relate Ito the new ‘palace of arts’— an Australian-wide tourist attraction built at a cost of sl4m in an apparent attempt Ito rival the Sydney Opera House.

“What applies there is hardly relevant to the Canterbury Museum, which is an

educational and scientific institution primarily serving our local community. With this exception Australian museums stand firmly on the principle that the public have free access. Tentative calculations suggested the museum might well be worse off with a charge, and forced to go back to the local bodies for more financial support. Ticket collectors would add the equivalent of three salaries, at a minimum of $7500, to the annual budget. To meet this cost 37,500 adult visitors paying 20c would be needed, and it was doubtful that these could be counted on.

“On the basis of a present annual total of 150,000, apart from organised class visits, we must be prepared for a drop of up to 75 per cent if a charge was imposed, with a sufficient percentage of children to leave, us short on costs. To this we can add a calculable loss of $lOOO in donation-pox takings the loss of rent from the Garden Court catering which would almost certainly close down, and a severe reduction in counter sales.” ALREADY PAID

Mr R. H. Thompson said the museum was for the people who already paid for it. The relationship was one of mutual friendship rather than a business contract.

Mr H. G. Hay, who is also chairman of the City Council’s cultural committee, said he was very strongly opposed to any admission charge be:ing made for the museum, but reserved his opinion on the matter of a charge for the art gallery. While disagreeing with the suggestion of a general admission charge Messrs S. R. Dacre and C. E. Fenwick suggested that charges could perhaps be made for special i exhibits or services within the museum.