THE TMAG'S AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY'S APOLOGY IN CONTEXT

It has become quite clear that the context of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's in concert with the Royal Society's 'apology' is being misunderstood as 'their apology'.  Indeed, I’m finding that generally ‘the political class’, of all complexions and most machinations, are disinclined to publicly articulate their support or otherwise and ‘politically’ in Tasmania that tells us something – in fact quite a lot. 

Launceston’s mayor’s disinclination to ‘endorse’ it is diminishing and many Launcestonians are  quite embarrassed by his stance – and especially so when in communicating with ‘cultural thinkers’ Australia wide.

As for the TMAG’s apology, commenting as a ‘cultural theorist’, rather than being “theirs” – as Launceston's Mayor asserts and other say also –  it is, arguably, ‘in fact ours’ given that the ‘institution’ is ours, and is there to reflect our values, as a public institution reliant upon the ‘public purse’. Similarly, the State’s Governor, by convention, and process, is:

• The TMAG’s patron and thus the institution ‘enjoys’ her patronage; and thus
• The Governor is the ‘officer bearer’ who presides over ‘Executive Council Secretariat’; and
• Who thus approves the appointment of, and where appropriate the dismissal/replacement of, TMAG ‘Trustee’ – all somewhat at arm’s length; and in turn
• All this by extension makes ‘the apology’ as much ‘the community’s’ as it is ‘the institutions’.

Therefore, and arguably, the TMAG doesn’t speak for itself, rather it speaks for, and hopefully with, its ‘community’. – and at arm’s length from government. I think here that ‘community’ is best understood as its ‘Community of Ownership and Interest’ – researchers, scholars, donors, taxpayers, visitors, sponsors etc. etc.  See this link 

 

Moreover, the TMAG, is accountable to us, and held so by the ‘Auditor General’ quite independently of political government. By extension this means ‘the office’ brings its understandings of ‘accountability’ to bear on our behalf – that is our cultural sensibilities and sensitivities etc. Indeed, the previous Auditor General did all that not so long ago. On that occasion, the then Chairman of the Trustees, Sir Guy Green, ‘stood down’, the board was replaced and the institution’s ‘accountability’ was asserted/reasserted – See this link 

 

This in part, in so much as ‘the press’ understands such things, goes some way towards understanding the national attention the apology got, and will most likely continue to get, and in context albeit not that well understood in that way. The press’s lack of understanding is another issue. There is a growing number of apologies that have entered the 'public discourse' and this is no bad thing.

 

Nonetheless, this does underline the significance of the apology – and by extension political recalcitrance when point blank refusal to ‘endorse’ and articulate the significance of it all becomes evident.

 

As for the Royal Society, this organisation has traditionally operated in locked step with the TMAG as an institution, again under the governor’s patronage. Typically, its membership is represented/included, by convention, on the TMAG Trustees along with other appropriate ‘appointees’ – basically at the governor’s instigation. It is somewhat unclear if this is currently so but the joint apology seems to indicate so.

In Tasmania, given the State’s histories, and the level of contention plus the misunderstandings attached, it seems clear that there is a political imperative to distance ‘the debate’ from the ‘political arena’ albeit that in the end, it cannot be. ‘Deliberation’ would be a whole lot more helpful but there we go – that is the state of politics currently. However, please do not expect cultural thinkers and advocates to look away in either a cultural context or in any other way.

 

At his point, there is possibly a need to apologise for this ‘missive'  being a rather  ‘preachy essay’ but the points that need to be made cannot be in any other way – and hopefully to a willing listeners. Goodness knows there are rather a lot of ‘not bloody interested, let’s not go there, thank you’ brigade out and about now as there has been for all to long.

 

Why do I raise this issue now?

• Firstly, as researcher it informs my critical inquiry;
• Secondly, I have more than a passing interest in the political discourse in Tasmania and nationally;
• Thirdly, some 'politicians' clearly find the whole issue just too contentious to engage in any kind of contextual deliberation; and
• Fourthly, I am totally disenchanted with some 'political players' total disinclination to engage with the class of ‘cultural discourse’ required here or indeed anything related to ‘participatory democracy’;
• Fifthly, I’ve been engaged in attempting to lift the QVMAG out of the cultural quagmire the Council has buried it in for over 25 years; and
• Sixthly, in the hope that, given the QVMAG, as a regional institution, might now find someone to bring perspective, politically at least, to debates and deliberations relative to cultural institutions ‘accountability’.
• AND lastly, in the hope that I might find an advocate somewhere to advocate for meaningful change in ‘Tasmania’s House of Review’ via its membership.

 

So, there are my cards on the table for all to see!

 

For some context regarding ‘the return of the petroglyphs’, this link here may be of some interest.

 

Again, I’m sorry for this somewhat rather long and tedious post but under the circumstances in the here and now the case needs to be put in a fulsome way rather than in a truncated manner with important points missing. 

Ray Norman Feb 2021