Jaenine Parkinson is chief executive/tumu whakarae of Museums Aotearoa

OPINION: Courtney Johnston's resignation raises a larger question than leadership at Te Papa. It prompts us to ask was the Te Papa experiment, as it has been designed, always going to come under pressure?

By almost every conventional measure, Te Papa has been a success. It remains one of New Zealand's most visited attractions, enjoys an international reputation, supports scientific research, cares for nationally significant collections, hosts major exhibitions, welcomes school groups, leads repatriation work, and serves as a cultural meeting place for the country.

Yet according to Budget 2026, the museum must find another $3.4 million over four years in savings after already enduring a painful restructure. At the same time, it is forecasting a deficit of $13m after depreciation. If success still produces deficits and recurring rounds of cuts, perhaps the issue is not whether Te Papa is performing adequately. Perhaps the issue is whether we have created a model capable of sustaining the responsibilities we have assigned to it.

Te Papa occupies an unusual position among New Zealand's public institutions. Roughly half of its funding comes from government, while the remainder must be generated through admissions from international visitors, sponsorship, hospitality, commercial activities and other revenue streams. For many years this arrangement has been presented as a strength. The museum is entrepreneurial, contributes to tourism, attracts visitors and earns a significant proportion of its own income.

However, this also means Te Papa has conflicting priorities. It is expected to function as a national institution while funding itself in ways that increasingly resemble a commercial enterprise. That balance can work reasonably well when economic conditions are favourable. It becomes much more difficult when costs rise faster than revenue.

The challenge is that many of the museum's costs are unavoidable. Insurance, energy, building maintenance, collection care and staffing all become more expensive over time. Unlike a business, however, a national museum cannot simply discontinue its core responsibilities when circumstances become difficult. Collections still need to be preserved. Research must continue. Taonga still require care and conservation. The obligations remain regardless of economic conditions.

This is why the debate over Te Papa is larger than a discussion about budgets or management. Museums and art galleries belong to a category of institutions that markets struggle to provide on their own. Markets can sell entertainment, experiences and exhibitions, but they cannot easily preserve collections indefinitely, care for taonga, maintain cultural memory or hold knowledge in trust for future generations. These are public goods, and public goods require public investment.

Yet New Zealand sometimes appears conflicted about this reality. We celebrate Te Papa as a national treasure and recognise its role as a guardian of our stories, identity and heritage. We point with pride to its contributions to science, education, tourism, research and cultural promotion. At the same time, we regularly ask why it cannot generate more revenue and become more financially self-sufficient.

The contradiction is striking.

Reflecting on her tenure, Courtney Johnston remarked that “the world that I was appointed in ... has changed almost unrecognisably”. Part of that change may be a growing tendency to assess institutions primarily through measurable outputs such as visitor numbers, revenue generation and economic impact. These measures are important, but they do not fully capture the purpose of a national museum and art gallery.

The discussion around Te Papa's forecast deficit illustrates the point. Much attention has focused on the headline figure, yet the deficit is reported after depreciation. Depreciation is not evidence of waste or poor management. It is simply the accounting recognition that buildings, systems and infrastructure age and will eventually require replacement. In practical terms, the question is whether Te Papa is receiving enough funding not only to meet today's obligations but to sustain its operations and assets into the future.

That is ultimately a stewardship question rather than a commercial one.

Most New Zealanders will never see the vast majority of what Te Papa holds (as is true of most public collections). They will never access most of the archives, specimens or research collections in its care. Nevertheless, they still derive value from their existence. There is value in knowing our stories are preserved, that taonga are protected, that evidence of our past has not been lost, and that future generations will inherit knowledge rather than absence. Some things matter not because they are constantly used, but because they continue to exist.

The easiest way to understand this is to imagine Te Papa closed for a year. Not just the public galleries, but the conservation programmes, collection management, repatriation work, educational outreach and scientific research that occur largely out of public view. The loss would be felt far beyond Wellington's waterfront because the museum's contribution extends well beyond the visitor experience. We would be reminded that museums and art galleries are not simply places we visit. They are institutions that safeguard the things a society believes should endure, holding them in trust for future generations.

This is why the issue of finding another $3.5m in savings matters. The real issue is not whether those savings can be achieved. Undoubtedly, they can. The more important question is what kind of institution New Zealand believes Te Papa should be.

If it is primarily a visitor attraction and hospitality provider, then commercial performance is a reasonable benchmark for success. If it is a national museum and art gallery, research institution and guardian of collections held in trust for future generations, then success cannot be measured by revenue alone.

Perhaps, then, the question is whether a model that requires a national museum to carry such a large share of its own financial burden was always likely to face increasing strain. If that is the case, finding another $3.4m may not address the underlying problem. It simply postpones a broader conversation about what we expect Te Papa and our museums and galleries to be, and how much we are willing to invest in ensuring they remain that for generations to come.

-The Post