About Us Heritage Organisations in WA What's On Join Make a Donation
Places to Visit
Accommodation
Online Shop
Heritage Icons 2004 Conferences and Forums Endangered Places
Education Natural Environment Luisini' Winery Golden Pipeline
1999 State Heritage Convention Report
ADDITIONAL CONFERENCE WORKSHOP SESSIONS
Additional workshops addressed specific topics. The format of the workshops varied from discussion groups to multi-media presentations. Because of the variety of presentations, not all workshop presentations were could be summarised or included in the Convention Proceedings. Workshops were conducted on the following topics:
INDIGENOUS HERITAGE WORKSHOP
Noel Nannup, Conservation and Land Management and Irene Stainton, Department of Aboriginal Affairs
Noel Nannup gave a presentation that was a very personal account of his own experience and understanding of his Aboriginality and spirituality. He said it was important to understand and learn from the past. He placed a lot of emphasis on the need for Aboriginal people to work with non-Aboriginal people.
Irene Stainton presented a formal overview of the provisions of the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. An issue highlighted by Ms Stainton was that the Department now advertises its schedule for consideration of s18 (permit to destroy sites) applications in the newspaper. Although this was initially intended for developers, the Department has found that increasingly Aboriginal people use this as an opportunity to make submissions in relation to the applications.
Ms Stainton said that gender issues were being well considered on the ACMC and most consultants were encouraged to use specialists of both sexes to ensure that men and women's issues are considered. Irene Stainton presented a video about the reburial of skeletal remains uncovered during road works near Busselton. The reburial was a public event, and permission was given by the Busselton Noongar community for the video to be shown. After the screening, she discussed some of the difficulties and sensitivities. She also pointed out some of the positive and unexpected outcomes, including the fact that some private land had been returned to Noongars following this event.
She also discussed the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. Ms Stainton said it was in its third draft and getting close to what the Government wants. The intention of the Western Australian Government to make it similar to the Northern Territory model . In discussion, some Convention participants commented that this was a good thing, but others felt that it was unlikely to be effective without the Northern Territory land rights context. Irene said there will be a 3-4 week consultation period.
Vera Novak, former Registrar of Aboriginal Sites and an Department of Aboriginal Affairs solicitor are drafting legislation for introduction in the Spring session of parliament.
Discussion
Q: The Shire of Murray was interested in how to deal with multiple groups with interest in the same site, eg. Pinjarra Massacre Site. A: Ms Stainton recommended holding separate meetings with each interest group. She cited the example of Hamersley Iron who opted to use multiple anthropologists and archaeologists so that each Aboriginal group could adequately represented.
Other participants suggested that it might be possible to get a third party such as the regional land council to negotiate an agreement between all parties to overcome the issue of who to talk to. In the case of Pinjarra, the Noongar Land Council may be able to assist.
Q: A question was asked about how to ensure that women from the Perth metropolitan area were consulted when all the Elders referred to by Aboriginal Affairs Department were men. A: Ms Stainton suggested that the Noongar men inform the women.
It was noted by the group that non-Aboriginal people often find it easier to do nothing about Aboriginal consultation when faced with a situation of community division and hostility.
The workshop recommended that Aboriginal Affairs Department ensure that all local governments gain access to the Aboriginal Affairs Department sites register and their new information pack on the legislation.
MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORIES WORKSHOP
Situation before Municipal Heritage Inventories
Before the advent of Municipal heritage Inventories, there were a number of different heritage lists developed and maintained by various agencies, such as the National Trust of Australia (WA) and historical societies. Some members of the community felt that one comprehensive list was needed. Many local governments had heritage lists within their Town Planning Schemes but there varied enormously. It was felt that there was a need for clarification and standardisation/
Prior to Municipal Heritage Inventories it was the local historical societies together with the national Trust of Australia (WA) who considered / cared for local heritage. The introduction of Municipal Heritage Inventories brought the issue into the political arena as well as defining a new responsibility for local government.
One difficulty local governments had faced prior to Municipal Heritage Inventories was in defining "heritage". lan Hocking brought forward the example of the South-West where nearly each local govermnent had a different understanding of the term, which was reflected in their lists.
Prior to Municipal Heritage Inventories various local governments had had heritage lists prepared at different stages (eg: the City of Fremantle, which featured listings from National Trust of Australia (WA) registers from the mid 1960's).
Status of Municipal Heritage Iventories
The workshop questioned the impact of political pressure on places which have and have not been listed on Municipal Heritage Inventories. The difficulties involved within Ministerial discretion was highlightee as being something which required further investigation.
It was agreed that within the town planning process one cannot make the assumption that every listed place will be protected. This brought discussions back to the principles and standards from HERCON which provide that the listing process needs to be separate from the management issues. It was felt that this is required for meaningful listings and to have objective Municipal Heritage Inventories.
It was agreed that Municipal Heritage Inventories are the best system available within WA and needed to receive support in order to succeed.
Public Consultation
It was agreed that the Act was helping the transition from a traditional top-down approach to heritage, to a more grass-roots decision making by empowering local communities to be responsible for identification of their own heritage.
Experience had shown that the pilot studies highlighted that thematic frameworks enabled a successful public consultation process. However, within pilot studies only the listing was considered, not the management issues involved as a result of listing. This highlighted the change from the initial intention that the Municipal Heritage Inventories would only be an asset list to the perception today that they are in fact more than just that.
Discussions focused on the perceptions of custodians who felt that there should be some protection for a listed place yet they feared being restricted in what they were able to identify with a listed place.
It was agreed that whilst it was theoretically sound to have an asset list and then determine what the implications are, it is too difficult to achieve within the public consultation process. Cathy Day forwarded the comment that she felt the community need to know what the implications of listing are because they assume there will be implications.
Representative from the Shire of Roeboume commented that as a part of the assessment the significance of each place is determined which then leads onto the appropriate management category.
As it is important that each community own its Municipal Heritage Inventory, there is a need for infortnation to be available to the public. It was agreed that there is a substantial difference between having the information and it being made available.
Comments
It was agreed that Mls are assisting in helping heritage becoming more proactive, as opposed to reactive, in that Mls are providing certainty within the decision making process.
It was felt that to some extent, the resources local governments have placed in compiling Mls have not achieved the results they could, particularly when the WAPC have ignored heritage issues raised by local government.
Whilst resources are limited, the heavy use of secondary materials in preparing Municipal Heritage Inventories was noted and it was felt that whilst Mls are becoming more sophisticated, the level of assessment needed to be continually improved.
Identified the lack of comparative data so that places can be irated against similar ones in state, but agreed that if all the places listed on an MI can be entered into a database of some sort then everyone would be more aware of what exists.
Outcomes
1. One outcome of Mls was thought to be the co-ordination of the various lists to create one heritage database for the State. It was agreed that Mls had played an important role to date in this occurring.
2. It was agreed that all three heritages need to be represented within Municipal Heritage Inventories, but it was acknowledged that there were difficulties within the Aboriginal Sites Department in their policy line that places of indigenous heritage NOT be included on Municipal Heritage Inventories. It was felt that this is unfortunate because the feeling of indigenous people is that Municipal Heritage Inventories are the most appropriate level for protecting their heritage, rather than ibattlingi against higher levels of govermnent.
3. Acknowledged the difficulty in being able to substantially amend the Heritage Act, thus agreed that education is the most effective mechanism in protecting local heritages (across the 3 heritages).
4. Further investigation is required into the places themselves, rather than focusing on the structures. Mls need to be able to recognise the stages and changes in structures of growth, however, it was agreed this would be difficult to address. It was felt that Mls are a difficult medium to use in highlighting how structures of places (such as towns) have changed over time and the impact this has had.
5. The workshop highlighted the difficulties faced by regional local governments in terms of resources to compile, maintain and implement Municipal Heritage Inventories at a time when deregionalisation is occurring, such as through the State Planning Strategy (WAPC, 1997) which will exacerbate the current situation, reducing services and population. It was felt that perhaps in these situations, a regional approach to heritage issues is required (such as through a program like the HCWA heritage advisors).
6. It was felt that a type of interim list was required which would purely list the heritage assets, not provide for any management initiatives. This has been done within the City of Fremantle and has allowed local governments to be aware of the assets within their boundaries prior to the process of compiling the MI.
7. It was decided that more investigation is needed into precinct planning. Often places are not listed on an MI because individually they may not be considered to pass the threshold of listing, however, when viewed within a precinct, they do become places that require protection. This can result in management problems for the MI as well as place local governments in a difficult position when it comes to determining a development application. This was discussed using the example of the Town of Vincent who have experienced difficulties with precinct planning due to a lack of information since their split with the City of Perth.
8. Need to acknowledge the role of different interest groups - these groups (such as maritime heritage) do not have a geographical boundary, rather they have scattered sites through out the state. These need to be incorporated into a comprehensive inventory somehow.
9. The Urban Bushland Council representative recommended that a list be required to be compiled within in each local government, as in the form of an MI, for areas of natural heritage. Some local government representatives (such as the Shire of Swan) stated they had already included places of natural heritage despite it being out of the ambit of the Act.
10. It was considered that perhaps a task,force is required to review Municipal Heritage Inventories generally, with a view to examining the !next step forward, particularly regarding whether indigenous and natural heritage could be included within Municipal Heritage Inventories.
11. The suggestion that a workshop on Municipal Heritage Inventories be held in Local Government week for educative purposes was forwarded. However, time still needs to be spent on examining the big picture as opposed to looking at what can be achieved through Municipal Heritage Inventories. It was agreed that the timing of the Convention had provided some difficulties for some local governments due to the local elections.
12. Recommended that greater proliferation offunding information is provided for local governments, particularly regional local goverwnents (such as through Natural Heritage Fund and the State Salinity Strategy) and that consideration be given to establishing a funding service for rural areas.
13. Identified the need for a cross cultural exchange to develop a comprehensive register.
14. Recommended the use of a standard approach / methodology used by local govermnents in the development of ~Mls (similar to the Guidelines produced by HCWA in 1993). This recommendation stemmed from the belief that the standardisation of Mls is currently only occurring through consultants. It was agreed that such an approach had to be able to compensate for the differences between local governments also, for instance, a metropolitan approach to consultation will differ from a rural one.
(HCWA representatives stated that HCWA had already acknowledged that need for these standards and that steps have been taken to make this happen. If this was not going to occur, it was felt that as a part of the outcomes from the Convention, this meeting of practitioners involved in the compilation of Mls must take place.)
15. It was felt that forums with real estate agents are required to ensure agents know the implications of an MI listing and will notify potential owners as required under their code of ethics (duty of disclosure).
16. Municipal Heritage Inventories need to address the situation of a place not being important to the local community, but being important to a community which may not be represented within the community (EG Art Deco buildings), ie, how does one community cope with another community is heritage?
17. There is a need for helpful literature for people stating what they can and cannot do with their property once it is listed, ie, explain simply the implications of listing on an mi.
18. There is a need for guidance for local governments when determining development applications and management categories for heritage places. This will be particularly useful within larger local govermnents where the different divisions may be disparate (EG the engineering department may not be aware of heritage issues for a particular works program).
19. There is a need for a trigger to assess the heritage of a place when a development application comes in (especially if listed under more than I criteria).
20. The MI review process (as required under the Heritage Act) should be to enlarge Municipal Heritage Inventories, refine Municipal Heritage Inventories and to undertake any (required) additional research on places.
Action Required
1. Municipal Heritage Inventories need to embrace more than just built heritage. This will help to implement the principles and standards from HERCON that a comprehensive register is needed within each state and the nation.
2. More funding is required for local governments in order to meet their legislative requirements for Mls.
INTEGRATED APPROACHES TO HERITAGE WORKSHOP
Lyn Leader-Elliott
This report is a summary of a workshop held in Perth, Western Australia on 27th October 1998 with additional comments from the Integrated Heritage workshop members at the Western Australian State Heritage Convention, April 30 1999
Statement from the Workshop An integrated approach to heritage means all heritage organisations and stakeholders coming together and working towards a common understanding and respect for all heritage values in the natural, historic and Indigenous environments. These values include natural, historic, cultural, indigenous, scientific, social, aesthetic and spiritual. A fully integrated approach will encompass places, moveable heritage, historic records and other natural and cultural associations.
Integrated approaches to heritage will:
Issues identified from the two workshop sessions What is it and other issues?
Where to be in 5 years?
