Our national cultural institutions stand on the sculpted face of the capital, Canberra, with a symbolism that reflects a practical purpose to serve as the memory and conscience of the country.

They have become accustomed to doing more with less as so-called “efficiency dividends” have compounded regular budgetary cuts forcing staff freezes and losses, halts in digitisation and compromises in the storage of collection items.

Most of these institutions – the National Library of Australia, the National Museum of Australia, the national archives, gallery, portrait gallery, the Museum of Australian Democracy and the Australian War Memorial – now find themselves faced with a stark choice: start doing dramatically less with less or find money elsewhere.

Most have long embarked on money-raising projects involving corporate donations and private philanthropy. The national library, for example, now generates a quarter of its income from non-government sources; when it was no longer possible to support its prestigious Harold White Fellowships with public funds, the institution’s donors and supporters stepped up.

Just how well – or otherwise – the institutions stand to cope in the more medium term after faring badly under the present federal government that has little demonstrated commitment to cultural policy, will become apparent amid the evidence of a parliamentary inquiry into Canberra’s national institutions.

Specifically the inquiry is considering “the range of innovative strategies that Canberra’s national institutions are using to maintain viability and relevance to sustainably grow their profile, visitor numbers, and revenue ...”

So how and from where should these institutions – which tell the stories of 60,000-plus years of continental Indigenous civilisation, the history of Australian literature, public discourse, civil society, government and engagement in foreign wars – seek money?

The inquiry has already, albeit perhaps unintentionally, sparked controversy after receiving a submission from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War (parent organisation of last year’s Nobel Peace Prize winners, the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons) that criticises the War Memorial for accepting donations from arms manufacturers.

The organisation’s national president, Sue Wareham, is a tireless critic of the memorial’s acceptance of such funds. For years many others – including myself in this column – have criticised the decision by AWM director Brendan Nelson to seek money from those who make the weapons that kill and maim civilians in war and the many others in uniform that the memorial commemorates.

It’s an element of a bigger picture as I see it – the militarisation of Australian culture and history at the expense of other national foundation narratives, including Indigenous continental civilisation and frontier wars, which the memorial refuses to acknowledge in its exhibits.

Comparisons, mostly hypothetical and with which current and perhaps some past directors and their many institutional supporters will disagree, abound, of course. What legitimacy do the manufacturers of sugary drinks and cereals have, for example, in the promotion of good nutrition and the risk of diabetes? Given the significant cuts to scientific/medical research and university funding in recent years, should Big Tobacco take a role in funding cancer research?

It will be compelling to see how the committee handles the issue of seeking money from the merchants of death (support for all things Anzac and war memorial have a long tradition of obscurant bipartisanship) and how the various directors manage questions about where any fundraising bottom line might exist for them. The submissions, including the War Memorial’s, are here.

A $500m expansion of the war memorial is a reckless waste of money | Paul Daley Read more

Nelson – articulate, genial and often very persuasive – is, like Wareham, a former medical doctor. He’s also a former defence minister and federal opposition leader. He is impeccably connected politically and to the defence/weapons industry. His political sway is critical at a time when he’s seeking $500m to expand the memorial. Nelson’s term expires in May, 2019 – just after the federal budget that could deliver the memorial the funding for his big expansion. He did a long, compelling interview with Hamish Macdonald on Radio National Breakfast this week. It’s worth a listen.

Asked if it was part of the memorial’s remit to seek funds from weapons manufacturers, Nelson said:

It certainly is. In fact I regard it as part of corporate social responsibility ... you need to know that I have actively gone seeking money from these companies and there are a number of them that I’m very concerned won’t support us ... When Australians are deployed ... whether it’s into war of peacekeeping or humanitarian disaster relief we expect them to be equipped with the very best possible equipment that is available to them and I think it is extraordinarily important ... that these companies have a responsibility itself to completing the loop, to explaining what is being done in the name of our country ... and also the impact it had had upon them.

The loop? Manufacture. Sell. Deploy. Commemorate.

Brendon Kelson was the War Memorial’s director from 1990 to 1994 after a distinguished career in the public administration of national cultural policy and institutions.

He writes in his submission to the inquiry: “The Memorial should not be in the business of seeking or accepting funding or sponsorships from the manufacturers of weapons of war. It is at odds with all the Memorial stands for and an affront to all who served and died for the nation, those who returned with shattered lives and the damaged families left behind. It amounts to an institutional loss of moral compass ... The Memorial should be obliged to take steps to extract itself from present funding and sponsorship arrangements with military industries and not enter into any further deals.”

Stay tuned.