You know things are looking grim for the Powerhouse when even Linda Morris in the Sydney Morning Herald writes an article full of damaging accusations. Perhaps enraged by the lack of a press release assuring her that everything is just wonderful, Linda relates how a whistleblower has made accusations of “serious wrongdoing” in connection with “hiring and procurement practices”. She also mentions complaints from the Public Service Association addressed to Arts Minister, John Graham:
“The union cited a 56 per cent increase in contract expenses at the Powerhouse from $6.069 million in 2022-23 to $9.485 million in 2023-24 as a reason for concern. Professional fees were separately amounted [sic] to $4.509 million in 2022-23, it said.
The museum had moved to a privatised model for programming content, which largely ignores the museum’s founding act, its collection and the skills and knowledge of long-serving staff, it said.
‘This model is excessively and needlessly expensive,’ the union wrote to the minister. ‘And deeply insulting to our members.’”
Hmmm. Sounds about right. After five or six years, and many millions of dollars, the bill for contractors has finally qualified as news. No-one could ever accuse the folks at the SMH of being hasty in their judgements.
Looking at the most recent Budget Estimates hearing, in which Minister Graham and Powerhouse CEO, Lisa Havilah, were in the dock, Linda found:
The museum was also asked about specific hires, including a private contractor who was allegedly employed at $2,100 a day to help it meet its $75 million fundraising targets. The museum confirmed the total contract value was $175,649 and had been to “assist with identifying prospects and securing donations” for the Powerhouse Parramatta Capital Campaign. The Powerhouse had reached 95.9 per cent of its target, with 14 major donations totalling $71.9 million secured, it said. In response to claims that it had engaged a culinary archive advisor on a fee of $1,000 a day, the Powerhouse replied that it had conducted an open and competitive process for the July appointment and the $162,400 role.
Nothing unusual here, just two external contractors being paid vast sums for tasks that would normally be undertaken by staff. Most cultural institutions have dedicated fund-raisers on the payroll, along with curators and librarians to deal with archives. A “culinary archive” might be a slightly different matter, because it’s another of those fascinating new ideas with which Ms. Havilah is seeking to refashion the museum into something that is no longer a museum.
Having got her steam up, Linda ends by reminding us of the infamous “live tuna performance” at the Powerhouse’s end-of-year celebrations, and its $500-per-head VIP dinner. Take that!
This article inspired me to look at the Budget Estimate hearings of 29 August, and the supplementary questions that ensued. Bear with me, because this is going to be an unusually forensic editorial.
Perhaps the most revealing section concerned the so-called “Artistic Associates”, who have been employed at the Powerhouse on a regular basis since 2021-22. It’s worth looking at the full picture: who was employed, at what level of remuneration.
• In 2021-22, Artistic Associates were Brook Garru Andrew, Susannah Wimberley, Julie Gibbs and Lleah Smith. Total expenditure: $142,100 (an average of $35,524 per person)
• In 2022-23, Artistic Associates were Brook Garru Andrew, Agatha Gothe-Snape, Susannah Wimberley, Julie Gibbs, Lleah Smith and Izabela Pluta. Total expenditure: $638,881 (an average of $106,480 per person)
• In 2023-24, Artistic Associates were Brook Garru Andrew, Agatha Gothe-Snape, Susannah Wimberley, and Julie Gibbs. Total expenditure: $614,727 (an average of $136,204 per person)
•In 2024-25, Associates were Agatha Gothe-Snape, Susannah Wimberley, Julie Gibbs, Ceridwen Dovey, Kylie Kwong, and Ainslie Murray. Total expenditure: $817,226 (an average of $153,681 per person)
For the period 1 July 2025 – 30 August 2025, Associates are Ceridwen Dovey and Kylie Kwong. Total Expenditure to date: $63,803. If this continues at the same rate until June 30 2026, total expenditure will be $765,636 (an average of $382,818 per person).
As you can see, the Associates form quite an elite group. Although the most recent figure sounds excessive, one needs to remember that no detailed record has been provided of the actual amounts paid to individual Associates, or the way payments might fluctuate in the course of a year.
It’s also worth noting that the Powerhouse paid the Associates extra artist fees of $33,950 in 2023-24, and $11,400 in 2024-25. This allegedly brings the total cost of the program over four years to $2,376,087, although when I did the sums it came to $2,385,039. Hey, what’s a mere $8,952 when we’re talking millions! You can already add $63,803 to whichever total you prefer, and that’s not even counting how much has been spent over the past three months.
The really big question is: “What exactly have these Associates done to earn their money?”
The Powerhouse website is short of detail when it comes to the Artistic Associates, providing no more than 3-5 lines on what they are supposedly doing. Those descriptions are vague and self-reflexive, focused on the museum’s own programs. Once again, one wonders why staff couldn’t have handled these tasks. When searching the site using the names of individual Associates, there’s nothing much to be found. Does an interview between Julie Gibbs and Kylie Kwong, reprinted from a November 2024 edition of The Saturday Paper count as a paid service?
Havilah would probably argue the Associates are taking the museum in new directions, such as contemporary art, the culinary and literary arts. Her critics would counter that most of this has no place in a museum of applied arts and sciences, being well catered for by other kinds of institution. Yet this argument is of secondary relevance alongside the extraordinary salaries that have been handed to the Associates for work that is virtually invisible.
It indicates a willingness to view these Associates – most of whom seem (coincidentally) to be longterm acquaintances of Havilah’s – as highly skilled consultants who need to be paid a top professional rate for their services, whatever those services may be. It also suggests a distrust of existing staff, especially the curators, who might not be fully on board with the gleaming new vision of the museum La Suprema is putting forward – even if it often seems she’s making it up as she goes along.
Another question worth asking is whether any Associates have continued to receive payments as “artist fees” or other handouts after they have finished their terms? And if so, how much and in relation to what projects?
This brings us back to the $9,485 million paid out to consultants in 2023-24. Has there ever been a museum director in Australia with such fondness for outside consultants? It’s a taste that runs contrary to the Labor government’s own stated objective of cutting back on the expensive consultancies favoured by its predecessors. As usual, the Powerhouse is the exception to the rule.
We can cheer on an investigation by an upper house committee “examining the operational, staffing and program impacts of budget and recent restructures,” not to mention “reliance on external contractors and private consultants”. Whether it comes to grips with the problem and manages to do something about it, remains to be seen. To this point, parliamentary committees have been largely toothless, easily brushed aside by governments that prefer to keep making the same mistakes at huge, unnecessary, public expense rather than admit they got it wrong.
As for the other inquiry being sponsored by the Department of Creative Industries, Tourism and Hospitality, when we learn “the Department has engaged an independent firm” to investigate the whistleblower’s complaint, one can only feel cynical about the prospects of a result. We’ve seen a procession of these “independent” inquiries which never seem to find that anyone is to blame for anything. Think of this year’s “independent” inquiry into Creative Australia and its processes, following the Khaled Sabsabi debacle. Surprise, surprise, nobody was to blame, and CA could go on to boast about what a good year it had been. Ask CA about those processes, and one learns they are “robust” – although fundamentally the same as they were before the inquiry.
One might speculate there are two motivating factors behind Labor’s historic betrayal of the Powerhouse, the first being the politicians’ belief they can buy votes in the western suburbs by backing Powerhouse Paramatta to the hilt. (It’s a rather pathetic idea that this aimless edifice will win votes while federal Labor has dropped the well-liked western suburbs MP, Ed Husic, from the Ministry.) The second is the conviction that processes were already so far advanced when they assumed power, it was impossible to wind them back. This has led to an implicit endorsement of Havilah’s patronising vision for the western suburbs, and her frankly bizarre ideas about what constitutes a new kind of museum.
Feeling empowered and invincible, the CEO has acted on her convictions and splashed out freely on expensive consultants and her pet Artistic Associates program. This has led to excessive, inappropriate expenses that can only be an embarrassment to a government that is busy shredding other cultural institutions.
Even if John Graham is committed to see the Powerhouse circus through to the finish line, there’s no reason why he needs to accept the multi-million-dollar wastage of funds on frivolous handouts to anybody Havilah deems worthy of her/our munificence. Indeed, the Dear Leader’s self-confidence has reached new heights when she can brazenly announce that the opening show at Powerhouse Parramatta will be about space and cost a mere $18 million. This, at a time when every other institution is virtually begging in the streets. Please remember Mr. Graham, you are her boss, not vice versa. It only looks like you are obeying orders.
We can get some idea about the nature of this space extravaganza when we learn that Sarah Reeves, Astronomy and Space curator at the Powerhouse for almost twelve years, resigned in May and took a job at the Bureau of Meteorology. Surely any curator in this specialised field would see a space exhibition as an incredible opportunity. The problem may have been that Reeves, who has a PhD in Astronomy, could not come to terms with the kind of show Havilah and her cronies envisage. We know, for instance, that the CEO doesn’t draw much of a line between science and science fiction.
It’s said the curator who has replaced Reeves on the project is Anna May Kirk, an artist who makes makes objects from glass. This is right in line with the typical Havilah approach to curatorship, where she favours those without specialised knowledge or expertise. I believe the role of curator of Health and Medicine is now being filled by Cara Stewart, a sound artist. Indeed, it would be worth looking at the number of artists employed in roles that formerly required experience in the field. In her new version of the museum, the CEO values creativity over know-how. This may sound pretty cool but as the Public Service Association notes, it’s an insult to those who have spent their lives studying a particular subject. It also confers an absurd prestige on artists, whose funky ideas are considered more important than any in-depth understanding of the collection. The result does away with any pretence of scholarship, which is obviously felt to be too boring or difficult for audiences today. Items in the collection, drained of context, become a series of theatrical props.
My own conviction is that the director who underestimates the public’s desire to learn from a visit to the museum, rather than simply be entertained is engaged in a tragic folly. Education should not be so easily dismissed. It is, after all, an historical raison d’être for the museum.
Any parliamentary inquiry should look at the people who have left the Powerhouse, and those that have been hired, as long-standing curators have been replaced with utterly unqualified people from many different walks of life with no museum experience. It appears that many newly created positions are fanciful in the extreme. Towards the end of 2023, the Powerhouse Museum Alliance published a long list of curatorial positions that have been lost. If there’s a list of current curators and their titles, I’ve yet to locate it.
An inquiry might look at the brain drain that has taken place under the Havilah regime, and her preferred, hierarchical form of management, whereby she surrounds herself with loyalists that owe their employment to her whims. It’s eerily similar to Donald Trump’s style of leadership.
One of the problems I had when examining the Budget Estimates, is deciding whether John Graham is suffering from wilful self-delusions, or whether he has internalised his spin doctoring to the point where he simply blurts out whatever happens to be the most convenient answer, even to a parliamentary committee.
As you may recall, in June, 18 regional galleries had their 4-year recurrent funding applications rejected by the NSW Ministry of the Arts for no apparent reason. In April, the Australian Design Centre had its $300,000 allocation chopped by Create NSW, following the removal of a $200,000 annual grant from the Federal Ministry of the Arts in January. In August, the Art Gallery of NSW announced drastic staff cuts after it saw $7.2 million sliced from its budget.
In the same month the Ministry made the magnanimous gesture of restoring partial funding to some of the applicants they had dumped in the first round. This allowed the Arts Minister and his minions to trumpet their own generosity, when the overall effect remained a murderous, unjustified cut for most institutions.
One of the organisations given a discounted grant was the ADC, which received $150,000, leaving it to make up a shortfall of $350,000. This week, after months of canvassing for private support, the ADC bowed to reality and announced it would be closing by June next year, pending some miraculous rescue.
This is what John Graham told Budget Estimates when quizzed about the cut in ADC funding:
I can understand why they were concerned. I’m certainly sympathetic to them and the views of the galleries. They’re doing fantastic work. The good news is the two-year funding round has funded many of those regional museums and galleries. It has also funded the Australian Design Centre. They’ve had their funding now confirmed for two years. They’ve got that certainty, and that’s good news.
Soooooo sympathetic. So much good news but still closing! Perhaps Mr. Graham would consider working for less than a third of his current salary, just to demonstrate how easy it is do “fantastic work” with so little money.
To the Minister’s chronicle of good news we must add the near-death of Sculpture by the Sea; the financial agony of the Museum of Contemporary Art, which is now charging entrance fees; the scaling back of staff numbers and exhibitions at the AGNSW; and the complete defunding of Broken Hill City Art Gallery – the oldest regional gallery in the state; not to mention the uncertain prospects of many other regional galleries.
Just as interesting is the effort to claim that the money lavished on the Powerhouse bears no relation to the money pulled from other cultural organisations. When Mr. Graham was asked by Greens MP, Cate Faehrmann, to account for spending on the Powerhouse that reveals “a 275 per cent increase from last year to this year. That is 98.8 million to 279 million,” his answer was evasive.
“I don’t want to waste your time,” he replied… “I’d encourage you to go through it in more detail with the agencies. There has not been a change of the percentage order that you’re suggesting. It’s really about how this is reflected in the accounts.”
Neither was Mr. Graham forthcoming when asked about an additional $67.6 million in funding handed to the Powerhouse for the financial year 2023-24. That question was taken on notice. He did explain, however, that a $10 million increase in PHM staffing costs was because the museum was preparing five major exhibitions - which might leave the AGNSW wondering why it has had to drastically reduce staff numbers while preparing its own major exhibitions.
Finally, there is a great deal of confusion as to what expenses are being assigned to the Powerhouse, to Create NSW, and to “major works”. Is it an unworthy thought that by distributing costs under different headings the Department is able to conceal the total amount involved? It’s equally unclear how much has been raised from private sources that will eventually be refunded to the government.
Lisa Havilah was asked about figures that show “the capital expenditure for the museum is increasing an enormous amount. Last year the revised budget for capital expenditure was $17 million, and then this year it’s $154 million.” She replied: “The total government allocation towards the revitalisation of the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo is $250 million. Of that, the Powerhouse is raising $50 million through a philanthropic campaign.”
Is that an answer? I thought the goal for private contributions was $75 million.
After reading the Budget Estimates transcripts, anybody would be confused about how much government money is actually being spent on the Powerhouse. $279 million? $154 million? An additional $67.6 million? $10 million on staffing? This is not even counting the Create NSW grant recipients whose names have been kept “private”, who may be preparing Powerhouse-related projects.
Former PHM curator, Kylie Winkworth, has calculated that between now and 30 June 2026, the government is set to spend $1,655,000 per day trashing the old Powerhouse and propping up the new model, which isn’t a museum at all. Let’s put these figures into perspective. The ADC’s entire yearly budget could be met with less than 8 hours’ worth of the funds being lavished on the Powerhouse. The AGNSW’s budget cuts could be restored by four days of Powerhouse largesse, while one or two days would be enough to restore complete funding to the regional galleries.
Is Treasurer, Daniel Mookhey, asleep at the wheel? This is not a squabble among a group of ‘arty’ types, it’s a catastrophe in terms of infrastructure; jobs; the ability of arts organisations to service audiences and raise revenue; and the ultimate, ongoing costs of running three Powerhouse venues in separate parts of the city, none of them remotely capable of paying their way. If Treasury decided to dispense with people with economic expertise and replace them with artists who had interesting ideas about capitalism, questions would be asked.
The way the Powerhouse is evolving (or devolving) is not an arts problem it’s a financial sinkhole of cosmic proportions that the Ministry will not be able to spin away with gushing, insincere press releases. To achieve this fabulous result the Minns government will have destroyed cherished state heritage; crippled successful, productive arts organisations; wasted a gargantuan amount of taxpayers’ money; and turned an important museum into a tacky sideshow devoid of an identity. In the eyes of the world it will be a colossal embarrassment.
Just imagine, Dan, if government had spent only $200 million on a facelift for the Powerhouse at Ultimo, there would have been an extra $1.8 billion to waste on other crazy projects.
The art column this week travels to the Blue Mountains to see The Scales by what, a survey by one of Australia’s most original contemporary artists. When so much recent art is dreary and oppressively moralistic, the artist known as ‘what’ has kept the rebellious spirit of the avant-garde alive. I’d recommend the show as a cure for the moroseness one feels when confronted with the kind of art that government committees seem to like.
The movie is Guillermo del Toro’s take on Frankenstein, a project the Mexican director has been talking up for a long time. I had hopes for this film but was ultimately disappointed by the crowd-pleasing action scenes and special effects, which tended to swamp any underlying profundities. In other words, it was too tacky for comfort, rather like the Powerhouse. The major difference is that del Toro’s movie is making millions, not spending them.
PS ‘ unfaithful servant’ might be appropriate 👍
Good grief! This is mind boggling.