CONTEXT

Corporate reporting processes are typically designed to demonstrate accountability – reportedly. The QVMAG's 'Annual Reporting Process' attempts this task yet on closer examination it demonstrates a variety of things. One observable thing being the bureaucratic discretionary nature of 'accountability'. This is arguably an outcome of the institution's lack of proactive governance and the blurring of the functions of governance and management.

This report for 2016-17 is a demonstration of a series of disconnects that taken in isolation may seem relatively insignificant yet collectively, and over time, they become much more significant. 

To some extent it seems as to be the case that, if 'management' is comfortable with the 'smoothing over' of the rough spots is understandable – and occasionally it might even be acceptable. After all management is only 'accountable' to the 'policymakers and strategist' – the elected representatives – and if they're 'looking the other way' (strategically?), or unconcerned, then a constituency's quarrel is with its 'representatives' lack of accountability – not any of management's short falls.

In regard to the QVMAG as an operation, and given the metrics [LINK], governance looking the other way is non-trivial. Moreover, when there has arguably been an evolution of a 'culture of disconnection' that has evolved over time the disconnect is nonetheless unacceptable and untenable. It is even more so when there is a demonstrable abdication of the elected representatives' governance function for which a consideration is being received.

Perusing the report, questions upon question are there to be asked and it seems that the report has been made upon some vision of the status quo where 'set and forget" and 'operational convenience' has been the order of the day and has become the 'modus operandi'. Likewise, when an operation is envisaged as a 'cost centre' it is perpetually at risk. When its costs continue to rise and allocated income remains relatively static, 'success equals survival'!

However, what is at risk here? 

• Firstly, it is ultimately to do with the security of the QVMAG's collections given that:

• The institution is envisaged as having "over collected", and deaccessions are spoken of and considered, accountability with transparent policies need to be in place; and

• Ownership of the collections rests with the City of Launceston and thus under SECTION  62 of the Local Govt. Act [LINK] the General Manager has – and has asserted it – the capacity to dispose of components of the collections on advice she/he deems to be expert advice; and

• The collections are of such importance that they should be seen as being a 'part of the national estate';

they require more substantial protection than they currently enjoy.

• Secondly, the 'social licence' under which the Tasmanian Government in 1950 [LINK] endowed the city of Launceston with the ownership in 'law' has arguably expired given that the collections now represent the 'cultural property' of a diverse Community of Ownership m& Interest [LINK].

Together these things represent a significant risk that needs to be mitigated.

LoC MIN