National Collections

1.1 Australia’s National Collections provide rich insights into its national spirit, values, history, culture and way of life. The entities responsible for the National Collections play a pivotal role in collecting, making publically available, and preserving for posterity items and information integral to Australia’s national identity and achievements.

1.2 As at 30 June 2017, Australia’s major⁴ National Collections consisted of heritage and cultural assets estimated to be valued at more than $10.5 billion. The most valuable collection (in financial terms) is the National Collection of Works of Art held by the National Gallery of Australia (see Table 1.1).

Table 1.1: Value and volume of Australia’s key National Collections, June 2017

Note a: The number of items in a collection can vary depending on how they are counted. An item could be made up of several parts and, therefore, one item could actually be counted multiple times because of the nature of its parts.

Source: Entity annual reports, 2016–17.

The Australian War Memorial and National Gallery of Australia collections

1.3 This audit focusses on the collections held by the Australian War Memorial (Memorial), and National Gallery of Australia (NGA). Together, these two collections are valued at over $7 billion (see Table 1.1).

1.4 Both entities have a legislated responsibility to develop, maintain, exhibit and utilise their collections in the national interest. The nature of the respective collections is markedly different. Both hold a variety of items—while the Memorial’s collection is more voluminous than the NGA’s, the NGA’s collection is significantly more valuable in financial terms. Both entities’ collections include works of art (paintings, sculptures, prints, photographs etc.) and the Memorial’s collection also includes weapons, very large objects (such as aircraft) and potentially hazardous items. These commonalities and differences impact on how each of the entities manage their collections.

1.5 The Memorial and the NGA are corporate Commonwealth entities and are subject to the requirements of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, including the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.

Australian War Memorial

1.6 The Memorial opened in 1941 and is a statutory authority established under the Australian War Memorial Act 1980. The Memorial is part of the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio.

1.7 The Memorial’s Council, as the Accountable Authority, is responsible for the conduct and control of the affairs of the Memorial. Council members include the heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force, who have statutory membership. Remaining members are appointed by the Governor General.

1.8 The Memorial’s collection includes a range of historical and cultural material relating to Australia’s experience of war and involvement in peacekeeping, humanitarian and other operational service. As at 30 June 2017, the Memorial had responsibility for approximately 735 505 heritage and cultural assets valued at $1.18 billion.

1.9 In 2016–17 the Memorial received a total of $65.1 million in revenue, of which $42.72 million was provided by Government, with the remainder being own source revenue from sources such as donations and the sale of goods and services. In addition to this total revenue, the Memorial receives an annual equity injection from Government to support the growth of its heritage and cultural assets. In 2016–17 this injection was $7.2 million. As at 30 June 2017 the Memorial had 324 employees.

National Gallery of Australia

1.10 The NGA opened in 1982 and is a statutory authority established under the National Gallery Act 1975. The NGA is part of the Communications and the Arts portfolio.

1.11 The NGA’s Council, as the Accountable Authority, is responsible for the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the NGA and to determine the NGA’s policies. The Director, also a member of the NGA’s Council, is the NGA’s Chief Executive Officer.

1.12 The NGA’s collection comprises a broad range of artworks of national and international significance. The NGA’s primary focus is on collecting: modern art worldwide; all Australian art; and works of art representing the high cultural achievement of Australia’s neighbours in southern and eastern Asia and the Pacific Islands. As at 30 June 2017, the NGA’s collection had approximately 153 332 heritage and cultural assets valued at $5.98 billion.

1.13 In 2016–17 the NGA received $54.03 million in revenue. Of this, revenue from Government was $31.34 million with the remainder being own source revenue from donations, the sale of goods and services, and entry fees. In addition to total revenue, the NGA receives an annual equity injection from Government to support the growth of their heritage and cultural assets. In 2016–17 this injection was $16.77 million. As at 30 June 2017, the NGA had 282 employees. Figure 1.1 shows total revenue and equity injections for the Memorial and the NGA in the financial years 2009–10 to 2016–17.

Figure 1.1: Memorial and NGA revenue and equity injections, 2009–10 to 2016–17

Source: ANAO, from entity annual reports.

Australian War Memorial and National Gallery of Australia revenue and expenses compared to similar entities

1.14 The Memorial receives around 66 per cent of its funding from Government and the NGA receives around 59 per cent. Figure 1.2 compares the relative proportion of Memorial and NGA funding sources to other state institutions around Australia.

Figure 1.2: Sources of funding for the Memorial, NGA and other institutions, 2016–17

Source: Entity annual reports, 2016–17

1.15 Table 1.2 provides financial information for the Memorial and NGA and compares these to several state galleries for 2016–17.

Table 1.2: Memorial, NGA and other institutions’ revenue, expenses and value of collections, 2016–17

Note a: Queensland Art Gallery and Gallery of Modern Art.

Note b: In addition to total revenue, the Memorial and the NGA receive an annual equity injection from Government to support the growth of their heritage and cultural assets. In 2016–17, this was $7.2 million for the Memorial and $16.77 million for the NGA.

Note: Table contains rounding.

Source: Entity annual reports, 2016–17.

1.16 On 26 March 2018, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories announced an inquiry that will review Canberra’s national institutions and the strategies they use to maintain viability and relevance to sustainably grow their profile, visitor numbers, and revenue.

Previous ANAO performance audits of the National Collections

1.17 The ANAO has undertaken two performance audits of the National Collections in the past two decades: Safeguarding Our National Collections (1998)⁵; and Safe and Accessible National Collections (2005).⁶

1.18 The 1998 audit assessed four entities, including the Memorial and the NGA.

Table 1.3: Objective, conclusion and recommendations of the 1998 audit

Source: ANAO Audit Report No. 8 1998–99 Safeguarding Our National Collections.

1.19 The 2005 audit assessed six entities, including the Memorial and the NGA.

Table 1.4: Objectives, conclusion and recommendations of the 2005 audit

Source: ANAO Audit Report No. 59 2004–05 Safe and Accessible National Collections.

Audit approach

1.20 The objective of this audit was to assess whether the Australian War Memorial and the National Gallery of Australia have implemented effective collection management practices. To form a conclusion against the audit objective, the ANAO adopted the following high-level audit criteria. The Memorial and the NGA have:

• established effective strategic frameworks to support the management of their collections; and
• implemented effective systems and processes for managing their collections.

Scope and methodology

1.21 The focus of the audit was on the:

• role of governing councils in determining the strategic policies and directions to be followed to ensure the appropriate and effective management of collections;
• entity management in applying the priorities of the governing councils through effective management of the collections; and
• extent to which the Memorial and the NGA have implemented the relevant recommendations of the previous ANAO performance audit into the National Collections—ANAO Report No.59 2004–05 Safe and Accessible National Collections. See Appendix 1.

1.22 The audit did not include in its scope an assessment of the entities’ effectiveness in promoting access to their collections.

1.23 In conducting the audit, the ANAO: reviewed Memorial and NGA documentation; extracted and analysed data from entity collection management systems; tested a number of acquisitions and disposals that occurred during 2017; and interviewed Memorial and NGA staff. The audit also sought public submissions via the ANAO website.

1.24 The audit was conducted in accordance with ANAO Auditing Standards at a cost to the ANAO of approximately $440 011.

1.25 The team members for this audit were Jess Scully, David Hokin, Nathan Callaway, James Sheeran, and Paul Bryant.

Have the entities established effective oversight arrangements and performance frameworks for the management of their collections?

Governance arrangements

2.1 Governance arrangements over the collections are provided through each entity’s Council and various committees, as well as internal management structures. The Memorial and the NGA are both subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act), which imposes key reporting, financial and other obligations on each Council as the Accountable Authority, and on associated officials. The Memorial is accountable to the government through the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, while the NGA is accountable through the Minister for the Arts.

Australian War Memorial

2.2 The Memorial has established an effective governance structure to oversee the management of its collection. This structure is depicted in Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: Australian War Memorial governance structure

 

 

Source: ANAO.

2.3 The Council of the Memorial is established by section 9 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980 (AWM Act). The Council is responsible for the conduct and control of the affairs of the Memorial, and the policy of the Memorial with respect to any matters as determined by the Council. The Council’s role is also determined by the PGPA Act.

2.4 The Council of the Memorial is required under section 17(1) of the AWM Act to meet as often as the Chair considers necessary, and meets in practice four times per year. Council consists of the three Chiefs of the Defence Services and between eight and 10 other members. In 2016–17 there were 13 members in total.

2.5 The Council has established a key advisory sub-committee as outlined in Figure 2.1—the Finance, Audit and Compliance Committee (FACC)⁷, which was found to have been appropriately constituted and attended.⁸ In addition, the Corporate Management Group comprises senior executives at the Memorial who meet weekly and are responsible for the overall management of the Memorial.

2.6 Overall, the ANAO found that the Council meetings operate in accordance with legislative requirements in areas such as attendance and frequency of meetings. The Council receives and reviews strategic reports and policy documents.

National Gallery of Australia

2.7 The NGA’s governance structure is depicted in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: National Gallery of Australia governance structure

 

 

Source: ANAO.

Council

2.8 Section 12 of the National Gallery Act 1975 (NGA Act) establishes a Council to conduct the affairs of the NGA. As stated in its Charter (May 2017), the Council has the following functions:

• to ensure the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the organisation including a performance monitoring and reporting role (including risk management); and
• to determine the policy of the organisation with respect to any matter.

2.9 The Council of the NGA is required under section 20 of the NGA Act to meet as often as the Chair considers necessary, and at least five times a year (as set out in the Council’s Charter), which it achieves. Council consists of not more than 11 members as set out in section 13 of the NGA Act: namely the Chair, the Director and nine other members. In 2016–17 the Council comprised nine members in total.

2.10 The ANAO found that Council meetings operate in accordance with legislative requirements in areas such as attendance and frequency of meetings. The Council receives and reviews strategic reports and policy documents.

Senior Executive Team

2.11 The NGA’s Senior Executive Team (SET) is made up of the Director, Deputy Director and two Assistant Directors, as well as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The CFO is responsible for building services, security, visitor experience teams, governance, project management, records, business continuity and risk, in addition to financial management.

Sub-committees of the Council

2.12 The Council of the NGA may constitute such committees as it deems necessary for the purposes of the NGA Act.⁹ Of relevance to the management of the collection are the:¹⁰

• Audit and Risk Committee (the Committee changed its name from the Finance, Risk Management and Audit Committee at the April 2017 meeting);
• Collections Committee (previously known as the Acquisitions Committee), which was reinstituted at the November 2016 Council meeting as a separate committee of the Council; and
• Building Committee.

2.13 Each committee has a Terms of Reference.¹¹ Each committee functions in a review and advisory role only, having no executive powers, supervisory function or decision-making authority in relation to the operations of the Gallery other than by delegation of the Council. As at March 2018, the Council had not delegated any such powers, function or authority. Membership overlaps with Council, with each committee requiring at least three non-executive council members to be members.

2.14 Of the nine NGA council members in place at any time, typical council member attendance at the sub-committees in 2017 was:

• Audit and Risk Committee—the committee generally consisted of two to three council members, and two independent audit and risk committee members. An additional three to six council members attended meetings as observers;
• Collections Committee—on average six council members attended, three as committee members and two to three observers; and
• Building Committee—on average five council members attended (ranging from three to five members and one to two observers).

2.15 In August 2016 a strategic review of the NGA was undertaken which concluded:

• Council members were not clear about the NGA’s vision, quoting them as stating ‘It is a bit fuzzy’;
• sound governance practices and transparent decision-making processes needed to be embedded across the NGA, particularly focusing on clarifying and formalising decision-making processes so that decisions may be timely, adhered to and not revised; and
• professional advice from staff is ignored by senior management and therefore not escalated to Council.¹² This was said to result in poor outcomes and expense to the Gallery.

2.16 In response to the strategic review, a draft Governance Framework was presented to the Audit and Risk Committee in November 2017. If implemented, the Framework will enable the NGA to better integrate its governance, planning and finance processes in line with PGPA Act requirements, improve decision-making and help in the achievement of the NGA’s objectives. The Council endorsed the framework, but noted that it was essential that the concept of a strong corporate culture be developed and embedded into the Framework. A revised Governance Framework was presented to the February 2018 Audit and Risk Committee, which recommended that it be endorsed again by the Council. At the time of audit, the Framework had not been approved. NGA governance issues relating to financial sustainability and management are discussed below.

Business sustainability planning

Cash reserves (as a measurement of financial sustainability)

2.17 Both entities incurred a net deficit on continuing operations in 2016–17.¹³ The Memorial incurred a deficit of $10.8 million; and the NGA incurred a deficit of $22.1 million. The sustainable operation of each entity depends on the extent of its liquid funds.¹⁴ Table 2.1 shows that the Memorial is in a strong liquidity position, and that the Memorial is considered to have operated consistently within its fiscal parameters. The financial assets of each entity against its liabilities (payables and provisions) as at 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 is shown in Table 2.1.¹⁵

Table 2.1: Financial liquidity

Source: ANAO analysis of entity annual reports, 2016–17.

National Gallery of Australia’s financial sustainability

2.18 In August 2016 the NGA Council discussed the Gallery’s poor financial position in relation to cash flow. The nature of the situation was highlighted in the CFO’s report to the November 2016 Audit Committee. The CFO advised the Committee that:

… the Gallery still has severe cash-flow issues. The NGA is spending more money than it will likely receive in 2016–17 and is not spending the cash it receives on the appropriate items.

Due to the likely end of year cash forecast and the potential for external shocks, like an unsuccessful exhibition or major building failure, it is advised that the Gallery seek to cease further collection development activities after the November council for the remainder of the financial year. ¹⁶

2.19 In response to its continuing deficit financial position (and other financial issues), in April 2017, the NGA developed a draft Financial Sustainability Plan covering 2017–21. The plan states:

The NGA should aim to have, at all times, cash reserves that will enable it to pay all current liabilities and fully cover all employee provisions. That is, for all current liabilities, the NGA should have current liquid assets (cash) to pay for those liabilities. ¹⁷

2.20 The draft plan anticipated approximately $8–$10 million in cash assets at any given time based on previous years’ current liabilities, which the plan notes will need to be built up over the next three or four financial years starting in 2017–18. As at February 2018, the NGA’s operating cash position at 30 June 2018 was predicted to be $5.5 million.

2.21 This financial position has had consequences for collection development. At the first Council meeting for the 2017–18 financial year (August 2017), the Director reported that the acquisitions proposed to the Collections Committee, represented eight months of keeping acquisition purchases on hold. The acquisitions had been unable to proceed in 2016–17 as all acquisition funding had been spent by November 2016. As at 31 October 2017, the NGA had already expended 72.6 per cent of its 2017–18 artwork acquisition budget —within the first four months of the financial year. Without contingency funds, the NGA will not be in an appropriate position to respond to strategic purchase opportunities. ‘Solvency’ was added to the NGA’s strategic risk register in February 2018 as a new risk with a rating of ‘Major’. The NGA’s management of risk is discussed elsewhere in this chapter.

Collection Development Acquisition Budget

2.25 The Memorial and the NGA both receive an equity injection of government funding through the Collection Development Acquisition Budget (CDAB). The Department of Finance describes this as ‘funding provided to Designated Collection Institutions¹⁸ to allow them to grow and maintain their heritage and cultural asset collections, rather than for asset replacement’.¹⁹ CDAB funding is provided by Parliament through Appropriation Bill No.2 directly to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Communications and the Arts.

Memorial Collection Development Acquisition Budget

2.26 Appendix 3 sets out the allocation of annual Appropriation Bill No.2 to CDAB for the Memorial from 2009–10 to 31 January 2018. The Memorial’s CDAB funding is quarantined and only available for reinvestment in the National Collection through conservation, preservation, and/or acquisition activities.²⁰

NGA Collection Development Acquisition Budget

2.27 Appendix 4 sets out the allocation of annual Appropriation Bill No.2 to CDAB for the NGA during the period 2009–10 to 31 January 2018.

2.28 In formal meeting discussions the NGA Director and Council have expressed a strong wish to expend the full CDAB allocation on the acquisition of artworks. Although the Audit and Risk Committee recognised that the purpose of CDAB funds was to purchase, care for and maintain the NGA’s cultural and heritage assets²¹, the CFO nevertheless had to advise the Committee in November 2017 that the current budget had allocated CDAB funds ‘towards what has traditionally been considered operational activities. The 2017–18 financial year structural deficit is due to allocating CDAB funds towards activities that are operational in nature and have traditionally been funded by departmental appropriation.’ The Director’s report to the February 2018 Council meeting made the following observations on strategic priorities facing the NGA:

The NGA, largely due over many years to the consistent transfer of money allocated in CDAB for acquisition purposes, to operating and other categories of capital replacement, has meant that the NGA has not been able to secure exceptional Australian and international masterpieces for many years. This needs to be reversed. Preserving the full CDAB allocation must be a strategic priority for Australia’s premier art museum. We must remind ourselves what we are here to do, and what we were set up to achieve. Linked to this, as noted, is the relationship between collection growth and further storage demands and costs, and a broad ranging deaccessioning program will be essential. ²²

2.29 The NGA Council, as the Accountable Authority, has a duty under section 15 of the PGPA Act²³ to govern the NGA in a way that promotes: the proper use and management of public resources for which it is responsible; the achievement of the purposes of the NGA; and the financial sustainability of the NGA. Furthermore, under section 19 of the PGPA Act²⁴, the Council has a duty to keep the Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Finance informed of any significant issues that have affected, or may affect, the NGA. There was no evidence that the NGA has advised the Ministers that it has utilised injections of equity, designed for the purchase and maintenance of artworks, for operating costs and capital costs. This does not meet the intent of CDAB’s purpose and thereby the intent of Parliament.

Performance measurement, monitoring and reporting

2.35 Reporting the performance of Commonwealth entities towards achieving their purpose is a fundamental tenet of public accountability and transparency. In its 2004–05 performance audit report, the ANAO recommended that: ‘cultural institutions discuss, with a view to developing, a set of key common performance measures’ (KPIs). All agencies, including the NGA, agreed to this recommendation, although the Memorial agreed with qualification:

The Memorial considered the development of common performance measures across institutions whose business outputs are quite different from one another will, of necessity be at the broadest level. In respect of performance measures, in the main it is considered best to deliver meaningful information about the institution’s performance rather than seeking to make them common across institutions and thereby too broad to be useful. However there will be some areas where broad measures are appropriate.²⁵

2.36 National cultural institutions within the Arts portfolio, including national collecting institutions²⁶, subsequently report against a common set of Cultural Institutions KPIs, including KPIs developed in relation to funding, visits and audience reach, education and collections.²⁷ Although the Memorial does not participate in the National Cultural Institutions Impact Report²⁸, given its recognition that some broad measures are appropriate to all collecting institutions, the ANAO assessed the extent to which the Memorial performs against those common KPIs that relate to collections, and how the NGA publicly reports against these.²⁹ The results are shown in Appendix 5.³⁰

Australian War Memorial

2.37 The Memorial’s Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) set out a performance objective for the delivery of Program Component 1.3—the National Collection: ‘an outstanding national collection of historical material with provenance that is related to Australia’s military history’. The Memorial’s Corporate Plan 2017–2021 does not detail measures as to how it will achieve this objective in relation to the National Collection. It refers only to the measurement of visitor attendance and satisfaction, without setting meaningful targets for these measures.

2.38 As shown in Appendix 5, the Annual Report 2016–17 includes a number of statistics in line with the common set of Cultural Institution KPIs, listing the achievement of the KPIs relating to Program Component 1.3. All of them are described as ‘met’, however only the measure relating to ‘conservation standards in storage’ includes details as to the nature of the target met.

2.39 The Memorial’s existing reporting does not have measureable performance targets and makes it difficult to determine whether strategic goals have been achieved. The performance measures reported are not meaningful. The ANAO suggests that the Memorial reviews its KPIs and Corporate Plan to ensure compliance with the PGPA Act.³¹

National Gallery of Australia

2.40 The NGA’s PBS set out performance information for the delivery of Program Component 1.1—Collection development, management, access and promotion: ‘achieved through the ongoing development of the national collection and delivery of inspirational exhibitions, supported by research, scholarship, education and public programs’.

2.41 The NGA’s Corporate Plan 2017–2018 details four of the seven measures set out in the PBS, and contains reporting in the Annual Report 2016–17 as to how it will achieve its purpose in relation to the National Collection.³²

2.42 While performance in a number of measures under the common set of Cultural Institutions KPIs is reported on, the targets were found to be arbitrary and often not met.

2.43 An internal audit report in February 2018 on Planning and Performance Reporting found that many of the NGA’s performance measures do not provide users with a reasonable indication of performance and are seen by most as targets or statistics that are not based on realistic annual targets. The report states that it is not clear that the Senior Executive Team were involved in the establishment of, or review of, the current set of performance indicators. The review recommended that:

The [NGA] review all KPIs, taking into account RMG 131³³ and develop a new set of performance indicators. The performance indicators should clearly map to the Corporate Plan, Annual Business Plans, and the portfolio budget statements, cover the entity’s activities that have been identified for the relevant year and be endorsed by the NGA Council.

2.44 The NGA agreed with the recommendation, noting that work had already commenced in reviewing the NGA’s KPIs and NGA planning and reporting processes. Evidence indicated that the NGA is taking steps to review its planning and reporting processes, including KPIs, as part of the recently implemented Governance Framework.

Service Charter

2.45 Further to the ANAO recommendation in 2004–05 that the NGA ‘introduces objective measures for its Service Charter’³⁴, the ANAO notes that the NGA reports, in its Annual Report³⁵, a series of visitor satisfaction measures in relation to NGA service standards. These service standards, as implemented in 2016–17, are shown in Table 2.2.³⁶

Table 2.2: NGA reporting against service standards, 2016–17

Source: NGA, Annual Report, 2016–17, p. 53.

2.46 The NGA publishes its Service Charter on its website.³⁷ While the Charter itself does not include service performance measures or targets, these KPIs are detailed in the NGA’s annual PBS and measure overall visitor satisfaction levels.

Have the entities developed frameworks to support the management of their collections?

2.47 A collection management framework is made up of the policies, plans and procedures that provide the foundations and organisational arrangements for designing, implementing, monitoring, reviewing and improving collection management processes.³⁸ A strong mission and purpose should be evident throughout the framework. The framework should also be supported by regular review arrangements to drive a cycle of continuous improvement. The Memorial and NGA Councils are ultimately accountable for ensuring that an effective collection management framework is in place.

2.48 The ANAO assessed whether the Memorial and the NGA have developed adequate collection management frameworks by reviewing the entities’ key documents against collection management standards and guidelines. The implementation of these frameworks is discussed in the next chapter.

2.49 Overall, the ANAO found that both entities were lacking key elements of a collection management framework. A summary of the ANAO’s analysis is presented in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Collection Management Documentation Frameworks

 

 

Source: ANAO analysis of Memorial and NGA documentation. Collection management framework elements were based on PAS 197: 2009 Code of Practice for Cultural Collections Management.

Policies and plans for the development of the collection

2.50 The development of a collection involves both the acquisition (accession) of items into the collection and the disposal (deaccession) of items from the collection. A collection development policy and plan supports an entity in effectively shaping and planning the development of its collection by analysing the collection at a point in time and identifying priorities and gaps in its collection for future development.

Australian War Memorial

2.51 The Memorial’s primary policy relating to the development of its collection is the National Collection Acquisitions and Disposal Policy. This document outlines the criteria that apply for assessing items for acquisition and disposal. This supports the Memorial’s Collection Development Plan which includes more detailed information on how the policy will be implemented.

2.52 The Acquisition and Disposal Policy was updated in January 2018 to reflect the Memorial’s current expectations in relation to the acquisition and disposal of collection items. In particular, the revised policy³⁹ reflects the expectation that proposed acquisitions are assessed on the basis of their significance, relationship to the existing collection and resource implications and risk. The Memorial’s most recent Collection Development Plan, however, covering the period 2010–13, is out of date and requires review. The plan should be updated to take account of the many items that have been accessioned into the collection since the last plan, and to reflect collecting priorities for recent conflicts. The Memorial should also consider identifying items for potential disposal as part of its revisions to the plan.

National Gallery of Australia

2.53 The NGA’s Art Acquisition Policy, released in August 2017, outlines the NGA’s desired philosophy supporting the acquisition of art for its collection. The policy commits the NGA to acquiring works of art in accordance with the National Gallery Act 1975 and an overall Art Acquisition Strategy. The policy states that the NGA gives ‘particular emphasis to the visual art of Australia, Europe and North America as well as Asian and Pacific countries’. The NGA’s policy also includes that the ‘development and enhancement of the collection is essential to ensure that the Gallery remains a vibrant, living entity’. To implement the Art Acquisition Policy, and to plan for the development of its collection, the NGA develops ten-year acquisition strategies for each of its collecting areas.⁴⁰ During audit fieldwork, the 2006–16 strategies were being updated, with the final strategy to be finalised in August 2018.

2.54 In 2017, the NGA also developed an Art Deaccessioning Policy. The Policy states that the NGA needs to proceed with particular care when deaccessioning items from its collection in order to balance a range of considerations including the: integrity and long-term quality of the collection; public interest; and effects any publicity may have on the willingness of current and future benefactors to donate or bequeath works of art to the NGA.

Policies and plans relating to the care and conservation of the collection

2.55 The care and conservation of an entity’s collection involves activities relating to:

• collection care—security, storage, maintenance, handling, environmental monitoring and control, stocktaking and exhibitions and loans; and
• collection conservation—preventative conservation⁴¹ and remedial conservation⁴² activities.

Australian War Memorial

2.56 The ANAO identified a range of Memorial policies relating to the care and conservation of its collection. These included policies relating to: inward and outward loans; code of ethics relating to the National Collection; moral rights; stocktaking; research; preservation; and security. Similarly, plans were identified relating to care and conservation of the collection. These included the: Environment Management Plan (in draft); Preventative Conservation Action Plan; Integrated Preventative Pest Management Plan (in draft); and Collection Preservation Plan (in draft). Most of the policies were last updated in 2012 and some of the policies and most of the plans were in draft form and/or had not been approved. It would be timely for the Memorial to identify all the policies and plans that it has in place relating to the care and conservation of its collection and develop and update them as necessary.

National Gallery of Australia

2.57 The ANAO identified a range of NGA policies relating to the care and conservation of its collection. Many of the NGA’s policies were updated during 2017 and improvements have been made to the arrangements supporting approval and review. Key policies addressed activities such as: conservation; incoming and outgoing loans; stocktaking; business continuity; and exhibitions. Similarly, a range of plans focussed on the care and conservation of the NGA’s collection including the: Collection Preservation Plan; Disaster Recovery Plan; and NGA IT Disaster Recovery Plan. The NGA has a range of policies and plans in place relating to the care and conservation of its collection which are current. NGA’s storage policy and storage planning documents were in draft at the time of the audit. Storage at the NGA is discussed in the next chapter.

Policies and plans for documenting the collection

Australian War Memorial

2.58 The Memorial’s Records Management and Public Access Policy, issued as a Director’s Instruction, outlines the importance of records management for the organisation. While not specifically focussed on collection records, the policy covers records management related to the collection. The policy was last reviewed in October 2012. It is timely for this policy to be reviewed and updated by the Memorial, including review of consistency with the National Archives Digital 2020 policy.

2.59 Until 2012, the Memorial had in place the Collection Documentation Plan 2009–12 to set out how documentation relating to the collection would be developed and enhanced. The Memorial advised that the Collection Documentation Plan 2009–12 was not reviewed and reissued after 2012. Instead, the focus is now on the documentation that exists to direct and assist staff in the management of data about the collection. Several other Memorial policies and plans still refer to the Collection Documentation Plan which could cause confusion. It is timely for the Memorial to review the Collection Documentation Plan to determine if any of its content is still relevant and should be moved into other documents or whether the Collection Documentation Plan should be updated and reissued.

National Gallery of Australia

2.60 The NGA’s Art Acquisition Policy, approved in August 2017, requires that records for each proposed acquisition are maintained. Records are to be made in accordance with the NGA’s Record-Keeping Policy and procedures and should contain relevant information on decision-making. The NGA does not have a collections documentation plan to set out intended actions for improving the documentation of the collection and systems. The NGA advised that it instead focusses on practical measures for developing procedures to support the documentation of its collection.

2.61 The NGA has also developed a document called the Care of the Collection that includes high-level information about the documentation and care of the collection and the NGA’s collection management system. This document is out of date—the NGA advised that some information has not been updated in more than a decade.

Developing, reviewing and storing collection management framework documentation

2.62 Work has been undertaken or is underway in both entities in terms of developing, reviewing, updating and finalising policies, plans and procedures which form part of their approaches to managing their collections.⁴³ Progress is required to bed down a structured approach to the development and review of collection management documentation.

2.63 Neither entity had adequate arrangements in place for storing collection management framework documentation. While some key documents are accessible via the entities’ intranet sites, both entities advised that it was common for collection management documentation to be stored in branch or section specific share drives. This results in a lack of central oversight over key documents, making it harder to ensure that an integrated framework is in place. It also creates uncertainty around the status of documentation and inhibits the ability of staff to access collection management documentation.

Have the entities developed effective risk management for the National Collections?

Risk management

2.67 Under section 16 of the PGPA Act, the Accountable Authority of each Commonwealth entity is required to establish and maintain ‘an appropriate system of risk oversight and management for the entity.’⁴⁴ Given the significant number of risks inherent in managing collections that are the size and complexity of those held by the Memorial and the NGA, sound risk management processes are critical.

2.68 The ANAO assessed the entities’ risk management frameworks against elements of the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy and considered their performance in addressing specific risks they face. As corporate Commonwealth entities, neither the Memorial nor the NGA is required to comply with the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy.⁴⁵ However, the Policy states that corporate Commonwealth entities ‘should review and align their risk management frameworks and systems with this policy as a matter of good practice’.⁴⁶

Australian War Memorial

2.69 The ANAO found that the Memorial satisfies most of the elements of the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy. The Memorial’s risk management framework details: responsibilities and accountabilities in relation to risk management; a formal risk appetite across key risk categories; situations in which risk assessments must be undertaken; and dictates how risk management is to be integrated into broader business plans and undertakings.

2.70 Elements of the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy that were omitted included details of how the Memorial reports risks to external stakeholders, how the Memorial manages risks that are shared with other entities (such as storage and exhibition partners) and how risk management performance is to be measured. While the Memorial’s Audit Committee endorsed the Risk Management Framework, the framework has not been approved by the Accountable Authority.

2.71 Under its risk management framework, the Memorial undertakes business risk assessments every three years. The latest business risk assessment was conducted in 2016 and outlined: risks across key business areas; contributing factors and sources of risk; potential impacts; controls in place; and responsible business areas. The Memorial’s business risk assessment includes comprehensive details on collection security, storage and preservation and the collection management systems (CMS).

2.72 The Memorial’s Audit Committee and Corporate Management Group (CMG) are provided with quarterly risk management reports, which include updates to assessments and controls for risks in the business risk register rated as ‘significant’ or higher. CMG also receives regular briefings on key projects, including updates from the Memorial’s Priority Projects Steering Committee. The Council, as the Accountable Authority, was actively engaged with risk management.

National Gallery of Australia

2.73 The NGA has made progress since early 2017 in improving risk management, putting in place a new risk management framework and establishing risk reporting mechanisms. This was after an internal review commissioned in late 2016 found a number of shortcomings in the way the NGA managed risk.

2.74 The NGA’s 2017 risk management framework includes most of the elements outlined in the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy and provides a good starting point for the continual improvement of risk management at the NGA. The framework describes reporting arrangements, outlines key responsibilities and accountabilities in relation to risk management and provides for review of the framework. However, the framework⁴⁷ does not detail how risks shared with other entities are to be handled, how risks are reported to external stakeholders or how risk management performance will be measured. The NGA established a statement of risk appetite and risk tolerance in February 2018.

2.75 The NGA has separate strategic, departmental and project risk registers, and reconvened its quarterly Risk Management Advisory Group (RMAG) in August 2017. The RMAG had not been in operation since April 2016, and senior management attendance was limited.

2.76 Despite these new measures, it is not clear that Council at the NGA receives adequate reporting for it to give full effect to its responsibility under the NGA’s risk management framework to oversee the risk management at the NGA, as demonstrated by Case Study 1 below.⁴⁸ The management of work health and safety risks and risks to the National Collection is also discussed in relation to storage and gallery building management in the next chapter.

Business continuity

2.77 Safeguarding the National Collection requires entities to be able to respond effectively when major incidents occur. The Australian Government Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) establishes requirements for Commonwealth entities in relation to business continuity management.⁴⁹ As with the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy, neither the Memorial nor the NGA is required to comply with the PSPF, although alignment is encouraged as a means of achieving better practice.⁵⁰

2.78 In addition to their individual efforts at establishing effective business continuity arrangements, both the Memorial and the NGA have signed the Disaster ACT (DISACT) memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU is between 12 different cultural and scientific entities in the ACT and provides for entities to request assistance from other signatories in the event of an emergency. The MOU describes potential assistance as being in the form of loans of equipment, provision of specialist staff or other assistance as agreed by the relevant parties.

Australian War Memorial

2.79 The Memorial updated its Business Continuity Management Policy and Plan (BCMPP) in March 2018. It delegates decisions on critical business functions and maximum outage times to lower level plans developed by individual business areas. The Memorial undertakes business continuity exercises approximately once a year to test the BCMPP and its response capabilities. The Memorial also has Director’s Instructions relating to business continuity, although the instructions have not been reviewed since 2012, and their relationship to the BCMPP is not clear.

2.80 The Memorial’s National Collection Disaster Plan provides comprehensive guidance to managers and staff on what to do in response to a disaster. The Plan outlines annual training for staff with key roles in responding to an incident. It also details responses to disasters affecting restricted areas such as armouries, radiation stores and manuscript secure stores. Further to the DISACT MOU, the Memorial has access to secure storage facilities at the National Archives of Australia and the Department of Defence for use in the event of an emergency.

National Gallery of Australia

2.81 The NGA’s business continuity framework was finalised in August 2017 and is comprehensive in nature, meeting each of the requirements under the PSPF. There are detailed disaster recovery plans for works of art in addition to guides for caring for damaged works of art. A business continuity overview ‘cheat sheet’ has been developed to provide essential information on the roles of NGA staff in the event of a business continuity event, key response activities and their timeframes and maximum outage times. The NGA has a separate MOU in place with the National Portrait Gallery relating to mutual assistance in the event of a major incident occurring at one of the entities. The NGA undertakes a program of business continuity testing that includes both desktop scenarios and drills.

Do the entities effectively plan for and monitor the development of their collections?

Planning the development of the collections

Australian War Memorial

3.1 The Memorial’s Acquisition and Disposal Policy explains that acquisitions and disposals are the main mechanisms through which it develops its collection. The policy specifies that the guidelines governing acquisitions and disposals are included in its Collection Development Plan (CDP). The most up-to-date CDP covers the period 2010–13 and so has been out of date for some five years. An abridged version of the 2010–13 CDP is accessible on the Memorial’s website.⁵¹

3.2 Despite its out-of-date status, the Memorial has continued to identify the CDP in its Corporate Plan as one of the key plans its uses to achieve its purpose. The CDP is structured around major conflicts, and illustrates that for some conflicts the collection is well developed, while there are also significant gaps which the Memorial is seeking to fill through its program of acquisitions. The plan includes a section articulating the collecting aims and priorities for each conflict. One of the Memorial’s 2017–18 key projects is the development and implementation of a revised CDP and strategy. The ANAO notes that this has been listed as a key action since 2014.

3.3 Without an up-to-date CDP it is difficult to evidence a clear and current rationale for the Memorial’s acquisition of items. In addition to the 2010–13 CDP, a draft Memorial document from April 2016 identifies a range of acquisition priorities which are not necessarily specific to a period of conflict. This document states that these priorities reflect the Memorial’s broadening brief and contemporary society. Themes and subjects include: tattoos; home front (family of serving personnel); cultural diversity in the Australian Defence Forces; and children in war. This suggests a need for the Memorial to review and update its official CDP to take account of shifting priorities in acquiring items for its collection. The Memorial advised that it plans to finalise an updated CDP by June 2018.

3.4 The Australian War Memorial Act 1980 and the Memorial’s Acquisition and Disposal Policy include provision for the disposal of items from its collection. The Memorial’s CDP 2010–13 also includes several references to the disposal of items. Although recognising that this plan is out of date, the general message is that the Memorial’s preference is to avoid having to dispose of items from its collection. This message is consistent with the Memorial’s reported disposals between 2001–02 and 2016–17, as shown by Figure 3.1 below. In 2015–16, 5648 items were disposed, of which 5175 items were VHS copies that were inferior duplicates and were replaced with high quality originals.

Figure 3.1: Memorial acquisitions and disposals, 2001–02 to 2016–17

Source: Memorial annual reports from 2001–to 2016–17.

3.5 In 2014–15, the Memorial formally added (accessioned) 77 721 items into its collection as part of a program to clear a backlog of donations. The Memorial advised the ANAO that the unprocessed items were approved in bulk without proper assessments in terms of their appropriateness for the collection, but that the Memorial had considered and accepted this risk.⁵² At this time, the rejection rate for donations was around 45 per cent. This suggests that some 35 000 items were potentially accessioned into the Memorial’s collection which may have been rejected. The Memorial noted as a result of the program a more effective and consistent acquisitions process was developed and implemented.

National Gallery of Australia

3.6 The NGA’s Art Acquisition Policy⁵³ outlines the NGA’s desired approach to acquiring art for its collection. It outlines high-level collecting priorities which have been established since the NGA’s formation, and commits the NGA to acquiring works of art in accordance with the National Gallery Act 1975 and its Art Acquisition Strategies, of which there are currently nine either approved or in draft.⁵⁴ Works of art proposed for acquisition must fit the Art Acquisition Statement of Intent⁵⁵ for that collecting area, which is established by consultation between curatorial and executive staff, and endorsed by the NGA’s Council. In November 2017 the Council was presented a draft Acquisitions Statement of Intent. The focus of this statement is on how the NGA will build its collection and on how it will seek to adjust its acquisitions policy to keep up with curatorial developments, particularly in the area of contemporary art. NGA advised that the Council has accepted the statement in principle, but requested a six-month period for further reflection and consultation and to allow the new Director to consider before finalising it.

3.7 During the audit the NGA was reviewing its nine Art Acquisition Strategies for the period 2017–2027 on a rolling basis, with the final strategy to be presented to the Council in August 2018. As at March 2018, six of the nine strategies had been approved by the Director and presented to the Council.

3.8 The Art Acquisition Strategies covering the period 2006–16 include a discussion around the gaps and priorities for the collection and also identify specific works of art which are desired for the NGA’s collection. The draft 2017–27 strategies follow this same structure, outlining general collecting priorities and specific artists or works of art.

3.9 The National Gallery Act 1975 and the NGA’s Art Deaccessioning Policy include provision for the disposal of items from its collection. Except for the recent approval of the deaccession of 225 items from the Pacific Art collection, there was little evidence that the disposal of items from the collection has been seriously considered. Figure 3.2 below highlights that the NGA has not had an active program of disposals since 2007–08. As part of collection development planning, the NGA should review its collection with a focus on identifying items or areas of the collection which could be disposed (including by sale) to reduce pressure on storage facilities.

Figure 3.2: NGA acquisitions and disposals, 2001–02 to 2016–17

Note: In 2007–08, the NGA made a large acquisition of over 7000 photographs.

Source: NGA annual reports.

Monitoring and reporting the development of their collections

Australian War Memorial

3.10 The Memorial does not produce a regular report against its CDP. In its annual reports, the Memorial reports against two performance measures in relation to the number of items that were acquired or disposed of in accordance with its CDP. The Memorial’s reported acquisitions and disposals are graphed in Figure 3.1.

3.11 Between 2001–02 and 2016–17, the Memorial reported that it acquired 248 074 items for its collection, an average of 15 505 acquisitions per year.⁵⁶ As shown in Figure 3.1, there was a notable peak in acquisitions in 2014–15, where the Memorial reported that it acquired 91 037 items. This was largely due to it processing a backlog of donations. Almost 78 000 (86 per cent) of the acquisitions for 2014–15 were donations that had been received in previous years and not processed. The Memorial reported that it disposed of 7133 items between 2001–02 and 2016–17 (an average of 445 per year). As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the majority of these items (5648 or 79 per cent) were disposed of in 2015–16.

National Gallery of Australia

3.12 There was only limited evidence that the NGA’s Art Acquisition Strategies were regularly and systematically monitored and reviewed after their development. In 2014, an annotated version of the 2006–16 strategies was presented to the NGA Council indicating which items had been acquired and when. Further, the 2007 strategy for Pacific Art collection was reviewed and updated in 2009. In 2017, the revised Pacific Art strategy reported against the previous iterations of the strategy in terms of the number of key works that were acquired.

3.13 The NGA reports on the number of acquisitions and disposals each year in its annual reports, as illustrated in Figure 3.2.

3.14 Between 2001–02 and 2016–17, the NGA reported that it acquired 42 088 items for its collection. This was an average of 2631 acquisitions per year. As shown in Figure 3.2, there have been three notable peak acquisitions periods over that time: 2001–02; 2007–08; and 2012–13. The peaks in 2001–02 and 2007–08 reflect three large acquisitions which included many individual items. In 2012–13, the NGA acquired 4095 items through gift. The NGA reported that it disposed of 4235 items between 2001–02 and 2016–17 (an average of 265 per year). As illustrated in Figure 3.2, the vast majority of these items (3996 or 94 per cent) were disposed between 2001–02 and 2006–07. In 2014–15, 137 objects and pieces of domestic furniture by unknown British makers from the late seventeenth century to the late nineteenth century were disposed.

Do the entities effectively develop their collections?

Acquisitions and accessions

3.20 The ANAO tested⁵⁷ a total of 69 items acquired during 2017 by the Memorial and the NGA (32 Memorial and 37 NGA) to assess how effectively the entities acquired and accessioned items into their collections. The ANAO’s assessment of the effectiveness of the entities’ acquisitions involved determining whether:

• the relevance, significance and provenance of the item was assessed;
• whole-of-life costs associated with the acquisition were evaluated; and
• acquisitions were approved in accordance with legislation and/or applicable delegations.

Australian War Memorial

3.21 Table 3.1 summarises the results of the ANAO’s testing of Memorial acquisitions, with detailed discussion below.

Table 3.1: Summary results of ANAO testing of Memorial acquisitions, 2017

 

 

Source: ANAO analysis of Memorial acquisition documentation.

3.22 The ANAO found inconsistent acquisition practices were in place at the Memorial. The Memorial’s 2010–13 CDP identifies nine criteria for assessing the significance of a proposed item for its collection.⁵⁸ Testing found that 18 of the 32 acquisitions selected for assessment did not identify any link to the Memorial’s CDP. Of the 14 where a link indicated, 11 made a link to the broader assessment criteria included in the CDP (for example, ‘historical significance’) but not the specific priority areas (for example, ‘3.3.7 Second World War – Australia at war). Establishing a clearer link to the CDP at the acquisition stage would assist to ensure that items are collected in accordance with the acquisition strategy as articulated in the CDP.⁵⁹ Further, six of the 32 acquisitions assessed by the ANAO did not fully document the Memorial’s assessment of the provenance of the item.⁶⁰

3.23 The ANAO found little evidence that the whole-of-life costs associated with the acquisition of an item are considered by the Memorial. Only five of the 32 acquisitions assessed by the ANAO outlined costs beyond the purchase price. These costs most commonly related to freight and shipping. The Memorial’s revised template for the purchase of items requires whole-of-life costs to be identified for all items. This provides a more structured approach to evaluate and/or estimate costs additional to the purchase price such as: packing; transportation; conservation; storage; and licences and other fees, and is consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.⁶¹ This approach to evaluating whole-of-life costs should be applied across all acquisition types (commissions, purchases and donations).

3.24 The Memorial’s Financial Delegations outline the approvals required for acquiring items into the collection. For the majority of acquisitions assessed by the ANAO (31 of 32), the approval was made in accordance with the Financial Delegations. For one acquisition, a purchase was approved by an assistant curator who was not an appropriate delegate.

3.25 Prior to 2014–15, the Memorial experienced a large backlog of unprocessed collection items. As part of the project to clear the backlog and centralise the donation process, the Memorial has introduced a three month timeframe for processing donations.⁶² Reporting generated from the Memorial’s Collection Management System (CMS) demonstrates that the Memorial’s average processing times are now between 30 to 35 days and the timeliness of processing acquisitions is no longer an issue. The Memorial, aware of consistency issues, centralised its processes for purchases during 2017.⁶³ At the time of the audit, centralised processes for donations and commissions were being implemented.

National Gallery of Australia

3.28 The NGA has in place three acquisition proposal templates covering: purchases; gifts and commissions. The templates are annotated to assist curators in providing the expected information for decision makers.⁶⁴ Table 3.2 summarises the results of the ANAO’s testing of NGA acquisitions, with detailed discussion below.

Table 3.2: Summary results of ANAO testing of NGA acquisitions, 2017

 

 

Source: ANAO analysis of NGA acquisition documentation.

3.29 The NGA aims to acquire works of art that fit within identified priorities. Acquisitions are to be selected on the basis of the significance of the artist and/or the specific quality of the work, as well as relevance to the collection. The NGA also aims to ensure that it only acquires works of art with a reliable chain of ownership, or which have a secure title and history of legal and ethical transactions. The ANAO found that almost all (36 of 37) of the acquisitions selected for testing stated that a link to the NGA’s Art Acquisition Strategy existed, and that almost all (36 of 37) acquisition proposals included assessments of provenance.⁶⁵ However, only 20 proposals were found to have actually had a clear and direct link to confirm that the acquisition was part of the NGA’s Art Acquisition Strategy. The ANAO found that for 34 of the 37 acquisitions selected for testing, approvals were in accordance with delegations.

3.30 None of the 37 acquisition proposals assessed by the ANAO contained evidence that staff had sufficiently evaluated whole-of-life costs. The NGA’s recently released Art Acquisition Policy (November 2017) requires that factors that may impact on the longer term condition, care and preservation of a work of art are taken into account prior to acquisition. This includes any issues or unusual costs relating to the: current condition and long-term care of the item; storage and movement of the work of art; and documentation, display and loan. As part of revised acquisition procedures, curatorial staff are required to consult staff from the registrations and conservation sections.

3.31 The Commonwealth Procurement Rules require that entities consider whole-of-life costs when conducting a procurement. In this context, decision makers should be fully informed about all costs, including estimated costs, associated with acquisitions. Where whole-of-life cost information had been provided by the registration and conservation sections, the ANAO found that this was not always documented in the acquisition submissions to the Council (see case study below). This means that the delegate is missing information about costs when making an acquisition decision.⁶⁶

Figure 3.3: Domesticated Turf in NGA’s storage facility

 

 

Source: Photograph by ANAO.

3.32 The NGA’s 2017–18 Corporate Plan states that ‘all works of art are accessioned and documented accurately and within agreed timeframes’. Despite this commitment, by way of example, as at January 2018 there were 934 unprocessed items located in an NGA storage room examined by the ANAO. Of the items in this room, 642 were marked as ‘for submission to the NGA’s Council’.

3.33 Figure 3.4 shows the number of items that were stored in NGA storage room 284 as at January 2018. The horizontal axis illustrates the year the item arrived at the NGA. For instance, one item arrived at the NGA in 1997, and five in 1998, and a decision has not been made about whether to acquire these items for the NGA’s collection.

3.34 As a priority, the NGA should further investigate the items located in other storage areas on NGA’s premises and determine if the items are unprocessed acquisitions. If so, the NGA should process the backlog of acquisitions within its care.

Figure 3.4: NGA’s unprocessed items in room 284 by date of arrival at the NGA, as at January 2018

Source: ANAO analysis of NGA data.

Disposals and deaccessions

3.39 The ANAO tested a limited number of deaccessions that occurred during 2017. At the Memorial, ten deaccessions were selected for testing. Only four of these were found to be deaccessions from the National Collection.⁶⁷ The NGA did not undertake any deaccessions during 2017. The ANAO’s assessment of the effectiveness of the entities’ disposals involved determining whether: items were disposed of because of a legitimate reason; and appropriate approvals were evident.

3.40 The ANAO found scope for both the Memorial and the NGA to improve their deaccession processes and practices.

Australian War Memorial

3.41 In November 2017, the Collection Services branch presented a paper to the Memorial’s Corporate Management Group outlining the need for a centralised process relating to the disposal of items from its collection.

3.42 The Memorial advised the ANAO, in February 2018, that internal procedural documentation for disposals was inconsistent with practice and that the process is being centralised. The ANAO’s testing found that the four tested disposals did not have consistent or adequate documentation to demonstrate that items were approved for deaccession in accordance with delegations.

3.43 The case study below outlines an example of items that were not disposed of consistently with the legislated process.⁶⁸

National Gallery of Australia

3.44 The NGA’s draft Deaccessioning Policy, August 2017, identifies that the NGA must proceed with great care when disposing of items from its collection. This involves balancing a number of considerations, including the: integrity and long-term quality of the collection; public interest; and effects any publicity may have on the willingness of current and future benefactors to donate or bequeath works of art to the NGA. The NGA has also developed a Deaccessioning Report Template which provides a consistent basis on which to assess items for deaccession. Together, the policy and template provide a sound approach to assessing and disposing items.⁶⁹ Even so, audit interviews noted that that the new deaccessioning process for both collection and non-collection items is viewed as involving a challenging amount of work. This is a risk that the NGA needs to manage.

3.45 The ANAO did not test the effectiveness of the NGA’s deaccessioning because no items were disposed of during 2017.

3.46 In the 2004–05 audit, the ANAO recommended that the NGA assign a high priority to the assessment of the Commonwealth collection for disposal.⁷⁰ The NGA agreed with this recommendation and had disposed of the majority of the collection as at March 2018. In particular, in 2015 it disposed of a set of decorative arts and furniture (118 items). In February 2018, the Council approved a further 225 items for disposal, pending Ministerial approval. A small collection of decorative arts (around 15 items) remains in the NGA’s collection.

Do the entities effectively maintain (conserve) their collections?

Planning and undertaking conservation activities

3.47 Conservation⁷¹ involves the range of activities aimed at prolonging the life of items in a collection. It includes: preventative conservation activities aimed at optimising the environmental conditions in which items are kept in order to reduce decay and damage; and remedial conservation activities aimed at responding to and treating damage.

3.48 A conservation plan (or equivalent) setting out intended actions to improve a collection can assist an entity achieve its objectives within a specific timeframe. A conservation plan should be aligned with the entity’s conservation policy.

3.49 Both the Memorial and the NGA are required by their respective legislation to not only develop their collections, but also to maintain their collections.

3.50 In the 1998–99 and 2004–05 ANAO performance audits of the National Collections, the ANAO made two recommendations directed towards conservation activities. The 1998–99 recommendation was directed to both the Memorial and the NGA. The 2004–05 recommendation was directed to the NGA only. Both of these recommendations were focused on ensuring that the entities allocated sufficient resources to conservation activities.

Table 3.3: ANAO conservation recommendations, 1998–99 and 2004–05

Source: ANAO Audit Report No. 8 1998–99 Safeguarding Our National Collections, p. 66; and ANAO Audit Report No. 59 2004–05 Safe and Accessible National Collections, p. 5.

Australian War Memorial

3.51 The Memorial’s Corporate Plan 2017–21 identifies its Conservation Strategy as a key element in ensuring its collection is maintained to appropriate standards. This strategy should include the: prioritisation of at-risk collection items; and development of risk-mitigation strategies for at-risk, vulnerable and high-use collection items. Although identified in the Memorial’s current corporate plan, a coordinated Conservation Strategy does not exist.

3.52 Between 2008 and 2013, the Memorial had in place collection preservation plans. Since 2013, a conservation plan has not been in place. As at February 2018, the Memorial had a draft Preservation Plan covering 2016–19. The Memorial’s 2017–18 Business Plan identifies the implementation of risk-based preventative conservation strategies as a key project. This project is supported by key conservation targets. The conservation targets involve activities such as: developing and implementing procedures; implementing risk mitigation strategies; undertaking conservation work on items; and digital preservation activities. The Memorial reports quarterly against these targets using a traffic light system.

3.53 The ANAO was advised during interviews that conservation activities are largely focussed on preparing items for exhibition and loan and stated that as a result, the conservation team is unable to undertake survey work on the condition of the collection to the extent that they once did.⁷³ The previous ANAO audit report noted that condition reporting also used to occur as part of the stocktake process.

3.54 In addition to general conservation activities, the conservation teams respond to reported incidents, including incidents of damage or items put at risk of damage. The number of reported incidents at the Memorial has reduced over the last three calendar years. The number of incidents has, however, increased compared to 2013–14 (see Figure 3.5). In 2017, the most common categories of incidents included: pest incidents (57 incidents); visitor contact (24 incidents); and building condition related incidents (18 incidents). The pre-2014 data is incomplete, as outlined in the note to Figure 3.5. As time progresses and the data improves, the Memorial will have a better understanding of the impact of incidents on the level of work for the conservation team.

Figure 3.5: Number of reported incidents at the Memorial, January 2013 to June 2017

Note: Data for the whole of 2012–13 was unavailable. In 2014 incident reporting processes were strengthened as a result of the Moth Eradication Project which subsequently increased the number of incidents reported.

Source: Analysis of Memorial data.

National Gallery of Australia

3.55 The NGA’s Conservation Policy for Works of Art, reviewed in 2017, states that the NGA aims to maintain the highest standards of conservation by establishing priorities for the care of its collection. Part of the role of the conservation section is to ‘ensure that the physical, cultural and intellectual integrity of the National Collection is preserved for future generations’.

3.56 Conservation priorities are identified in consultation with the Director, Assistant Director Collection Services and conservation and curatorial staff. The Preservation Plan, a key plan for the NGA, sets out the key issues and priorities for preserving the National Collection and the maintenance, preservation and enhancement activities that the NGA will undertake in relation to the collection. The 2017–18 Collection Preservation Plan outlines 22 tasks and activities that the conservation section plans to undertake to preserve the NGA’s collection. As at March 2018, eight of these tasks were on track to be completed in the financial year. The remaining 14 will not be completed or unlikely to be achieved in this financial year due to insufficient conservation resources.

3.57 The 2017–18 Conservation Preservation Plan and 2017–18 Conservation Section Plan identify that resources are a key consideration in terms of the ability of the NGA to complete the conservation tasks identified in the plans. The section plan identifies its top risk as being that there are insufficient conservation resources to meet its KPI. Further, the plan identifies the NGA’s exhibition and loan schedule as consuming a large percentage of the conservation department’s resources, meaning that the permanent collection is at risk of being neglected.

3.58 Reported damages and incidents relating to works of art increased significantly in 2015–16 and 2016–17 (see Figure 3.6) due to a number of events including a rehang of artwork, vandalism of the sculpture garden and weather events. This indicates that the workload on conservation is likely to have increased over this period, and may also reflect issues associated with security and asset maintenance. In 2016–17 the four main locations where damage occurred were while artworks were: on display, including in the Sculpture Garden (93 incidents); on an NGA travelling exhibition (28 incidents); and in NGA storage (16 incidents). A further 14 incidents occurred to artwork from water leaks while on display and in storage.

Figure 3.6: Number of damages and other incidents at the NGA, 2012–13 to 2016–17

Source: NGA data.

3.59 As outlined, the NGA is unlikely to complete the conservation tasks in its 2017–18 Conservation Preservation Plan.

Do the entities effectively store their collections?

National Collection Growth

3.64 Collection items on display represent only a small percentage of the National Collections. For example, in 2016–17, the NGA had approximately three per cent of its collection on display at its galleries and on loan during the year, with the other 97 per cent in storage. For the Memorial, considering the vast volume of collection items held, approximately one per cent is on display. Given the high volume of items in storage, an essential part of maintaining the National Collections is the provision of appropriate storage facilities and storage planning.

Australian War Memorial

3.65 The Memorial’s collection growth by category since 2014–15 to 31 December 2017 is depicted in Figure 3.7. It shows an 11 per cent increase in asset volume over a 3.5 year period. In 2012, as part of the Mitchell storage precinct redevelopment plan, the Memorial predicted that collection growth would increase at approximately 4000m² per decade as shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.7: Memorial collection growth by category, 2014–15 to 31 December 2017

Note: Research Centre National Collection Items are not included in the above chart. The Research Centre is discussed at paragraph 3.97.

Note: The graph measures the volume of collection items by unit (multiple units can constitute one item) and therefore differs from total figures presented in Chapter 1 – which is represented per collection item.

Source: ANAO analysis of Memorial information.

Figure 3.8: Memorial predicted collection growth, 2012 data

Potential collection storage growth per decade (m2) — Total 2600m2*

Source: Memorial information.

National Gallery of Australia

3.66 The NGA’s collection growth by art category from February 2006 to April 2017 is depicted in Figure 3.9. It shows a 1627 per cent increase in the total volume of assets over the period, a 17 per cent increase since 2014. Based on this information, the NGA has predicted future collection growth as depicted in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.9: NGA collection growth by art category, February 2006 to April 2017

Source: NGA information.

Figure 3.10: NGA predicted collection growth, based on April 2017 data

Source: NGA information.

Storage planning

3.67 As collections grow year on year and there is minimal deaccession activity occurring at either the Memorial or the NGA, adequate planning is needed to ensure that optimal storage conditions are maintained to prolong the life of the collection. The previous 2004–05 ANAO audit found that long-term storage to house the collections was a critical issue across all of the cultural entities.⁷⁵

Australian War Memorial

3.68 The Memorial utilises the following storage for its collection:

• Mitchell precinct covering 8100m² of current collection storage area including:
  • Mitchell store Treloar A (1978), climate controlled conservation laboratories, store for textiles, paper, photographs, paintings⁷⁶ and small objects; and non-climate controlled warehouse storage;
  • Mitchell store Treloar B (1986), non-climate controlled warehouse storage for large objects;
  • Mitchell store Treloar C (1993), climate controlled storage used to house large objects, conservation and administration;⁷⁷
  • Mitchell store Treloar D (2011), mixture of climate controlled and non-climate controlled storage (for collection and non-collection items);
  • Mitchell store Treloar E (2014), is currently under development with the aim of producing 5288m² of climate controlled storage; and
  • Mitchell store Treloar F (2014) currently leased out.
• Other National Collection storage covering 1500m² includes:
  • Campbell store in the main Memorial, Administration and Bean buildings, climate controlled storage used for art, works on paper, framing, photos, film and sound, and transit store (where donations are assessed);
  • National Film and Sound Archives (Nitrate Vault); and
  • National Library of Australia.

3.69 The Memorial identified in 2012 long-term storage needs, particularly for its large objects collection, to be an issue. As a result, the Memorial, using accumulated funds, redeveloped its Mitchell storage premises. The Memorial’s Mitchell facility is being progressively developed to accommodate the growth of the National Collection. This growth is projected to continue at a rate that will require an additional 2600m² storage per decade, equating to a growth in building size of 4000m² per decade (see previous Figure 3.8).

3.70 While storage at Mitchell is being improved, the Memorial has recognised that there are challenges in maintaining ideal environmental conditions and safeguarding collection items due to the dispersed nature of storage at its Campbell site: in the main Memorial Building, the Administration Building and the Bean Building.

3.71 During audit fieldwork the Memorial’s art store at Campbell was found to be at capacity. Large painting artworks are also stored in less than ideal conditions at Mitchell. The Memorial is currently working on a redevelopment plan which should include future storage planning for its art collection. Management has advised that it will be considering storage as part of the Master Plan to redevelop the War Memorial.

National Gallery of Australia

3.72 The NGA utilises the following storage for the National Collection:

• Parkes store of approximately 1798m² of climate controlled storage, part of the 1982 heritage listed building;
• Hume store of approximately 4136m² of climate controlled storage, built in 1993 and redeveloped in 2014 to maximise use of the storage space for the collection;
• Hume (Arnott Street) store of approximately 3000m² of uncontrolled (general) storage; mainly used to store non-collection items, with some low risk National Collections items, such as outdoor sculptures also stored (see Case Study 2);
• Cold store at the National Library of Australia used for the photograph collection; and
• Climate controlled and non-climate controlled commercial storage, at a cost of approximately $200 000 per annum, used for National Collection items. The NGA expects commercial storage costs to increase to $325 000 in 2018–19 and reach $750 000 in five to 10 years based on current collection growth patterns.

3.73 In June 2011, an internal report into storage at the NGA rated the lack of appropriate storage capacity as high risk, with works of art being stored in thoroughfares and other areas not conducive to the effective preservation of the collection. Following this review, in 2013 the NGA purchased the Hume (Arnott Street) store, adjacent to the Hume store for storage of non-collection items. In 2015 the NGA completed a redevelopment of the Hume store, converting uncontrolled storage into climate controlled storage. The intention of these storage solutions was to achieve another 10 years of storage needs. The storage redevelopment was funded from the Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) budget, although it was not included in the original SAMP planning, which focussed on replacing existing assets, not undertaking enhancements or purchasing new ones.

3.74 However, the receipt via donation of a number of collections of large sized art works in 2013–14 absorbed a large proportion of the new storage immediately.⁷⁸

3.75 More recent internal reviews in August 2016, indicated that ‘Storage space at the Hume offsite centre is currently close to capacity (95% full) with all remaining space allocated’⁷⁹ and in 2017 the ‘NGA appears to be rapidly filling the available storage space; a matter that will become a significant issue in the next eighteen months if current trends continue’.⁸⁰ This concurs with ANAO audit findings that NGA storage was nearing capacity at Hume and storage at Parkes was critical with items not stored in optimal storage conditions (such as in transit areas, in front of fire exits, and high value art work being stored on mobile racks for long periods).

3.76 The NGA is currently developing a storage strategy to address its requirements over the short, medium and long term. The NGA has advised that this strategy will be taken to Council in June 2018. The draft strategy states that the short and medium term storage challenges faced by the NGA will result in increased commercial storage costs. Future acquisitions in certain art categories, such as medium to large paintings, art installations or large three-dimensional works, will have to be stored commercially. In November 2017 management presented a future storage proposal to the NGA Building Committee—the creation of a cross link between the Hume store and Hume (Arnott Street) store and improvement in the environmental storage conditions at the Hume (Arnott Street) store. A 2014 cost estimate of $8–9 million dollars was provided to undertake these works. The funding for this future storage plan had not been identified at the time of the audit. However, the draft strategy notes that it will need to consider such options as quarantining a portion of future Capital Development Acquisition Budget to assist with achieving storage standards.

National Gallery of Australia’s management of building and supporting assets

3.81 In 2010, the NGA commissioned a facilities management company to develop a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) for its buildings. The SAMP was finalised in May 2011 and was focussed on the life cycle of assets that make up the NGA’s (then two) buildings and provided schedules for asset replacement over a 40-year period. At the time of the original analysis a large portion of the building infrastructure was due to reach the end of its life and required a $19.2 million investment in 2014–15.

3.82 A SAMP progress review in February 2015 found that the NGA was significantly underfunding SAMP and had prioritised other works ahead of undertaking critical works on infrastructure that was at risk of failure. The report concluded that ‘projects are organised based on the needs of the Gallery rather than the plotted needs of the asset.’ Inadequately funding SAMP had resulted in a backlog of works totalling between $15.6 million and $19 million,⁸¹ and included works on key infrastructure such as fire, electrical, environmental control and security systems.

3.83 The NGA prioritised several capital works ahead of scheduled SAMP works.⁸² Table 3.4 shows a summary of SAMP funding including budgeted and actual expenditure on SAMP projects. Table 3.4 shows that the NGA has been consistently underfunding and underspending on SAMP projects since 2012–13.

Table 3.4: NGA’s SAMP Budget vs Actual, 2012–13 to 2017–18

Note a: SAMP was revised in 2015–16.

Note b: The NGA’s 2017–18 SAMP budget was reduced from $4.8 million to $4 million in December 2017.

Source: NGA information. The accuracy of the information was not verified by the ANAO.

3.84 A 2017 review of SAMP stated that the backlog of works had grown to $46.7 million, $26.2 million of which, ‘must be undertaken at the earliest possible opportunity due to the consequences of what might occur in the event of a failure.’ Critical risks identified in the 2015 review were still unaddressed and failure to undertake the works would mean ‘it is likely that within the next 12 months major systematic failure will result… and potentially mean a shutdown of the premises for a period of time to ensure the facilities and collection protection are adequate.’ The review found:

• the fire system was at the end of its life and no longer supported by industry. The failure of the fire system would mean detection and timely extinguishing of a fire would be extremely difficult;
• systems for environmental control had already started failing. Complete failure would mean the NGA could no longer maintain appropriate conditions for collection items on display and in storage, many of which are extremely sensitive to fluctuations in temperature and humidity;
• the security system, which includes access controls, CCTV cameras and intruder alarms had also reached the end of its life. Failure of the security system would require the NGA to post security contractors at every building entry 24 hours a day at a cost of approximately $12,000 per day; and
• electrical systems were in many cases non-compliant with current standards increasing the risk of electrical shock and/or electrical fire.

3.85 Further risks to the collection stem from significant water ingress at the Parkes building and flooding at the Hume storage facility. The condition of the roof at the Parkes building is such that in heavy rain there are significant water leaks in gallery spaces that are visible to the public. For example, weather events in February 2018 resulted in major water leaks that put over 30 works of art at risk of damage—one was directly affected with water damage and several showcases had water exposure. Consistent water leaks during heavy rain events also impact on the NGA’s overall environmental management, increase mould and insect activity, and can place the public at risk.

3.86 Due to the NGA’s current financial management practices, it has limited means to address the backlog of critical works. The NGA has advised that it is seeking additional funding from government to address its building situation.⁸³

Do the entities effectively secure and account for their collections?

Security management

Australian War Memorial

3.90 Security at the Memorial is well controlled. The Memorial commissions experts, such as the Australian Federal Police and other Commonwealth security agencies, to undertake comprehensive protective security risk assessments every three years. Recommendations from the reviews are assessed and assigned priority and the majority have been implemented or are underway. The Memorial’s audit committee and senior management receive formal security reports each quarter, or more frequently as the need arises.

3.91 There are strong controls around National Collection items the Memorial deems to be high risk due to their monetary or cultural value or their potentially hazardous nature. There are separate storage spaces for weapons in the Memorial’s collection. These have tighter access controls than general storage spaces and the Memorial has strict protocols in place for handling, moving and displaying these items. High-risk items, which include all weapons, are subject to more frequent stocktaking.

National Gallery of Australia

3.92 Security at the NGA requires improvement. An internal report in November 2017 found that the NGA was non-compliant with the Commonwealth Protective Security Policy Framework.⁸⁴ Among other issues, the report found that the NGA has outdated security plans, lacked a recent comprehensive security threat assessment, and had key security-related positions vacant. As mentioned previously, the NGA’s SAMP projects have been delayed long past end of life timeframes. For example, the NGA’s Security system is at risk of critical failure, which would have substantial implications for physical controls and costs. Additionally, CCTV systems at the Parkes and Hume facilities require upgrading.

3.93 The previous ANAO audit report made two recommendations around security and access control. These were that the NGA reviews access to storage areas to tighten control over artworks and ensure that movements of objects from and within storage are accurately recorded; and evaluates its current exit procedures to ensure that staff ceasing employment do not retain security access cards and systems access to the network, Collection Management Systems (CMS) and other IT systems.⁸⁵ The NGA has made some progress on these recommendations in areas such as access restriction, recording of movement, CMS access controls and restricted area controls. Additionally, the CMS (discussed below) has strict access restrictions and movement of artworks is controlled by the registration team.

Collection Management Systems

3.94 Collection Management Systems (CMS) are a key mechanism for cultural entities to catalogue and control their collections as well as providing a repository of information about the collection. These are in essence databases which contain records about the collections.

3.95 For CMS to be effective tools they need to contain, to a basic standard, all relevant information about the collection. Standards can be achieved through using mandatory fields at data entry level and developing data standards and thesauri. Additionally, data should be regularly cleansed, whereby duplicate records are deleted, missing fields completed or the data quality of the record improved.

3.96 Both entities utilise a formal CMS and require minimum data standards.

Australian War Memorial

3.97 The Memorial has a well-controlled collection database with targets for data cleansing activity. However it is currently running two separate systems, one for the Research Centre National Collection (the official histories and records of Australia’s war involvement) and one for the rest of the National Collection. Efficiencies could be achieved in bringing the Research Centre data in line with the Memorial’s primary CMS. The Memorial has advised work is being undertaken in this regard.

National Gallery of Australia

3.98 Users of NGA’s CMS are restricted to information based on their needs. For example, the value of artworks is not accessible to the majority of CMS users. However, while the NGA has minimum data standards, staff do not always comply with the standards. For example, artworks can be published on the website without all data requirements. The responsibility of ensuring minimum data standards falls to each Curatorial area. Not meeting minimum data standards compromises the integrity of the data in NGA’s CMS. The ANAO suggests that minimum data standards are communicated to staff and controls put in place to ensure compliance. CMS data issues in relation to items ‘to be located’ is discussed below.

Stocktake

3.99 Stocktakes are a means to test the system of control over collections. These are usually carried out by sample selection. Best practice stocktake procedures include guidance on what steps to take when more than an acceptable number of items, relative to the sample, cannot be found during a stocktake.

Australian War Memorial

3.100 In the previous 2004–05 ANAO report, the Memorial was considered to have had the most rigorous program of stocktake, which included condition reporting.⁸⁶ The Memorial no longer undertakes condition reporting as part of the stocktake process. The Memorial’s stocktake policy at the time of audit fieldwork indicated that a 10 per cent random sample will be subject to stocktake annually, and a stocktake of 100 per cent of the collection will be conducted every three years. In 2015–16 (the most recent 100 per cent year) the Memorial included only 10 per cent of items in its stocktake. The Memorial reviewed its policy in January 2018 and has adopted a risk based approach to stocktaking, with all high value, high transit, high risk storage areas, and items on loan to have a 100 per cent stocktake annually. The remaining collection will be subject to a 10 per cent sample on an annual basis.

3.101 Memorial data shows that the Research Centre’s assets include at least 12 items with a recorded value of over $750 000 ($13 million in total). The Research Centre is not included in the Memorial stocktake process, and therefore these high value items are not accounted for as part of the stocktake process. The Memorial has advised that as part of the stocktake policy review, all high value items, including those in the Research Centre, will be part of the stocktake process. This will cover approximately 80 per cent of financial value, and approximately 20 per cent of collection items.

3.102 If the Memorial is unable to locate an item in its collection, the item’s location is changed to ‘unsighted’ in its CMS. The Memorial provided data on the items that were unsighted (missing). As at March 2018, there were 489 items that were unsighted. The majority (254) of these items were marked as unsighted in 2017 (i.e. identified as missing in 2017). Figure 3.11 shows the number of items that are currently missing by the year that they went missing.

Figure 3.11: Memorial’s ‘Unsighted’ collection items by year in which items were recorded as missing — as at 20 March 2018

Source: ANAO analysis of data provided by the Memorial.

3.103 The Memorial produces regular reporting on the items that are unsighted. It advised, however, that this reporting only includes the three most recent years and that it would amend its reporting in response to the audit to include all unsighted items.⁸⁷ As can be seen from Figure 3.11, there are items that have been missing since before 2000. The ANAO suggests that the Memorial investigates items which have been unsighted long term and determine whether they can be located.

National Gallery of Australia

3.104 The NGA’s collection stocktake policy states that all items over $3 million will be subject to annual stocktake, together with all items on loan. Additionally, a random sample of 1200 works are also to be sighted. Using a $3 million threshold equates to the NGA verifying approximately 71 per cent of financial value, and approximately 0.14 per cent of collection items.

3.105 In addition to the stocktake policy, over 2000 works are on display in the Gallery at any one time, and works are sighted during each financial year as part of the regular movement of works for: exhibitions, loans, imaging, research, travelling exhibitions, public viewings and conservation treatments. This represents a routine verification of about 10 per cent of the collection in any one year.

3.106 Review of NGA’s CMS data shows that there are 71 026 collection items (this number includes parts that may make up one artwork) which have never been subject to a stocktake.

3.107 If an item from the NGA’s collection is not able to be located, for instance as part of a stocktake, the NGA updates the item’s location in its CMS to a status of ‘To Be Located’. Stocktake reporting shows that there have been 18 collection items classified as ‘To Be Located’ over the period 2011 to 2017. The NGA monitors all items deemed as ‘To Be Located’ as part of the stocktake process and actively investigates these items. However, as at January 2018, there were 809 items identified as ‘To Be Located’ in the NGA’s CMS. On average, these items had been unable to be located for 2177 days (around six years). The NGA does not monitor and report against these items. Figure 3.12 illustrates how long items have been recorded as ‘To Be Located’ in NGA’s CMS. The horizontal axis is the year that the item was identified as missing.

Figure 3.12: NGA’s ‘To Be Located’ items by year that items were recorded as missing, as at 16 January 2018

Source: ANAO analysis of NGA data.

3.108 The variance between stocktake reporting on missing items and items classified as ‘To Be Located’ in the CMS indicates there are CMS data issues. The NGA has advised that this is due to:

• data quality issues that were created when a historical collection database was transferred to the NGA’s CMS in the early 1980’s, creating a quantity of legacy anomalies that have been reviewed, but may never be resolved, or
• works were ‘unsighted’ in their CMS location during daily operations.

3.109 The ANAO suggests that the NGA investigate the 809 items that are recorded as ‘To Be Located’. The review should assist the NGA in determining the extent of NGA’s CMS data issues, what items are missing, and updating location data for collection items. The NGA has advised that this will occur when extra resources are provided.

Appendix 1 Entity responses

Australian War Memorial

 

 

National Gallery of Australia

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2 Implementation of recommendations to the Memorial and the NGA from previous ANAO audit

Note: Previous audit: ANAO Audit Report No. 59 2004–05 Safe and Accessible National Collections.

Legend: ✔ means fully implemented; ‘partially’ means partially implemented; and ✘ means not implemented.

Source: ANAO analysis.

Appendix 3 Memorial CDAB expenditure: 2009–10 to 2017–18 (as at 31 January 2018)

Appendix 4 NGA CDAB expenditure: 2009–10 to 2017–18 (as at 31 January 2018)

Appendix 5 Memorial and NGA public reporting against KPIs relating to Collections, 2016–2017