State Heritage Convention

Professor David Dolan
Director, Research Institute For Cultural Heritage
Curtin University
" The State of Play: Heritage in Western Australia in July 2001"

The real theme of this convention is: "the opportunities and challenges in heritage for the Labor state government elected in February 2001". It was the organisers' initial hope that this convention would go some way to establishing what directions the community wants the new government to take in addressing the heritage issues now confronting us.

The convention title "Towards an holistic approach to heritage" represents a view, widely though not universally held, that the traditional administrative demarcations (between indigenous heritage, natural heritage and historic post/colonial heritage) should give way to an integrated approach. The supporters of this position claim as evidence that in some Australian governmental organisations and jurisdictions, as in some cultural frameworks, integration is already a fact. Those who are suspicious of the feasibility of this approach, at least for the immediate future, point out that in many supposedly integrated organisations (like the Australian Heritage Commission since its creation in the mid 1970s) the integration is at the umbrella level but specialised dedicated branches still operate within the organisation.

The planners of this convention deliberately did not repeat the mistake of previous efforts, like the national heritage convention held in Canberra in 1998. Then, delegates were invited on the basis of representing specialised and indeed often narrow single interest groups, and were then expected to have the will-- let alone the breadth of understanding-- to find common ground in a couple of days! We may all agree that ideally an integrated approach to heritage is desirable; but those who have analysed the nature of heritage interests and community movements know that we will have to do a huge amount of research and soul-searching, which will take years of dedicated work, before we can achieve a truly (rather than nominally) integrated heritage structure for government. It is a fine aim, and should be pursued; but the only way to do it is through a medium-term research program: it cannot emerge from a four-day convention-- although it would be helpful if the convention recognised this and called upon government to fund such a program.

Instead of being diverted by trying to find a nonexistent quick and easy path to the "holistic" grail, I wish instead to look at some major current issues and suggest a few areas where government might profitably concentrate its attention in the immediate term. So let us ask, firstly, what is the heritage balance sheet inherited by the new WA state government?

The Minister for Heritage in the previous government, Graham Kierath, did a fair job overall but his standing was damaged by the handling of a few high-profile matters. Among the points in his favour: he supported a coherent government heritage property disposal policy, and sustained the heritage grants program at $1million per annum and promised its continuation if re-elected. The most publicised negative, in terms of protection of heritage places, was the demolition of the Fremantle silos. Everyone knows that a satisfactory compromise was available, but it was not adopted. The issue acquired a special importance because of the legal action by the City of Fremantle which resulted in a Supreme Court finding that the minister had erred in his decision-making. As far as I am aware, the new government has not yet decided to abandon the proposed High Court appeal against that decision, which Mr Kierath announced. Apart from the waste of money appealing against a sound decision, it may or may not matter, depending what form a new Heritage Act takes; which brings us to the matter of a new Heritage Act.

Mr Kierath brought forward two bills for a new Heritage Act. The first suffered from a lack of consultation, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the former minister had initially listened to the wrong advice. When his first bill was roundly criticised by all the experts including the National Trust and most Heritage Councillors, it was withdrawn and soon replaced with a new bill which was vastly better-- not perfect, but perfection is big ask. It is regrettable that the parliamentary timetable meant that, prior to the election, the second bill passed only one house of parliament despite the fact that it had considerable bipartisan support. The enactment of new legislation to replace the 1990 Act must be a priority for the new government.

The Fremantle silos Supreme Court matter points to a fault built into the present system: one which should be removed in any new Act. It is absurd that a minister (of whichever party is not the point) should have to determine whether or not to accept expert advice on what places are entered onto the state register, or if conservation orders are appropriate in particular situations. Can anyone imagine cabinet ministers in London or Washington or Paris deciding on a case-by-case basis what places should be protected or demolished, or what building developments should be allowed in the suburbs and country towns? This is a legacy of provincialism, and should be abandoned. Such decisions should be left to the properly constituted expert bodies implementing the law.

Still operating under the 1990 Act, the new minister, Dr Judy Edwards, has made a few overdue decisions (like agreeing to the listing of the Raffles Hotel). After a short delay, the announcement was made that the heritage grants program would continue, but the amount of funding for the current round has not yet been announced.

There have also been signs of movement in the right direction on a certain matters which had been left in the "too-hard basket". The new WA government immediately implemented its pre-election promise to separate heritage and planning into different portfolios. But that does automatically resolve the problem of ensuring that heritage considerations get adequate priority. It is still the usual practice of planners to regard heritage as just one of the issues, rather than accepting that it is fundamental to a civilised community.

There are however quite a few items still sitting in that "too-hard basket" inherited from the former government. In the illustrated live version of this talk I would look at a number of specific places, such as the East Perth and South Fremantle Power Stations. East Perth is of national and possibly international significance for its machinery, and any development proposal which compromises the spectacular turbine hall will be fiercely resisted.

In this version of my address to the convention, it is better to concentrate on the broader issues. There have been encouraging signs with regard to the former Midland Rail Workshops; but the issue of the appropriate adaptive re-use of industrial sites, which by their very nature are big and complex and laden with social and historic significance, remains an obvious challenge. It is gratifying that one of the most significant, the original c1900 Goldfields Water Supply Scheme now being addressed by the National Trust's "Golden Pipeline" project, has bipartisan support.

Many of the issues facing governments have their roots in funding and the allocation of resources-- money! The state heritage register is incomplete, and the ability of the Heritage Council to do its job is threatened by budget cuts at a time when its workload is expanding. The National Trust continues its essential property management, education and advocacy work, but does not have legal power to ensure conservation. In the absence of a government museum body dedicated to managing historic places, the National Trust continues to develop its property portfolio on behalf of the community, but lacks the funding to its job as well as we would all like. The new government needs to add arts and heritage to its nominated priorities of education, health and policing, and now it seems public transport as well.

Other challenges include adapting to the new federal heritage regime which has not been unanimously endorsed by many states or by the peak heritage bodies, and ensuring that some recalcitrant government bodies and semi-government bodies, and local government authorities, take a more responsible attitude to heritage.

Among the curses of late 20th century fashions in administration and management, were trite mission statements and one-dimensional performance indicators. These can encourage public agencies to claim that if their core business is something specific and narrow (like delivering the mail), then it is somehow not their "core business" to responsibly manage those community heritage assets which they hold in trust. Evidence to the 1995-6 inquiry into the management of commonwealth owned heritage places revealed that the people expect governments and their subsidiaries to be responsible property owners, and share pride in the national estate rather than regarding it as a liability. This requires leadership and a whole-of-government approach to valuing and prioritising heritage.