As with Conference consideration of Heritage Principles, delegates considered the Standards in a series of Workshops. The Standards were based on the Australian Heritage Places Standards as identified at the National Heritage Convention (HERCON), Canberra, 6-7 August 1998.
Each workshop session was asked to address the aims, application and practical implementation of the Standard. To address all major issues in the time available, some workshops considered more than one standard.
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. In particular, discussion of specific outcomes in Standards has been summarised to provide a general overview. All workshop notes however have been transcribed and are available in draft should they be required for future reference.
A second issue was the term "culturally restricted and other sensitive information" and the manner in which it was included throughout the text. It was felt that a new section should be incorporated to provide for this input. It was also suggested that the new section could read "If culturally restricted or sensitive information is collected it needs to be recorded and stored with appropriate degrees of protection and access controls."
These changes would make it clear that such information related broadly to any sensitive information be it of Aboriginal, gender, ethnic or other concerns. The wording also made clear that the collection of such information was voluntary at the discretion of the provider. Existing wording seemed to imply a degree of compulsion.
The Group felt that the key aims were clearly defined in the modified text. The group identified a number of concerns or areas which required further consideration or study. These issues included:
The Group endorsed the requirements for data verification, including monitoring and review processes. The group endorsed the concept of a National Heritage Database Taskforce subject to the following provisions:
Q1. A/B
how can we avoid (When planning for new how do you look after the old)
STANDARD 5
Database, place, legislation, need for definitions
5.1
- seems very complex, language use confusing eg. "transparent"
- assessment seems to have been left out
- "place" potentially limiting - doesn't encompass moveable heritage or cultural practices.
- appropriate stakeholders input doesn't adequately indicate the degree to which community can participate and also too open to interpretation
- communities also need educating to effect this standard
- a "defined consultative method" implies bureaucracy
- communities may or should be consulted on the consultation method
- use of expertise needs to be appropriate eg. local consultants have intimate knowledge
- "defined consultancy" needs to encompass the fact that traditional owners may have exclusive rights to speak for places - that means no other consultants should be involved
- guidelines necessary to outline/clarify appropriate stakeholder identification and community consultation processes
5.2 systematic, thematic and being comparative
- seems unlikely that these 3 approaches will adequately deal with all issues. "Where appropriate" doesn't seem to give any leeway for other approaches
- thematic approaches can be bewildering for local communities - too academic, an artificial structure, not relevant to their interests/priorities or the way they conceive heritage which is often more site specific.
- thematic approaches may be more appropriate at the state level and less at the local
- different thematic frameworks operating at different government levels
- systematic studies of Natural Environment not done on heritage criteria
- comparative approach problematic as data not always available especially HCWA database
- need to do comparative assessments of consultants to ensure quality
5.3
- there's a gap between how the public conceive of heritage values and how consultants use them
- in Box 1 and the Big 4 list, social value always seem like such an after thought
- the profiles not high enough
- sometime identification needs to happen quickly
- identification criteria (Box 1) appears less applicable to the natural environment - the language is particularly problematic, there are different documents referred to
- need to develop links between heritage and notions of sustainability
- there needs to be an iterative review of standards
5.4
- need greater standardisation in compilation of Inventories especially MIs
5.5
- public access doesn't always mean free access and it should
- need better funding for public access which is progressively being requested
- limited access to development plans may be justified under this section.
- need to address the problems of charters of certain government agencies/departments eg. DOLA, who don't have public information role
- greater acknowledgment needed of their assets and responsibilities
- greater dissemination of information from academic institutions
- documentation not held in central place eg. Battye
5.6
- separation nice in theory but doesn't work in practice - sep at LA level but VITAL to find a way to effect this
- clumsily worded - reword - be objective and independent processes
Q3.
- need new Acts clarified and strengthened by incorporation of standards
- resourcing - Local authorities will need to have responsibilities on top of already heavy work load especially re: natural heritage
- greater pro-active research facilities = better planning decisions and easier negotiations with developers
- central repository for identified/recorded places
- need coordinated approach to get integrated assessments - to good statements of significance eg. Kings Park. Could provide case study/exemplary project. Need other similar to raise profile of integrated assessments initiated by BMA/CAMS. This would also highlight the value and need for transparency
- assessment needs to be interative, ie. Repeated regularly esp. re changeable places
- greater dialogue and partnerships between government departments all along the line eg. appeals process.
- removal of possible Ministerial intervention subverts process and undermines integrity.
- Need "illustrated" version with/case studies
- Need something soon to ensure Principles and Standards more accessible
- Would help to address some of the hesitancy of "boxed in" people
STANDARD 6
Conference Consensus:
It was agreed that clarification is needed as to the explanation of the Standard. There was some difficulty with the explanation, particularly the reference to "automatic/blanket protection", where does this exist; what does it mean, and thought perhaps this needs some elaboration.
The group also identified some important issues for lists and listing generally. Firstly, we felt that the differences between lists must be acknowledged. It was strongly felt that lists are of different kinds, not different degrees and that one list should not be considered to be more "important" than another.
In acknowledging that classes of listings cannot have more value than others, we discussed the fact that the actual wording of the Standards relates to listing processes which provide some sort of legislative protection. We agreed this could prove to be problematic as not all lists provide such protection. Thus, the question to ask is which lists do fall within the scope of the Standard.
The 2 other important issues to come from the mornings discussion was the need for continued updates for lists and secondly, a recommendation that an inventory of de-listed places be kept. This would ensure that the information on these places would not be lost and leads to some kind of performance evaluation for the heritage profession.
Afternoon Session - Standard 6.
In the afternoon session again we questioned the immediate link between legislative protection and the listing process. The group wondered whether the Standard essentially has gone too far in making this link.
This lead us to acknowledge that in order to implement the Standard in WA requires the legal framework to give protection to listed places.
Getting into more detail, we examined how 6.5 and 6.9 relate to each other. 6.5 relates to community consultation and 6.9, expert advice. We felt that perhaps these need to be reworded to incorporate both into the one component.
We also acknowledged the relationship between this Standard and Principle 7 which emphasise the need for listing to be separate from management issues.
Another issue we discussed was in relation to the implications of listing. Often in order to give legislative protection to a place, uses of that place are restricted, not to mention that numerous resources and a responsible authority are required. In order to implement this Standard, this issue would need to be addressed, perhaps even considering compensation for affected owners.
and finally, in examining the listing process, we acknowledged the need for an independent statutory authority to oversee the listing process. If such an independent authority could not be established, then at the very least, we recommend that the final decision - maker be required to justify finding against a huge push towards the listing of the place.
STANDARD 7
Managing Development
1. Local government is the level at which heritage planning - development issues are dealt with on a daily basis. Skill levels and practice vary greatly from LGA to LGA. Models/best practice examples to be used by local government were suggested.
- approaches to consultation
- creative incentives
- tender
2. Consistent approach from State agencies required for identification, planning, appeals processes, consultation etc.
Variation of practice and expertise at local government level.
GROUP 2
1. STANDARD 7.
- Managing development
- read standard.
2. Both sessions agreed that all the aims were of equal importance.
3. The process we then used was to examine the questions of application in WA and how we improve implementation of the Standard through 7.1 to 7.6.
4. We did not get to prioritising the recommended strategies for implementation.
5. OVERALL STUFFF
6. 7.1 read Standard or identification and weighting
- recognised different levels of heritage significance.
- local government level varies across authorities
- danger that economic concerns can dominate
- MIs have been limited to mainly built environment
- separating identification of significance from planning and development.
Strategies - Implementation
- identification is essential 1st - planning
2nd - issues
- heritage issues need to be included early in the process of planning
- LGAs need to agree as a group on model/approach to identification and planing.
- State agencies need to be consistent in their approach to identification and planning/development issues
- reporting mechanisms
7.2 Statement needs clarification
- assumed this was about accountability
- transparency of process
Implement
- Appropriate notification/advertising/reporting to ensure transparency
7.3 Adequate consultation processes
- stakeholders must include the community
- community needs to be involved
- same question about involvement in each development decision
Implement
- community involvement essential in planning process
- model/best practice suggested - consistent approach to consultation
- community determines what is appropriate
7.4 Appeal mechanism
- now - advice, decision no appeal
- specialist Appeal process for heritage
- need for 3rd party appeal mechanism
Implement
- re-education process
- 3rd party appeal mechanism other than Minister.
7.5 Heritage agreements
- broaden the scope of this to include Aboriginal and natural heritage
- continual updating of knowledge of those involved in Heritage matters
- maintain a place (different for different types of heritage)
Implement
- in State Strategy for Heritage a study need of "holes" in heritage protection
- amendment of legislation to allow protection
- broaden types of Heritage Agreements - more tyupes of places and types of protection. Eg. covenants
7.6 Incentives
- Ad hoc at present mainly for built environment
- more than just financial incentives needed
Implement
- integrated approach
- a range of creative incentives for the different levels in the planning process. eg. acknowledge through plaques and awards - concessions.
OVERALL
- recognition that heritage needs to cross all areas of heritage - natural, aboriginal and built and not just concrete can be abstract
- info on all types of heritage readily available and easily accessible
- need for glossary
- levels of significance needs to be included in the management of the place
- regional resources needed - financial + expertise + recognition of the special needs of the regional group
- State level - more community involvement
STANDARD 8
Conserving places
SOME KEY POINTS
QUESTION 1. AIMS
The aim as stated in the 'component aim' in italics was considered appropriate
The overall aim is to retain heritage values
QUESTION 2. HOW HAS THIS STANDARD BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN WA?
HISTORIC
This standard has been influenced in relation to historic (built) environment primarily in relation to building.
State Government has followed it in a pragmatic way, when it suits. Use of standard increasing with requirement for conservation plans prior to disposal.
Increasing use with Local Authorities. Little application to privately owned properties except for grants.
SOME VALUE and SKILLS POORLY RECOGNISED eg. ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUES, SOCIAL VALUES, especially in relation to original use, and suitable new uses.
NATURAL pastoral use in relation to RFA process, but full range of values not appreciated and forests likely to be lost. Considerable community descent - principle 4 not working properly.
ABORIGINAL/INDIGENOUS
Some application, but very different form historic. Access improving because of Native Title.
DIFFICULTIES WITH APPLICATION
Several difficulties that impeded the application of the Standard.
- first and foremost - the manner in which owners become aware of listing - letters in the mail.
- more care and communication/PR needed, more emphasis on providing information.
- Crucial that identification involve communities. Principle 4.
- lack of resources to meet the standard
SKILLS
FUNDS
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT'S EXPECTED
- Resource of heritage organisations STRETCHED - especially in relation to provision of information
- difficulties for private owners in gaining knowledge, becoming familiar with the system - who does what.
- Municipal Inventories don't provide protection
- Standard needs to be in a broader context - of good will and sensibility.
QUESTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION
A variety of suggestions:
- standard should be integrated into Local Authority practices and asset management
- desirable for Local Authority, Government organisations to be more familiar, knowledgeable (as in Adrian Fini's comments)
- Local Authorities could prepare cultural plans covering wide range of cultural aspects of community life, and thereby provide a contact for heritage places
- develop a State Government CULTURAL PLAN - plan also recognising all aspects.
OTHER COMMENTS (morning session)
Heritage could be mentioned in the constitution, or its preamble, but preferably the constitution.
Better recognition in Commonwealth responsibilities.
STANDARD 9
Preamble to Heritage Practice
WA is faced by unique circumstances
- the tyranny of distance
- very small regional populations
- a dominant capital and weak regional centres
- the economy is dominated by industries based on economies of scale
- heritage practice is people intensive
Because of the above WA is a highly challenging place for heritage practice.
Is WA a heritage challenged State?
PRACTICE
- current insular within industry
- wider practice perspective
- cross cultural
- multi disciplinary
- inter-sector - value adding
- strategic and business plans
PRIORITIES - Afternoon
9.1 Australian heritage standards
9.11 Strategic and principal activity plans
9.6 Partnerships, funding etc.
9.2 Volunteers
As Standards
PRIORITIES - Morning
9.2 Volunteers
9. Education
GENERAL ISSUES
Glossary
Aboriginal terminology
9. PROMOTING HERITAGE PRACTICE
A. Key Aims
Promote effective, efficient and ethical (conservation values and ) heritage practices through education, research and training (and strategic implementation)
B. Application of Aims
Making progress on aim as originally drafted
C. Implementation
9.2 Add 'appropriately recognised and accredited heritage training'
9.9 Recognise the value adding of heritage to related disciplines eg. Tourism and Planning.
9.10 Emphasise the value and necessity of cross cultural research and consultation
9.11 Promote heritage strategies for public agencies.
9.12 Encourage development of heritage training and swareness in a broader educational base
9.3 Add 'with due regard to' cultural sensitivities
9.4 Add 'Adverse impact'
9.5 Add 'Prior learning'
The following additional Standards were proposed for incorporation:
9.2 Add "Appropriately recognised and accredited heritage training"
9.9 Recognise the value adding of heritage to related disciplines eg Tourism and Planning
9.10 Emphasise the value and necessity of cross cultural research and consultation
9.11 Promote heritage strategies for public agencies
9.12 Encourage development of heritage training and awareness in a broader educational base
STANDARD 10
Implementation
1. Celebrate achievements
2. Create sense of community and draw on local knowledge
3. Promote and support Local Authority heritage officers and advisory committees
4. Adult education - including decision makers
5. Include cultural values eg. oral histories
6. Early consultation - open process
7. respect community views and provide feedback and follow-through, including reporting back.
8. Personal communication - use existing networks.
9. Strategic planning as an awareness-raising and educational process - take long view.
10. Support through accessibility to expertise and funding.
11. Positive peer pressure.
12. May need legal framework
13. Respect and understand cultural differences.
