Jaenine Parkinson is the chief executive of Museums Aotearoa

OPINION: The most striking comment in the Wellington Museum debate did not come from mayor Andrew Little describing the museum as a mish-mash. It came from Diana Marsh, the chief executive of Experience Wellington that runs the venue, who suggested the museum’s current state reflected underinvestment for a very long time.

The council’s own report reaches a similar conclusion, noting that although funding was allocated through successive long-term plans, investment was repeatedly deferred because of competing priorities elsewhere.

That observation deserves to sit at the centre of this discussion. If Wellington Museum feels dated, it is less a reflection of the institution itself than the consequence of years of deferred investment. Yet the debate has become focused on location: should the museum remain in the heritage-listed but quake-prone Bond Store building, or move to Tākina?

Heritage advocates and supporters of relocation have lined up on either side. But this debate can be understood as a symptom of a gradual withdrawal of central government from cultural infrastructure investment.

Museums and galleries are often discussed as service providers, custodians of collections and contributors to tourism and economic activity. What’s often overlooked is that many museums and galleries also occupy heritage buildings and precincts. They are responsible not only for collections and programmes, but also for the stewardship of significant public assets.

Across New Zealand, councils are being asked to maintain, renew and strengthen museums, galleries, libraries, theatres, archives and heritage buildings while simultaneously facing mounting infrastructure obligations and increasing pressure on rates. These are investments in the places where communities preserve, experience and participate in history.

People do not value museums solely because they deliver a service. They value them because they preserve stories and experiences that might otherwise be lost. That is why it makes little sense to treat cultural infrastructure as primarily a local responsibility. We do not expect councils to carry sole responsibility for defence, conservation, education or highways because we recognise these investments create benefits that extend beyond local boundaries and across generations. The same principle applies to cultural infrastructure.

A visitor walking through Wellington Museum is not just learning about Wellington - they are engaging with the history of New Zealand’s capital city, with migration, trade, politics and identity. Museums and galleries throughout the country perform a similar function - they preserve local stories, and together those stories form part of a shared national narrative.

Yet government policy has moved in the opposite direction. A regional culture and heritage fund, closed in 2024, distributed just over $8 million annually to museums, galleries, theatres and heritage projects nationwide. Modest though it was, the fund represented one of the few mechanisms through which central government partnered with communities to renew cultural infrastructure. Its closure sent a clear signal that museums, galleries and heritage institutions were increasingly matters for local government, philanthropy and fundraising rather than national investment.

The consequences are now becoming visible: investment decisions are delayed, maintenance is deferred, exhibitions become outdated. Eventually, the effects of underinvestment are cited as evidence that institutions themselves must change.

The Wellington Museum debate reflects exactly this dynamic. Even supporters of relocation acknowledge that years of deferred investment have contributed to the challenges now facing both the museum and the Bond Store.

While Wellington’s circumstances may be unique, the underlying pressures are not. Across the country, councils are being asked to shoulder increasing responsibility for cultural infrastructure at the very moment central government is stepping back as an investment partner.

Previous generations invested in museums, galleries and heritage buildings because they saw them as gifts to the future. The return was measured not in revenue or visitor numbers, but in civic memory, identity and legacy.

As councils face growing infrastructure pressures, these tensions are likely to become more frequent. The question raised by Wellington Museum is therefore much bigger than whether its future lies in the Bond Store or Tākina - it is whether the Government still believes cultural inheritance is a shared national responsibility.

• The Post