Some bad ideas are hardy perennials, like the suggestion of introducing an admission charge to Dunedin's museums. Under the heading 'Free entry to garden mooted' the Otago Daily Times (31.1.13) reported the city council is considering dropping charges to the Chinese Garden for Dunedin ratepayers, but also is looking at introducing a comparable regime for ''other council-owned cultural assets''.
It was suggested non council-owned attractions ''such as Olveston and Otago Museum, could be invited to join''.
Sue Bidrose, the council's strategy and development manager announced this. One wonders how much she knows about the sorry history of admission charges for Dunedin's public museums in the not-so-distant past? It's a complex issue which ultimately rests on community cultural values, but it's clear that in our society, the idea doesn't work.
First, charging admission to the Chinese Garden was a bad idea from the start. Any step back from it is welcome, although differentiated charges have their own peculiar difficulties.
Second, people who are unfamiliar with the issues often find the larger background, as well as the details, perplexing. It is noticeable that on the European continent and in parts of the United States public museums successfully charge substantial admission fees.
Why shouldn't we here, or at least modest and differentiated ones?The short answer is that in Britain and formerly British parts of the world, such as New Zealand, the principle is deeply resented, as are the accompanying protocols. Why that should be is a nice question but the objection is present and real.
In the 1980s, a time when ''user pays'' was enjoying an unwelcome vogue, the Otago Museum introduced a general admission charge because, as always, money was short and doubtless because of the user-pays fashion. There had never been one before. Attendances sagged, although the charge was not high and indeed, when eventually costed, it turned out the cost of collecting the charges was greater than the money collected. The charges were abandoned.
In 1996, when the Dunedin Public Art Gallery moved to its new Octagon building, a differentiated charge was introduced applying to non-Dunedin residents. This was partly because user pays was still lingering around but also as a sop intended to mollify citizens who were unhappy the council had spent $15 million on the gallery's new building.
This was also in light of anger from people asked to pay admission to the Otago Museum, who pointed out that as contributing ratepayers they were effectively paying twice. This turned into another fiasco. Again the charge was low, less than the cost of collecting it, but New Zealanders objected to being asked whether they were Dunedin residents and if so, to prove it.
European continentals are long used to carrying identity papers, which they may be asked to produce at any time. Britons and, it turns out, New Zealanders don't have such papers and resist anything much like them.
To avoid offence the gallery stopped asking for proof which isn't easy to come by. People's driving licence addresses are often out of date and anyone can get a library card. People don't usually carry an up-to-date copy of their electoral address, which again, is not infallible. Nor do they usually have a recent rate bill which wouldn't cover people who contribute to rates because they are tenants of someone who does.
And Aucklanders, Wellingtonians, Cantabrians and most other New Zealanders could and sometimes did point out that they didn't charge Dunedin people who visited the public museums they supported. After a time the gallery abandoned its charges.
It can seem odd and inconsistent what people will tolerate paying admission to enter. The Chinese Garden, I think, is seen like the Botanic Garden, where people don't pay admission and would object, I think, if asked to. Olveston charges and people don't object but Olveston is a curious case.
Ms Bidrose listed it among non council-owned ''attractions'' which nowadays, in fact, is true. The new manager Jeremy Smith told me recently it has been transferred to an autonomous trust, a not very well publicised change from its former city ownership.
Perhaps one concern was to insulate it from objections to its charges, which I doubt would have impressed Miss Theomin, who bequeathed Olveston to the city in 1966. When she did, it was to be administered by the Dunedin Public Art Gallery Society where, at that time, free admission was guaranteed by an agreement with the gallery's owner, the city council.
How times change, or do they?However Olveston can say it provides all its visitors with a guided tour, which is expensive, and the charge really defrays that cost. The same isn't true for the other ''attractions''.
I hope this latest resurrection of an ugly ghost is put back in its coffin without the benefit of a trial.
Peter Entwisle is a Dunedin curator, historian and writer.
