Te Papa’s art experiment remains unproven
Tuesday, 21 July 2026
EDITORIAL: When Te Papa opened in 1998 it did something unusual by international standards: it merged the country’s national museum and national art gallery into a single institution under one roof.
The move proved controversial and remains so today.
The issue was significant enough that, in 2000, still early in her Government, Helen Clark – who was also Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage – commissioned the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to review the arrangement.That review, conducted by a former director of the Australian Museum, Dr Des Griffin, recommended a number of changes but ultimately concluded that the combined museum-art gallery model should remain.
A subsequent Statement of Intent tabled in Parliament outlined those changes. At the time, Miss Clark said they would improve “the cohesiveness and effectiveness of the existing spaces suitable for visual arts display, and increase the amount of gallery space for display of the collections”.
The then-new chairperson, Sir Roderick Deane, was tasked with overseeing those changes.Chief among them was increasing and improving space for art. But that, of course, was not the end of the matter. While successive governments have not made any major structural changes, the debate has continued within the arts community and beyond.
The arguments broadly fall into two overlapping camps. The first is that New Zealand should have a standalone national art gallery: an institution dedicated to permanently displaying the nation’s artistic heritage and collections without competing with Te Papa’s many other functions. Proponents argue that such a gallery should be funded either by the state alone or through a partnership between government and private philanthropy.
The second argument is more modest. It holds that Te Papa should simply devote more of its floor space and resources to its art collection, allowing more New Zealanders and overseas visitors to experience it.
Some progress has been made. In 2018 Dame Jacinda Ardern opened Toi Art, increasing the museum’s art display space by 35% to 4140 square metres across two floors. In the annual report that year, chairperson Evan Williams described the new space as “undoubtedly a game changer”. But restructures this year and ongoing challenges have once again brought the issue back into the spotlight.
Relatively new Te Papa chairperson Christopher Swasbrook has publicly said he wants to see more art on display and many Te Papa boosters believe there is sufficient floor space to make that happen. Mr Swasbrook, who was appointed after a long career in New Zealand capital markets, was previously chair and a long-serving member of the Auckland Art Gallery Advisory Committee.
“I am aware of a desire for more of the traditional icons of New Zealand art to be on display, and as board chair I’m keen to make sure we meet that desire,” Mr Swasbrook has said. He added that he also wants Te Papa to give New Zealanders the opportunity to see more modern and contemporary works.
He, and the management team accountable to him, are grappling with an institution that is part museum, part research institute, part art gallery, part repatriation co-ordinator, and part events business – not to mention New Zealand’s most popular tourist attraction.
As The Post’s reporting has shown over the past year, Government funding for Te Papa has barely shifted over the past 12 years, while costs have risen sharply. The situation reflects a familiar New Zealand story: wanting the economic, educational and cultural dividends of world-class institutions, without paying properly for them.
At the same time, the museum has increasingly been expected to generate its own revenue. That creates a constant risk that art display – and other important parts of the museum’s collections – are squeezed in favour of exhibitions and events that help pay the bills.
Either way, 28 years after Te Papa also became New Zealand’s national art gallery, the experiment remains unproven. Mr Swasbrook believes the model can work.
It is now up to him and his management team to demonstrate that art is taken seriously at Te Papa and is given sufficient space, prominence and strategic attention. If it is not, the board should be held accountable by Arts and Culture Minister Paul Goldsmith.
A standalone national art gallery still seems unlikely, particularly in the current fiscal environment. But if enough private benefactors can be corralled to help fund such an institution, it could yet become the sort of ambitious project an enterprising arts and culture minister might one day choose to champion.