1999 State Heritage Convention Report

State Heritage Convention Operating Procedures

The Inaugural Western Australian Heritage Convention considered these Principles and Standards as a contribution towards national consistency and as leading toward a Draft State Heritage Strategy for Western Australia. Generally, two workshop sessions were held for the Principles and Standards and rapporteurs reported back to the convention delegates at the following session.

Each workshop session was asked to address five questions as a guide to consistent presentation of their deliberations. The questions were:

• What does the Principle mean?
• What issues does the Principle raise?
• How has Western Australia applied the Principle to date?
• How does the Principle work in natural/historic/indigenous environments?
• What recommendations would assist in applying the principle in the future?

Thematic linking sessions, presented by Professor David Dolan, introduced the proceedings on the second and third days of the Convention. All delegates were thereby kept informed in general terms of developments and discussions in the parallel sessions and aware of the general consensus of the Convention as it evolved. The linking sessions were followed by open discussion of the rapporteurs' presentations and elaboration by session chairs of any issues raised in plenary discussion.

As at the National Heritage Convention, an Ombudsman procedure was adopted. Delegates were encouraged to use the Ombudsman process as a means of ensuring that issues that were of concern or that there was insufficient time to address during the Convention were at least raised in the record of Convention proceedings. The Ombudsman's Report would thus serve as a source of ideas for future direction and an indication of how the additional issues raised might be dealt with.

The notes from the workshops have been collated in the presentation of this Convention Report. Some detail of individual workshop discussion may not have been included for reasons of editorial consistency. All workshop notes however have been transcribed and are available in draft should they be required for future reference.

CONFERNCE CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLE 1

Recognising our responsibilities to past and future generations, the Australian community will conserve its heritage through cooperation and respect between all communities and governments.

Convention Consensus:
The Principle was clearly enunciated and unambiguous in its intent with the key words being cooperation and respect. No suggestions were made to alter the form or wording of the Principle.

In practical application of the Principle, it was recognised that perspectives of heritage values could differ and that instances could arise where these perspectives would be in conflict. In such cases mutual respect for the differing perspectives would be the basis for ongoing cooperation.

It was important that the Principle be applied in a manner that encouraged inclusion and participation by all stakeholders and not be dominated by government agencies.

Future application of the Principle would be enhanced by increased consistency in legislation and a clarification of roles and jurisdictions between agencies at national, state and community levels.

PRINCIPLE 2

All levels of government agencies must demonstrate leadership in protecting, conserving, promoting and managing heritage values.

Convention Consensus:
Leadership in government as envisaged by the Principle, was often difficult because of multiple tiers of government and a tendency to compartmentalise individual issues in specific legislation. Inherent in the Principle was the concept of a holistic approach to heritage with comprehensive legislation.

The Principle, as written, raised concerns regarding perceptions of government "leadership". In a positive sense, government leadership should include the elements of: presentation of options for consideration rather than a single course of action for confirmation; responsiveness to community expectations; responsiveness to informed concerns by stakeholders; processes of community and stakeholder participation at all stages of policy formulation; and also adequate time for community discussion and formulation of responses.

In current application, leadership was often confused with Ministerial veto or absolute discretion which could run counter to professional, local government or community decisions. Legislative trends appeared to be extending the executive power of Ministers at the expense of a transparent and publicly accountable processes.

Future application of this Principle must address concerns regarding the downward delegation of responsibility for heritage matters without parallel assignment of appropriate levels of funding support. This could best be achieved by better coordination, enhanced inclusiveness and consistency in heritage legislation at all levels of government.

PRINCIPLE 3

Recognising that Indigenous peoples are owners and custodians of their heritage and have consequent obligations, the heritage of all Australians should be managed in accordance with evolving traditions, customs and laws.

Convention Consensus:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the owners and custodians of their heritage and should be the voice in all matters concerning that heritage. Similarly, Australians of other cultural backgrounds are the owners and custodians of their heritage. Reinforcing the vision statement, Australian therefore should act as a community that respects, sustains and celebrates its diverse heritage.

The Principle might therefore be amended to read, "Recognising that Indigenous peoples are owners and custodians of their heritage and have consequent obligations, and like the heritage of all Australians should be managed in accordance with evolving traditions, customs and laws."

Problems in current application of this Principle were highlighted by the under-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders at the Convention. Similar under-representation of other cultural, religious and ethnic groups at the Convention was also noted. Taken collectively, the delegates represented a wide diversity of interests, experience and backgrounds.

Greater access and appreciation of natural, indigenous and cultural heritage could be encouraged through guidelines and tangible incentives for developers and increased investment from all sources to develop sustainable interpretive and business plans for heritage sites.

Greater community and government awareness of customs and protocols in a multi-cultural context would enhance future application of the Principle. This could be promoted through formal and regular inter-agency communication and the inclusion of natural and Indigenous heritage in Town Planning Schemes.

PRINCIPLE 4

Communities should be actively involved in all processes of identification, protection and use of heritage places, other than where this would be inconsistent with the conservation of heritage values.

Convention Consensus:
The Principle was clearly enunciated and unambiguous in its intent with the key concept being active involvement. It was clearly understood that this meant that communities must be involved from the inception of the process and be actively involved through all of the stages of the process including the consideration of alternate courses. Consideration could be given to substitution of "cultural values" for "heritage values" particularly if the Principle were to be effectively applied to indigenous and natural heritage. For non-indigenous or "European" heritage the restriction in the second have of the Principle need not apply.

Issues raised by the Principle related to the definition of "communities", and who , what, when and how was involvement to be determined. Another issue raised by the Principle was that of community interest as opposed to legal ownership and inconsistencies between concepts of owner's rights and owners being trustees for the community.

Western Australia has successfully involved communities in the identification of heritage places through the thematic frameworks used for Municipal Inventories. Nevertheless, community involvement in protection and use of heritage places has been very inconsistent from district to district and even within districts. When agencies have recognised the skills, resources and passions of their communities, there have been notable examples of protection and use outcomes.

It was recognised that communities understand themselves and have the skills and the power to influence and, often, determine outcomes. This included the skills to encompass a range of heritage outcomes including the promotion compatible uses and adaptations and thinking beyond the mentality of "making everything a museum".

In the future both agencies and communities need to develop skills of interaction and find the resources to support the active involvement of the community. Planning skills by all parties need to encompass cultural values and heritage strategies, otherwise these matters will be off the agenda at the implementation phase Education will play a key role in an ongoing process because of turnover and change of participants.. The co-ordination of natural, historic and indigenous conservation requires more education about natural and indigenous environments.

PRINCIPLE 5

There should be a comprehensive inventory of heritage places accessible to the general public, subject to confidentiality to protect heritage values or customary rights.

Convention Consensus:
The Principle was clearly enunciated and unambiguous in its intent but must be viewed with the full suite of principles and should not stand alone without that overall context. In support of practical implementation suggestions noted below, It was proposed that the principle amended to read: "There should be a comprehensive integrated inventory of heritage places linked to data sources accessible to the general public, subject to confidentiality to protect heritage values or customary rights".

A range of issues was raised by the Principle. The first issue identified was the need to acknowledge and where possible, restore indigenous customary rights to places. Secondly, the whole success of an inventory depends on an awareness process to promote the understanding and valuing of the listed heritage places by owners, managers and decision makers. The awareness process needs support materials, resources and policies. An inventory needs to be viewed in association with other information sources and there is a need for these linkages to be established. The enormous amount of work that is done at the grass roots level by enthusiastic individuals needs not only to be acknowledged but also needs to be made more accessible.

Various levels of government and community organisations have their own registers, such as the Register of Heritage Places and Municipal Inventories and the National Trust list of Classified Places. In essence, a comprehensive inventory for WA is made up of a multitude of different registers. While acknowledging the work that is being done within WA to achieve this principle already, the different lists and registers need to be coordinated. Also identified as needs are quality control and review processes to maintain confidence in the quality of the information presented.

The comprehensive inventory should incorporate linkages to data sources. This acknowledges that an inventory does act, in its basic form, as a list of places and that further supporting information is needed. The development of community heritage Internet site to achieve such linkages is recommended as a convenient way for both the public and the heritage profession to access information. Negotiation at all levels of government and with all heritage interest groups to discuss the advancement of this Principle should be initiated without delay.

It was felt that in order to have a comprehensive inventory an integrated heritage approach is required, hence the inclusion in the rewording of the principle of "integrated". To establish such an inventory in itself recognises the interconnectedness of heritage - natural, historical and indigenous. The need for common standards of documentation and criteria should however be flexible enough to permit differing interpretations of heritage so that community or spiritual values are not excluded by purely technical or professional judgements.

PRINCIPLE 6

Identification and assessment should be based on the full range of diversity of heritage values.

Conference Consensus:
The primary issue raised by the Principle flows on from its very ambiguity. The Principle is written in such broad terms that practical understanding of its intent may be difficult to achieve. In particular the difference between the processes of "identification" and "assessment" should be made clear. The values considered for identification and those being considered for assessment may well be different. In the absence of any supporting context, terms like "full range" are also rather open to diverse interpretation.

The full range and diversity of heritage implies a multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural approach linking both contemporary and historic values. This raises concerns about the practical application of the Principle in the absence of an agreed context for some of the terms used.

Present practice in Western Australia has shown that Municipal Heritage Inventories have not filled all of the gaps in identification. Standards of documentation and assessment vary considerably and a concept of "thresholds" has emerged in practice if not in legislation. It remains difficult therefore to demonstrate a consistent approach and to develop procedures to bridge the apparent discrepancies between community perceptions of heritage significance and perceptions based on legislated protection. Legal and administrative demarcations across natural, cultural and indigenous environments create further problems in identification and assessment processes.

Practical implementation of the Principle could be enhanced by a number of steps. There is a need to recognise incremental assessment procedures where complex issues could be dealt with and researched progressively. At the same time there is a need better basic information for thorough assessments (thematic, spatial, regional etc.) supported by greater interdisciplinary research. Underlying these practical steps is the need for comprehensive heritage legislation supportive of a holistic integrated approach with uniformly applicable principles. Greater consideration of the full range of heritage values could also be supported by a strategic approach to funding to include private/state/federal/local/industry sources removed from perceived political linkages such as elections.

PRINCIPLE 7

Identification and assessment should be based solely on heritage values and be separate from management decisions.

Conference Consensus:
The openness of the Principle as written leaves it so general as to create an idealistic but unworkable principle. Modification of the wording to include "identification, assessment and the determination of significance" would enhance the practical implementation of the Principle by making clearer its intent.

This Principle, like the preceding one raises the issue of a need for a glossary of terms to clarify meaning and intent. The model of the Burra Charter where a series of definitions are included in Article 1 is cited as useful model to follow.

If in application of this principle, a greater emphasis were to be placed on the determination of significance then the management issues could be more clearly distinguished.

PRINCIPLE 8

The fundamental aim of conservation is to sustain heritage value with the least possible intervention. Where the use of a place involves a risk of significant irreversible damage to heritage values, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for allowing that use.

Conference Consensus:
The Principle is generally understood and endorsed. However, The term "Place" needs to be understood, not as a confining concept, but comprehensive and expanding term capable both of meeting evolving or changing understandings of heritage and of incorporating multiple interpretations, stories or spiritual values from diverse sources. In further discussion, the issue of inclusiveness of "place" was raised. Did our understanding of the term include the stories, legends, oral traditions and other ephemera associated or relating to the place? Discussion frequently touched on other Principles and issues and this served to highlight the inter-relation of the twelve principles as supportive of the overall vision.

The key operative issue affecting the principle was to clearly identify the values held to be special and to keep and sustain them. Current WA practice in the built environment indicates growing acceptance and application of the Principle but progress is uneven and areas for improvement remain. Significant concerns exist regarding the lack of acceptance and implementation of the Principle in natural and Aboriginal environments and the negative interpretation of the "lack of scientific certainty" provision by government agencies. Further work needs to be done to enhance understanding of the principle in the areas of maintenance practices, conservation of natural and aboriginal places, the recognition of spiritual values and the conservation of urban streetscapes and landscape plantings.

Future application of this Principle should embrace the concept of a "fair go all round". Included within this concept is the need to identify what is of heritage significance, to make provision for benefit from capital gain associated within existing concepts of ownership, to enhance awareness of options and issues through education and information. If these circumstances could be achieved then the Principle would be enabling rather than preventing. It is therefore important to show positive examples of how the Principle had been applied in practice. Concurrent with this there needed to be enhanced recognition of individuals and agencies that made the principle work or applied it successfully. The impact of reduced years in building life cycles needs to be taken into account when applying the Principle.

PRINCIPLE 9

The use of heritage places should, as far as practicable, is limited to those, which are compatible with the heritage values of the place. Where there is a conflict between heritage and other values, prudent and feasible management options must be sought and considered.

Conference Consensus:
The Principle is generally understood and endorsed. A clear identification of the heritage values associated with a place was seen as prerequisite to addressing the issues of compatible usage. The concept of "all prudent and feasible options" could lead to lateral thinking and different possible answers from different people or groups. The widest possible consideration of options would be of assistance when trying to gauge the extent of change compatible with existing heritage values.

One of the issues raised by this Principle was how were decisions to be made when there was no community consensus. This could occur if there were differing community perceptions of heritage values and differing priorities for alternative uses. The risk existed under the process of the continuing alienation of a sector of the community if a consensus on future use could not be achieved. One related issue was the difficulty of comparing the value of specific development, alternative use or economically feasible proposals terms against heritage, aesthetic, intrinsic or spiritual values which were difficult to quantify in dollar terms. This created a built in bias towards economic rationalism created when concrete proposals were weighed against less quantifiable heritage values.

In current Western Australian practice, there exists community concerns regarding processes, limitations and controls associated with various forms of heritage recognition. There remained a suspicion of government agencies and their motivations, which needed to be overcome. There also remained an apprehension that "heritage" was the domain of certain groups and elites and that our understanding and acceptance of heritage outside this constraint was limited. At the same time in the other direction, it was recognised that some ethnic cultural organisations had extensive multi-national or regional links and an international heritage dimension.

With respect to future application of the Principle, pro-activity and education were seen by delegates as important tools in establishing and maintaining equity and appropriate community representation in heritage issues. Processes are also required to ensure the formulation and consideration of a range of options so that the community can make the prudent and informed decisions envisaged by the Principle.

PRINCIPLE 10

The effective identification and conservation of heritage places is dependent upon relevant research, education and presentation, which respect the heritage values of the place and the sensitivities of communities.

Conference Consensus:
The Principle was taken to mean that communities had a right to be informed about the processes and that presentation is part of the information process. Key to this understanding was that identification arises from "the community". This outcome could be enhanced if the Principle was reworked to read; "The effective identification and conservation of heritage places requires research, education and presentation, which respects the heritage values of the place and the sensitivities of communities".

This reworking still did not fully address all of the issues raised particularly concerning values attached to the adjectives "appropriate", "relevant" and "comprehensive". Inclusion of comprehensive within the Principle raised issues of divergence between the perceptions and presentation methods of academic or specialist elites and general community perceptions and presentation. This was reflected in a general misunderstanding, if not fear, of heritage status within broad sectors of the Western Australian community. It was felt that this misunderstanding could be reduced if there were greater education on heritage values for government agency decision makers, coupled with wider public education and greater promotion of 'in being' examples of conserved places being managed on a sustained basis.

In practical application of the Principle it was felt that education must be multi-dimensional and include in particular the context of a place, including the stories relating to the place and how the place was and had been seen by the community. The Principle must be seen as dynamic and reflect the living, ongoing aspect of heritage as expressed in community values and expectations.

Ongoing funding was seen as the key to successful application of the Principle in the future. The National Trust and local government both require the means to present their heritage properties in a better manner to assist in the process of public education and awareness. Municipal inventories must remain living documents which engage the community and present heritage at a level where the community can feel a sense of ownership and involvement. The Principle as written reflects a sense detachment from the community just as the Register of the National Estate can often be seen as a remote academic exercise.

Progress in future implementation of the Principle could be enhanced by a number of initiatives. Distribution of information about professional expertise to local Government and others would enhace best practice in Municipal Inventories. Historical societies and cross disciplinary networks and Aboriginal involvement were seen as crucial to reinforce the integral thinking of heritage .

PRINCIPLE 11

Conservation of heritage should be adequately resourced, recognising the rights, responsibilities and capabilities of governments, owners, custodians, communities and interested parties, and respecting cultural and gender requirements.

Conference Consensus:
Delegates felt that the particular concern with the Principle was not the issue of recognising rights, responsibilities and capabilities but rather adequate resourcing. This was a particular problem for wrestern Australia because of a small population and long distances. It was also felt that resources must be more than direct funding for works and including skills, knowledge and infrastructure..

Practical application of the Principle could be enhanced by a number of resource initiatives.New sources of funding (eg loan schemes, partnerships with the private sector, Lottery, State Heritage Fund sale of State Heritage assets, tax rebate schemes) should be investigated. The value of existing funding could be enhanced through sharing of resources, coordinating travel to remote areas, developing effective networks between all levels of government, using and extending Regional Advisers, promoting existing of programmes and resources and developing a central clearing station for advice, especially through Internet links.

Procedures could also be enhanced and clarified. Clear guidelines were required for how funds are allocated to ensure the process is apolitical. Obligations for consultation and gender/cultural requirements should be made clear. There should be new priorities for funding especially for maintenance. To achieve consistency in available funding for all jurisdictions, standards are required for interpretation and cultural plans. There was a need to develop greater equity in resources in rural/regional and urban areas for example, by making standard information available through all local councils, local governments to develop consistent partnerships with state and commonwealth governments and each other

PRINCIPLE 12

Planning processes and decisions must include conservation management planning for heritage.

Conference Consensus:
Delegates felt that the meaning of the Principle was unambiguous - Before one embarks on change, one should think about what should be kept. The Principle applies to all involved in planning and development not just government agencies. Appropriate community consultation must be regarded as an un-stated but essential component of the Principle.

The Principle did raise the issue of what was 'appropriate community consultation' and how and when this consultation should take place. Mechanisms were needed to clarify how best to identify heritage issues prior to or as part of the planning process.

In Western Australia, it was felt that practical application of the Principle was hindered by fragmented legislation (ie built environment/indigenous) and use of different criteria and terminology. This was further complicated by a lack of enunciated and consistent principles for funding programs. And a poor handling of indigenous heritage concerns. There were however some positive steps in some local government planning process (eg Bushplan).

Practical implementation in the future should encompass a state conservation plan for heritage which would articulate the ambit of the things that ought to be conserved (including Indigenous, natural and historic moveable heritage, key locations, statutory and financial processes, indications of values and priorities - use as a tool to define and articulate roles (not a regulatory device in itself). State and local government should be required to comply with principle in their own decision making (eg like the Commonwealth under the Australian Heritage Commission Act). An intergovernmental agreement for heritage between the Commonwealth and the States was seen as something that could be implemented rapidly. Above all, appropriate community consultation must incorporate procedures which will elicit meaningful responses.