Review of the Museum and Art Gallery services : a report to the Department of Community Development, Sport & Cultural Affairs
MAGNT Review December 2004 Morgan; Internal review of MAGNT. Final report March 2004
E-Publications; E-Books; PublicationNT
"This Review has looked at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory’s outputs relative to benchmark museum and art gallery activities and outputs around Australia and relative to international trends in museum practice. This Review has also considered possible service outcomes set against three funding scenarios." - Executive summary
This review was commissioned by Risk Management Services of the Department of the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, on behalf of the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. The review was put to Tender in October 2004, with the Tender awarded in November 2004. - Introduction; Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).
Executive summary -- Part A: Introduction - Background -- Outputs of this review. Part B: Outputs of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory - A comparison of the MAGNT outputs in activities of collection development and management, public programs and research relative to those of other state museums and galleries - A discussion of the MAGNT outputs relative to national and international trends in museums and galleries - A consideration of the scientific focus of the MAGNT in terms of a) its management and outcomes relative to other museums and b) its contribution to Northern Territory economic activity and Government programs - A comparison of per square metre exhibition costs at the MAGNT relative to other institutions - A comparison of the acquisition budget of the MAGNT relative to other institutions. Part C: Possible budget scenarios - A discussion of three budget scenarios for the MAGNT with their consequent service outcomes. Part D: Summary of recommendations. Part E: Sources and acknowledgements. Part F: Appendices 1-8
Museums -- Northern Territory -- Public opinion; Museums -- Evaluation; Public relations -- Museums -- Northern Territory
Northern Territory Government
xviii, 124 pages ; 30 cm.
Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)
Northern Territory Government
MAGNT Review December 2004 Morgan 86 The consideration of allocations within funding scenario three reflects the scope of the brief, namely that all of the funds should be considered against recurrent operational costs. Should there be some greater flexibility in the use of the additional $5.5 million pa, then it would be possible to make advances on several of the major priority projects with both operational and capital costs. This would require deferral of some recurrent operational expenditure while one-off expenditure was addressed. Three and five year timeframes In scenario 3, the increased recurrent funding is allocated over 3-5 years. What is the difference in total allocation for this time range? Box 26 gives a simple comparison of the cashflow over the two extremes of three and five years, if the allocation is averaged across those times. Box 26. Difference in funding to the MAGNT if funding scenario three were introduced over 3 years or 5 years, based on an average across the years of introduction Increase over 3 years Increase over 5 years Difference in funding Year 0 (current) $ x $ x $0.0 Year 1 $ x + 1.83 million $ x + 1.10 million $0.73 million Year 2 $ x + 3.67 million $ x + 2.20 million $1.47 million Year 3 $ x + 5.50 million $ x + 3.30 million $2.20 million Year 4 $ x + 5.50 million $ x + 4.40 million $1.10 million Year 5 $ x + 5.50 million $ x + 5.50 million $0.0 Total $ x + 22.00 million $ x + 16.50 million $5.50 million x: current funding level If the increase in recurrent funding is introduced at a constant rate over five years, then the MAGNT receives $5.50 million less in funds than if introduced over three years. This calculation is based on an average increase per year. If most of the funding increase occurred in the early years of the five year option then the difference would be less. Given the above calculation is based on averages, and the allocation of funds need not be on an average per year, there is little point in attempting any detailed assessment of the effect of these two extremes. The net effect of the different periods of introducing the increase in funding will be that the MAGNT would have to phase in increases in recurrent expenditure more gradually in the five year option than in the three. If all the funds are allocated to recurrent operational activities, then this simply means that some programs are introduced more slowly. On the other hand, if the funds could also be used for one-off or capital expenses, then there is potentially an additional $5.50 million available in the three year option that is not available in the five year option. This could be used for such one-off costs as gallery refurbishments (eg. the new History of the NT Gallery) or setting up the new website.