A recent trip to Hobart highlighted an opportunity for Western Australia, and Perth in particular, to make a cultural statement. 

Unlike Australia’s southernmost state, WA lacks a standout cultural attraction. 

Opened in 1999 as the Moorilla Museum of Antiquities, having taken over a former winery, Hobart’s Museum of Old and New Art is a staggering monument to the wealth that can be generated by gambling. 

It reopened in 2011 under its new name, with founder David Walsh having spent $80 million redeveloping the site into a huge underground facility that could easily serve as a nuclear bunker, should such dystopia ever arise. 

MONA was packed during my Monday morning visit, proving a huge drawcard for tourists and other visitors with a little time on their hands. 

Having been to the Guggenheim in Bilbao about 18 months ago, I think the two museums are comparable. 

Being mostly underground, MONA doesn’t have the same architectural impact as the Guggenheim but in terms of what it offers inside, I felt more drawn to the eclectic mix of art and antiquities in Tasmania than the more austere and segmented offering in Spain. 

If Hobart can beat the Bilbao, I thought later that day, then surely Perth, awash with wealth as it is, could do the same.

WA is desperate for a big cultural attraction that puts Perth on the map. 

It would provide an attraction for those already visiting or a drawcard for those in need of a reason to come. 

There are limited options in this space and, given I have compared MONA and the Guggenheim, I don’t believe modern art is an arms race we need to get into. 

Given we have long talked about an Indigenous or First Nations museum, perhaps this is the moment. 

While local Indigenous cultural heritage might be a prominent component, displays catering to a global perspective might be what’s needed to get such a project over the line. 

The hardest thing about such an idea is leadership: who’s in charge to make decisions without stepping on cultural toes? 

That is why, it seems to me, a single source of funding, be it a wealthy individual or a small collective of such people, might work best. 

A state-funded enterprise of this nature will, I expect, get bogged down trying to please too many people while avoiding all the risks that come with dealing with cultures that are not your own.

While many private people may have the same problem, entrepreneurs are better suited to cutting through and getting to the heart of what is required. 

For instance, MONA has been controversial for its sexually explicit content. 

In my view, that’s a situation MOMA’s Mr Walsh could more easily deal with than if the $80 million museum had been established by the state.

While Indigenous matters may be even more fraught, I feel that an individual or a private entity will have much greater leeway in navigating these tricky waters. 

And surely there would be wealthy person, family or collective of the same that could get excited by such a project. 

The concept of building something amazing, possibly an architectural wonder, ought to be reason enough to drive such a project.

The contents of such a creation could be left to leading curators and representatives of the Indigenous cultures of the world. 

Nothing should be stolen, of course. 

I am just one of many who make helpful suggestions to the rich about how to spend their money – many politicians make a career out of it – but I don’t see this as shaming someone into thrusting their short arms more deeply into long pockets. 

It is a genuine opportunity to for private money to do a recognisably public good in a way governments are increasingly unable to. 

These days, if the state spent $100 million on a new museum everyone would complain there are still queues at the emergency department, or schools that use temporary classrooms. 

A new museum might be unnecessary in that context, but it puts Perth on the map in a way that a couple of hundred new hospital beds never could.