Jaenine Parkinson is the chief executive/tumu whakarae of Museums Aotearoa

OPINION: Mayor Max Brough's comments about the Len Lye Centre raise a question that extends beyond a single gallery or budget cycle: what exactly is the Len Lye Centre for?

The answer matters because it determines how we judge success.

Brough is understandably focused on costs. With operating expenditure reported at around $120,000 a week, he has suggested residents consider whether the institution should operate at a lower level.

He has also questioned how much of the collection in storage will ever "see the light of day." These concerns come as councils across New Zealand face increasing financial pressure and ratepayers scrutinise spending.

Before deciding what the Len Lye Centre should cost, however, we need to decide what it exists to do.

By conventional measures, it is successful. An independent report found that the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery and Len Lye Centre contributed $13.7m annually to the Taranaki economy, generated $2.73 for every rates-funded dollar invested, supported 153 full-time-equivalent jobs and attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year.

Yet economics is only part of the story.

The Len Lye Centre was not created simply to attract visitors. New Plymouth made a deliberate decision to become the guardian of one of New Zealand's most significant artistic legacies.

Through a partnership between the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery, the Len Lye Foundation and the New Plymouth District Council, the city accepted responsibility for preserving, interpreting and sharing Lye's work on behalf of the country, with all its resulting benefits and costs.

Equally important, generations of support for the Govett-Brewster have helped build one of New Zealand's most significant contemporary art collections, a collection that belongs not to any individual but to the community and, in many respects, the nation.

That responsibility extends beyond a budget line.

Like museums, libraries and archives, galleries preserve things whose value unfolds across generations.

Their purpose is not solely to deliver today's visitor experience but to protect, interpret and share collections that future generations will inherit. The Govett-Brewster collection and the Len Lye legacy are part of Taranaki's cultural inheritance.

This is why the debate about art in storage matters. Public collections are not assembled on the assumption that every item will be permanently displayed. Every major gallery and museum stores far more than it exhibits.

Collections are not inventories. They provide the foundation for future exhibitions, research and understanding. An artwork in storage is no less valuable than a book in an archive that is not currently being read.

The more important question is whether the collection creates public value. Is it preserved, accessible and supporting education? Does it contribute to community life and help tell stories that might otherwise be lost? Those are the questions cultural institutions are designed to answer.

None of this makes costs irrelevant. Every publicly funded institution should be accountable. But there is a difference between asking whether an institution operates efficiently and judging it primarily by what it costs.

The danger of focusing solely on expenditure is that it obscures purpose.

The Len Lye Centre and Govett-Brewster are not simply buildings or assets. They are commitments to preserve and share things the community has decided matter. Once that perspective is lost, we stop asking what value an institution holds and creates and ask only what it costs.

This challenge extends beyond New Plymouth. If councils are expected to preserve collections, maintain cultural infrastructure and act as custodians of nationally significant heritage, funding arrangements should reflect those responsibilities. Institutions such as the Len Lye Centre create benefits that extend far beyond district boundaries.

That raises an obvious question: why should those responsibilities fall primarily on local ratepayers?

The Govett-Brewster collection and Len Lye's legacy are treasures for New Plymouth, but they are also part of New Zealand's cultural story.

If central government expects councils to act as kaitiaki of cultural heritage, it should be an active partner in supporting that work. Protecting nationally significant collections should not depend solely on the capacity of a single community to pay for them.

The real question, therefore, is not whether the Len Lye Centre costs too much. It is whether we understand what we are paying for, and who should help pay for it.

If the answer is simply tourism and economic activity, there are cheaper ways to pursue those outcomes. But if it includes preserving the Govett-Brewster collection, safeguarding Len Lye's legacy, enriching community life and passing cultural treasures on to future generations, then the discussion becomes much larger than a weekly operating figure.

It becomes a question of stewardship. And stewardship is not a responsibility that should be left to ratepayers alone.

-Taranaki Daily News.