As I am sure Doak and Clayts will attest, the average member doesn't give a rats bum about architecture. As long as it looks pretty, they don't lose too many balls, the club house is flash and the golf magazine rate them above that bloody club next door, they are happy.
Thus it seems that OZ club member mentality really is little different from TROTW which is driven in taste and culture by all the negative elements of crass commercialism and branding/marketing.
Isn't it generally the pattern that the force that moves the needle is group think conventional wisdom of peer pressur and "keeping up with the Jones's" down the road? Of course , when much of that social life social putting on of aires involves display of trappings of nuveau riche, more resources are bound to be voted on by social status priorities dedicated to showy clubhouse and landscape flash, than golf architecture centric maintenance-infrastructure priorities, it seems to me.
On the question of sandbelt criticism by Fergal, I say leave it to the prominent and dedicated voices of golf architecture in OZ to hash it out, with strong support and approval of the worldwide fans of the unique genre that is understood as only in OZ. We should always give plenty of kudos and support to the keepers of the Australian sandbelt conception by the original masters, MacKenzie, Russell and Morcam. From what my one visit I was able to understand, the social pressure of seeking the prestige that new clubhouse upgrades requires with an elite membership must be balanced with the kind of stewardship that RM has been shepperded by what must be a well informed board and executive leadership. Thus, they upgrade clubhouse facilities AND bring in an expert in MacKenzie to make the necessary TV reso/reno of the course design that serves to shine as a beacon to the rest of the sandbelt clubs as the way to " keep up with the Jones's".
When reading typical Australian town and country golf and social club websites, I see no difference in the member attitudes and priorities of what one sees at the typical run of the mill clubs and courses here in U.S. Some courses just begin with mediocre design and social club trappings priorities. So they race to stay mediocre among peers as that reinforces the conventional but popular trendy fashion. But, that will never mesh with the value of unique and faithful to the priority of quality golf design for its own sake, with few exceptions that I can think of.
With Clayton and Ogilvy leading the modern day Aussie national GCA, and the voices from OZ, as those that weigh in here frequently on GCA.COM, I'd say they will continue the process of slow but positive progress to keep the flame burning. Hasn't RM led the way, and forces at other clubs at least have been taking notes?
Finally, isn't it quite a statement that the newest projects throughout OZ including ren/resto indicative that overall OZ gets it? Barnbougle/LF, King Island, the concepts at Arm End and Seven Mile, and reworks at Bonny Doon and Port Fairy: Are those enough to say all is not lost to mediocrity and misplaced priorities?