I will earn few "likes" for honestly riffing on the subject of Ozzie museum quality, which generally seems a waste of time. Australia excels in outdoor sights, including urban, but seems quite amateurish indoors even compared to similarly low population countries. Even a medium size city like mine focuses limited budget into museums that can do a reasonable job for a specialty. Australia seems to aim high but attain mostly mediocrity. If that sounds mean, it comes from wasting precious museum time giving numerous chances after spending much to get there.
I haven't been to the museum of the story, but most of the famous ones in Canberra, Sydney, and I forget about Melbourne. They seem to prefer 500 mundane exhibits instead of 50 quality ones, and visitor counts can be abysmal. A similar Uni classics museum in Sydney had an "interpreter" so bored from no visitors that she desperately detained me with endless small talk. I encountered one spectacular museum which is the War one in the capital. Maybe their lengthy record of givebacks can convince them to rely less on bargain hunting.
The country's most famous building, Sydney Opera, is a metaphor for this indoor/outdoor dichotomy. The outside is ultimate world class, but they threw away the architect's blueprints for indoors over a money spat. Instead the inside is like elementary school auditorium caliber. One other area of disappointment I have occasionally encountered are small city museums in England. They can be super amateurish cheerleader type affairs, having for example exhibits of vintage postcards.