The Haberfield Association IncPO Box 121Haberfield NSW 2045ABN 95 746 895 512

Attention: Gemma Bonshek

Australian Heritage Strategy Project TeamHeritage StrategiesHeritage and Wildlife DivisionDepartment of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and CommunitiesGPO Box 787Canberra ACT 2601

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE STRATEGY Submission - June 2012

BACKGROUND

“As civic exemplar and custodian, the Commonwealth has a duty of care in heritage issues to put people before economics, because the people are the real owners of Commonwealth property - and the inheritors.”

Schofield Review theme quote– extract from submission to the Committee of Review, Commonwealth Owned Heritage Properties by the Haberfield Assoc, Oct 1995.

The above quote is included here, not only as introduction to The Haberfield Association (Habas) but also to highlight our credentials for comments on heritage as a matter of national concern. We are a respected Community Group, established in 1980 and since then have been working continuously for Haberfield as a both Conservation Area, and as a 1901 Garden Suburb of international significance, to foster community spirit (this being an intrinsic part of Garden Suburb philosophy) and to support the people who live here.

It is worth noting a few dates. Haberfield was listed as an Item on the Register of the National Trust (RNT) in 1978, in the Ashfield Local Environment Plan (LEP) in 1985, and on Register of the National Estate(RNE) for postcode 2045 in 1991.

As a result, Habas has in-depth knowledge of what heritage means (or should, or could, mean) and how it works (or more to the point, doesn’t work) at all levels of government – local, State and Commonwealth. We have made many submissions, ranging from the earliest Austel Inquiry, through to the most recent NSW Planning Review. We review all Haberfield-related Development Applications and constantly lodge comments and/or objections. Indeed, we had major input into the Haberfield DCP, which set new standards in 1995 for user-friendly illustrated format. It still works well now, 17 years on.

document.doc p.1 / 15

The same can be said of the Schofield quote above. In June 2015, these words still point to what the key elements of an Australian Heritage Strategy should be – that the Commonwealth has a duty of care, that people are the pivotal factor, and that this is because we, as a nation, are the owners – that, as the very word heritage actually says, we are the inheritors.

There are many other comments in this 1995 submission which remain relevant today. These include the role of Commonwealth, not just as custodian of its own property, but even moreso as “civic exemplar”. The fact that such words need saying even more strongly in 2012, only shows what a lack of leadership has occurred in recent years.

In several of the Essays this failure is described as “abdication” of responsibility. That’s putting it politely. We agree in full with Professor Don Garden and deplore the sorry saga outlined in his survey of “Who are the players in heritage and what roles do they play”.

As a volunteer group, we say this - if the Commonwealth Government isn’t getting it right, and State Governments are little better (and in NSW often worse) then how or why can we hold any hope that private owners should, or can, be doing any better. In this submission we will point to potentials, although the reasons-why will be based more often on gaps and breakdowns than on success stories

But hopefully and as a direct result of this Consultation, all that will change. At Habas, we believe strategic leadership is the key – and that it WILL make a difference.

NOTE: Housekeeping re this Submission

Much of what Habas could say is already included in the various Essays provided as background to this Australian Heritage Strategy. We thoroughly endorse the comments of Don Garden as mentioned above, and of Kate Clark in her Essay on “The Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits of Cultural Heritage”. Rather than repeat what has already been said so well, we have prepared our Response in line with the Questions as posed in the Consultation Paper. This leaves it in dotpoint format, rather than essay-style argument.

1: Heritage in Australia – Important Concepts Habas welcomes this call for an Australian Heritage Strategy, but only if it does in truth mark a recognition that “heritage is important to all Australians”. However, to say that it currently “continues to shape and influence our identity:” is wishful thinking

We can agree that this might be what heritage SHOULD do – and what in other times or other places heritage has done or can do. But in Australia 2012, there has been such a breakdown in heritage leadership in recent times, that we seriously doubt that there would be anything like consensus about heritage.

Shaping a truly viable concept of heritage, and inspiring such consensus is going to be Priority #1 for this Strategy, starting with major attitude shifts; and this is going to be needed at many levels --.

SOCIAL Value of heritage – gives identity, understanding, belonging, respect ECONOMIC Value of heritage -- as in jobs, work, upskilling, restoration, repairs, ENVIRONMENTAL Value of heritage as in embedded energy in building etc.

document.doc p.2 / 15

2. What is heritage ? .As a long-standing heritage-linked group, we know heritage is understanding the past, bringing it into the present, as a guide and gift to the future. Heritage BUILDS pride in place, but goes way beyond this to endow with sense of belonging.

In Haberfield, we live with heritage every day. It is a is a living thing, and imbues our environment both as streetscape and as neighbourhood. Heritage should be this in whatever way it manifests itself - not just architecture or artefacts but adding to a cultural continuity that shapes a nation’s sense of itself. As such, heritage enriches identity, gives context to current events and, ideally, imparts wisdom not to repeat prior mistakes

Heritage is more than mere history. It give meaning to context - heritage imparts a rationale for social cohesion. It does not deny diversity, but creates a sense of pattern, and fitting-in. Where heritage is ignored, you get fragmentation and conflict. This becomes even more critical with urban pressures and transient populations.

Put it this way –it’s hard to know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’re coming from, or why. That’s why understanding the broken background to this Australian Heritage Strategy is going to be a bitter exercise, but essential to ensure the old mistakes can never happen. To put it plainly – you have to clear away the rubbish before you’ve got a clean start to build strong foundations. Context is all. .

3. Australia’s heritage system As an inner-city community group, the Haberfield Association is seldom involved in natural heritage issues, so our comments here relate to either to urban environment, or to heritage principles as such.

Since the deliberate dismantling of the former Australian Heritage Commission, (AHC) Australia’s heritage “system” has, at a Commonwealth level, been chronically dysfunctional, certainly in regard to historic and cultural heritage.

We believe that the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) has been a disaster for heritage, partly from the disempowerment of the Register of the National Estate, but even moreso as a result of blatant cost-shifting of heritage responsibilities to States ill-prepared and largely unwilling to follow through, certainly in NSW – and there is anecdotal evidence that something similar happened in other jurisdictions, like Qld.

Indeed, 12 years ago Habas attended the actual NSW announcement of its “new” State Heritage Register (SHR) regime – and noted with dismay even then, that the whole process was being designed to obstruct listing, not assist heritage understanding.

No matter how neat the so-called organisational charts may look, what’s happened with the current NSW system is disgraceful. There is too much personal discretion – ministerial, departmental, for individual property owners – for this read, developers.

In NSW heritage in the current State-based system is shallow, and certainly shows every sign of being a grudge-effort, done to minimums and with no commitment to national co-operation, much less long-term outcomes. Plus parsimonious funding.

document.doc p.3 / 15

Consider the imbalance between NSW items on the RNE, versus the paltry number transferred so far to the NSW SHR. At one stage the rate was 20 per year. And now there’s a policy of only considering items which conform to a set of three pre-determined “themes”. It is being used to artificially limit wider listings.

Meantime, the current National Heritage List is itself a token gesture. What DOES it take to be considered of national significance? Why can a distant Gallipoli be recognised – but Haberfield not even in consideration. Yet here we have the birthplace of “the great Australian dream” re home ownership, a fact of overwhelming significance in out national development and sense of family ‘identity”. Moreover this is the first Garden Suburb in the WORLD, and now known to be first-ever place where the motor car was part of the planning – this in 1904, pre-dating Chicago by at least 25 years.

Instead of being smug about the current heritage system, Habas suggests that The Australian Heritage Strategy will need to do a forensic analysis of just what does and doesn’t work in real life, and do a very big, and urgent, rethink. The problem may not be in the structure. but the interaction and prioritisation of WHO and HOW rules apply. And within this, altering ATTITUDES is going to be a major task.

4. Heritage report card – Australia’s SoE Report Card 2011 The State of the Environment Reports of both 2006 and 2011 both find positive things to say about Australia’s historic heritage situation. But neither put this into a global context, nor do they propose that a bigger picture might be possible. Any conclusion that built heritage is in “good” condition is misleading – the best that Habas can see is that demolition by neglect has slowed. An even greater risk – and one which isn’t even on the radar of SoE’s is the threat posed by a combination of urban consolidation and gentrification.

Habas has no hesitation in agreeing that the dangers facing heritage are far more than merely climate change. More insidious are politics, economics, greed and shortsightedness – plus a culture of IMPUNITY whereby breaches of heritage significance are ignored.

As Heritage Advisor Penny Pike notably warned in the face of an Ashfield Council decision to allow demolition -.”You don’t get a second chance with heritage – once it’s gone, it’s gone.” This applies to cultural values as much as bricks and mortar.

These problems will only be countered by change in attitude – from the top. Which is why Habas supports this Australian Heritage Strategy as VITAL.

5. Recognising and valuing Australia’s heritage What is the community’s understanding of heritage ?What is the social, economic and environmental value of heritage ?What are the potential benefits to the economy, community and the environment from heritage ?How can heritage provide opportunities and benefits for urban and regional development?

All survey s show more than a huge need for heritage info – a real HUNGER FOR IT.But community understanding of heritage is poor-to-patchy – not only about what it is, but even less about what it could be in terms of social enrichment, and as an economic driver and job-generator both for local initiatives and for tourism on a wider front – full scale regional development etc. Such benefits are only just beginning to be recognised here, though proven overseas – refer Kate Clark Essay.

document.doc p.4 / 15

Habas agrees that interpreting heritage as just cute old bricks and mortar is far too literal. We understand this from practical experience as Haberfielders. Our suburb is interesting for its Federation architecture etc – but the real HERITAGE is its Town Planning role, pivotal in social engineering, car history etc. Cultural heritage needs to be acknowledged, accepted – celebrated.

However, economics is not everything. We warn about the dangers of compromise that allows incremental destruction in the name of “cost-efficient development” at least in urban context. Leadership AGAINST such econo-rationales should be pivotsal in any strategy.

We recall a Sydney that’s vanished, versus Melbourne now appreciated. Prior NSW governments have squandered what could have been a priceless legacy of Victorian buildings,to take pride of place as the FOREGROUND to major modern buildings - these in precincts, NOT facadism. A new way of thinking is needed, not tweaking at the edges. European cities seem able to do it – even despite wartime destructions. A strategic new Charter could set out clear guidelines for urban retentions and adaptive re-use.

The other thing needed to enable this is INFORMATION. Again, Kate Clark points the way. We need much more data, the hard facts, to build up a rock-solid case for the benefits of heritage -numbers of houses pre-1950, current shortfall in urgent work needed, size of jobs market for craft skills, etc The National Trust knows a bit, and some States know their own scene. But what the Australian Heritage Strategy needs to do ASAP is [1] make sure it’s collected [2] bring it all together as a central data-store, then [3] make it easy & accessible.

In short – valuing heritage means KNOWING what that value actually adds up to, in real numbers - house-counts and the like, $$-cost, and $$-contribution to GDP.

6. Leadership What is the expected role of government in heritage ?Who should be providing leadership in heritage in Australia ?Are the different responsibilities of the Australian, state/territory and local governments clear? Is there any duplication ?Are the heritage legislative mechanisms across Australian jurisdictions understood ? If not, how can we address this ?What is Australia’s role in heritage internationally and who should be contributing to the activity ?

The Haberfield Association has no doubt that leadership is THE key element that’s been missing in Australian heritage for over a decade. It’s been wanted, longed for, desperately needed – and not there. If this Heritage Strategy does nothing else but get that message across to the powers in Canberra, then it will have achieved much.

National leadership doesn’t mean doing it all – but it does mean the Commonwealth takes a stand – sets standards, and SHOWS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE.

NOTE: It’s all very well to talk about Australia’s historic role in heritage leadership - the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS, the Burra Charter etc But this is only international big-noting when there’s no leadership here at home IN and FOR Australia itself.

document.doc p.5 / 15

National leadership doesn’t, and never can, occur in guise of State by State. By definition it has to be NATIONAL. Moreover, it has to be top-down – leading by example. When you’re talking attitudes and overview, trickle-up is a non-event. Won’t happen – and what’s been (not) happening since 1999 proves it. This means the Commonwealth must be the leader. And has to start taking heritage seriously in its own operations before it can ever start expecting a new era of heritage to emerge at State or local level.

Indeed, we know of State Govt departments which care so little about heritage or the law, that they wilfully flout the Heritage Act in regard to a Crown Land Reserves so significant that it’s been on the NSW State Heritage Register for 10 years. We know of decision by the Land & Environment Court so perverse that it gives the go-ahead to a “strip” of 24-hr development sandwiched right next to the Haberfield Conservation Area residential zone and directly across the road from a major heritage item (ie Ashfield Park). The problem is not only developers or ignorant homeowners

Worse, we know of Ashfield Council policies re landscaping (a key element in a Garden Suburb heritage context) which have blatantly misrepresented the Swimming Pools Act 1992 for years – and continue to do so despite being formally advised of the conflict between legislation and Council practice.

And the dilemma with all the above is that, without “leadership”, there are no clear lines of authority for protest or appeal, so such blatant breaches continue with impunity. This certainly applies in NSW – and we believe that variations of the problem occur in the other States as well. If the Australian Heritage Strategy is to make a real difference, we suggest that one aspect must cover that of COMPLIANCE via expectations, if not with rules. This may require something akin to a Heritage Ombudsman, or even a policy of “Name and Shame” to show up the errant entities, depts. or Councils concerned.

Yes, there are different responsibilities between the different levels of Federal State and Local Government, and yes these are managed by way of legislation – but this is only half the story. The other part is COMMUNICATION about this – so the system is understood, and the laws not just known but easy to follow. A key part of the Commonwealth leadership must be HARMONISATION – to ensure some uniformity between terminology and requirements that managed the heritage assets at each level. This may be via HCOANZ – but if so, this needs to be given far more administrative capability via proper secretariat.

The aim is to have CONSISTENCY in heritage management.

One thought that Habas believes could help with this is for the Commonwealth heritage level to take the lead by developing two things –

A HERITAGE CHARTER – a statement of principles, and clear lines of responsibility between different levels.

There would also be a corresponding Code of Conduct – including provision for penalties for infringements. This could also act as a focus for citizen complaints – a quasi Heritage Ombudsman

A HERITAGE MODEL ACT –this is on the same basis as State Planning depts. etc prepare a “Model Act” as mandatory Guide to assist local Councils in preparing Local Environment Plans. If it works for the State, then how much more so at a national level. And no State Government could complain.

document.doc p.6 / 15

If there is any duplication, this would be an ideal way to smooth/eliminate internal conflicts. By the way – as an administrative point, the AHC used to be able to make recommendations to the Minister. Ditto the NSW Heritage Council. This power to initiate matters must be restored, to remove the constraint of ministerial discretion.

Another point – because heritage is not private, but a “community” concern, representatives of community interest must have some way to gain “standing” - ie the right to input on heritage matters. At the moment heritage legislation is mostly a no-go fortress with “community representatives” locked out unless (as with this Strategy) there is a “call” for public response.

Re different responsibilities: tweaking current State legislation re town planning is not the answer – the Strategy needs a much deeper framework that this. For instance – for the last few years, the NSW Heritage Council has been a puppet of the Planning Dept – and their egregious turnaround re Yasmar Estate proves it – an enforced reverse decision so contrary to heritage it was even rejected by the notoriously pro-development Land & Environment Court (LEC). It’s the NSW State ‘state of mind’ that needs a tweak, or more.

Meantime, Local heritage is patchy and prone to political invention. It is appalling that a Garden Suburb of international importance can be left as a local “item”, at the mercy of local councillors, personality whims and ward-envies. Even as NSW’s first-ever Conservation Area, Haberfield values can be ignored or emasculated by a simple vote at the horseshoe – or even by the prejudice of one council officer. (Details can be given.)

In the Consultation Paper we read about the way the Australian government plays a high-level role in the management of world and national heritage places. The person who wrote this is must be in some alternative universe. Look at the number of places on the National List. It’s just 97 natural, indigenous and historic/cultural places for the whole of Australia. Not even 100. It’s pitiful total and, we say, direct result of a previous Government’s “abdication” of responsibility.

There were even Commonwealth heritage officers who opined c.2004 that only places actually “owned” by the Commonwealth could be considered as “national” – everything located in a State was limited to the State. Exclusions included Uluru, Port Arthur, Sydney Opera House, the Greenway Mint. Habas is well aware of the major turnaround needed before the truly splendid presentation supporting the Opera House for world listing.

The recent World Heritage recognition of multi-site Convict Places marks a further welcome change, moreso as it required active co-operation with the States to achieve the listing. However the overhang in old attitude still leaves a bitter shadow. Any new Strategy will have to put it forcefully to rest.

=====In 1999, the EPBC theory was that when the RNE was abandoned, State lists would to pick up the slack – to take over from the RNE. They haven’t even come close. For years it’s been a grudge match to see who can do least. In one period, NSW Minister Kelly added just 20 items – against a backlog of at least 2000, and probably more. Everything is seen as a COST, not as an asset.

document.doc p.7 / 15

Consider Haberfield – on the National Trust Register since 1978, and on the RNE since 1991 and still NOT recognised as a State Item – despite universal consensus that this is long overdue. This isn’t a case of maybe local but not State importance. So why the delay – because the NSW Heritage Council is so hamstrung by budget considerations, and so frazzled by the $60,000 it cost to list Braidwood Village (which was supposed to be the multi-owner pilot specifically FOR Haberfield) it says this world-first Garden Suburb can’t be considered for at least another 3 years, if ever.

Then there’s the matter of NSW Legislation regarding “Exempt & Complying” – which excludes State :”Items” – but NOT Conservation Areas. And this exclusion has been done deliberately, to deprive Conservation Areas of former protections. E&C is now openly cited by Ashfield Council to as an excuse to dilute or ignore a DCP which has worked well since 1995. And the damage to Haberfield heritage is by dozens of dilutions.

In a place where so much depends on streetscape and detail – this regime is a recipe for disaster. It puts our core heritage character at the mercy of private whim re fences, paint colours, security grilles distorting front elevations, boxing-in eaves, even wholesale replacement of original windows under the guise of “repair”. Worse, there’s no avenue of appeal or review. When the State government despise heritage, then it just doesn’t care.

If you need just one example of why an overarching NATIONAL strategy is needed to get some sense into State-based management of heritage, Haberfield is it.

7. Community participation What is the expected role of the broader community in heritageWho is currently involved in protecting, managing or commemorating heritage in Australia How can more people be engaged with Australia’s heritage and involved in heritage activities ?How can we engage younger generations with Australian heritage ?

At to what is expected of the community re heritage – in a word, TOO MUCH, because it’s expected to be given too freely, and with too little support. Current relationship of Govts at all levels is very little “give” and a heck of a lot of take-take-take. And when something goes wrong, it’s always the community at fault for “not speaking up” or “not acting soon enough” or some such.

“Celebrating heritage” is the wrong concept. That makes it seems occasional and “special event”. Highlighting heritage as rare and special is the easy way out – a quick fix that’s contrary to long-term understanding re overall contribution or shift in attitude. Festivals, Heritage Week etc can be one way to focus attention and trigger interest, attract crowds – but these are always one-off. Over-reliance on these may even alienate the concept of “heritage” from any sense of contribution as part of community identity and everyday life overall

Heritage as a “community value” needs constant presence, almost communication by osmosis. It emerges from a general understanding of what the past means today – and why it’s a place to be for the future. The new Strategy must position heritage as a living asset, with broad-based relevance that everyone (ie young and old) can be aware of, to use it, to share it. Information and understanding is the key – and by actively promoting this in accessible ways – including a support for a specific strategy of websites, community walks, talks, information evenings.

document.doc p.8 / 15

Who is currently involved in heritage at community level – to put it politely. a motley, mostly little local people in little groups trying to do the best they can, but with no real guidance. The fact that some can build an ethos, or “corporate memory” that functions on a wider level (as indeed the Haberfield Association tries to) is a miracle of dogged determination against the odds, or the triumph of accidental emergence by someone of exceptional understanding and/or charisma.

To widen the scope of heritage in the community, needs positive NATIONAL leadership to fill the gap – especially in COMMUNICATION. A much more dynamic approach to web info would help - interactive, topical, newsy. The opposite of official or “govt” look.

With a framework of truly national “leadership” like this in place, volunteers would not have to feel so isolated or always as though working with the bureaucratic odds stacked against them. A leadership recognition that heritage matters, would mean that heritage volunteer work matters too. And is worthy of far more $$ admin support that has been around for years. This would make it far more pro-active, willing – and productive. As parallel – think Clean-Up Australia. If that event didn’t have a full secretariat to organise and mobilise – it would probably still be a local one-off event.

Heritage Strategy, take note.

If the Australian Heritage Strategy wants to harness the power of volunteers, it needs to get serious about a structure of support that’s real, not just lip service. We are not talking about $60 million – much less, but an enabling drip-feed, strategically available.

But it’s not just about money. The Strategy should be looking for ways to give rewards and recognition – certificates or levels of achievement, status, public acknowledgement, personal awards or affirmations for individual “Heritage Heroes” – to borrow a handy term from NSW

About youth. This almost requires a self-contained heritage strategy of its own.

Social media could be one way to infiltrate the message to a younger age-group – but by arranging things that encourage “involvement” - NOT advertising. This strategy will work best when it is part of an overall community plan – probably using (yet again) volunteers. But it won’t happen in any meaningful strategic way unless there are support structures in place to back up the volunteers. Training to show how to get it going, how to maximise message and contacts – maybe web-based systems to help organise and manage the response data that comes in. Sounds easy – but takes support. This means $$ as much as lip service.

Another way is by appealing to young idealism and vision for the future. Invite them to be part of opportunities for urban and regional development based on marketing of “significance” or “character” and local identity etc. The landcare-style commitment works.

Heritage Tourism can also inspire youth – especially if their enthusiasm for place/story can be put in a global context, or provide some links beyond the immediate locale. But this doesn’t happen overnight.

document.doc p.9 / 15

Leadership might also create ways to harness youth – starting with a heritage outreach program for schools, and not just about Anzac emoticons or cute old houses – but a much wider concept of what heritage means, including national identity, diversity, culture – as well as heritage opportunities like career prospects, tourism, and craft skills. It should surely included major involvement for the kids in the national Heritage Week.

H

Note concerning potential volunteers: It’s all very well to have a flexible, mobile workforce, but this leads to discontinuity – the opposite of IDENTITY. Today’s urban dislocation and transient populations are a real problem that the Heritage Strategy will need to contend with.

8. Networks and partnerships What is the role of the private sector and non-government organisations in heritage ?What policy instruments would best support the management of privately owned heritage sites ?What connections should be made with other disciplines or areas of government policy ?

Integration of heritage activities in to the wider community is a definite YES – must be holistic, linking with other agencies – such as Tourism, Workforce development, and the Construction industry. Long-term this definitely needs to include private and non-government networks such as the AIA, PIA, HIA and Property Council of Australia, but trying to engage these right now would be premature. Need to establish that heritage HAS value first – there are years of disparagement to overcome.

In terms of Strategy this definitely raise issues re policy instruments that might be needed. These definitely include financial factors. Apart from the Job Fund, support for heritage has been in freefall downwards for years. State or Federal - the grants system seems appallingly misdirected – to be either for very large projects, beyond local construct – or divvied up so small as to be more trouble to administer than they’re worth in $$.

As for “local” grants through Councils – these are pittance-level, so low as to be meaningless. Indeed, the grants made TO Councils are appalling. Yet Council are supposed to be at the coal face of delivery in term of day-to-day heritage management.An Australia Heritage Strategy needs to revisit the whole system of support for regional bodies and Local Government.

Habas is convinced that the current dole-out of funding via the various levels of State government finance is both niggardly and wasteful. More $$ are lost in the trickle-down processes than actually end up at work in local Council heritage.

In NSW this inbuilt shortfall has been is compounded by a panoply of cost-shifting, with State governments requiring Councils to do very much more, with either the same or (inflation-adjusted) rent-pegged less. For years, heritage has been a “flea” in the budget at the end of the queue –easily zapped out.

document.doc p.10 / 15

The Strategy should consider a new system of direct payment to Local Government and local NGO’s (Visitor Officers, Tourism enterprises etc) to either enable, or reimburse, for heritage services.

Another way that would assist significantly could be an all-new national cohort of certified Heritage Advisers available to help both Council staff and heritage property owners – especially homeowners.

The Grant system to homeowners is even worse. At a State level a few applicants can get some help for heritage restoration (not maintenance, no matter how needed) but only if you’re a listed Item. This excludes virtually all of Haberfield. And there is a small relief in rates via a small concession in valuation – again only available for listed Items. Apart from this – nothing to compensate heritage homeowners for the civic constraints they abide by in the common good called heritage. The injustice grates, and is cause for both angst and antipathy. It’s another factor that that must be addressed in any Strategy that seeks to engage a wider community.

This question of fiscal equity is a key issue if there’s to be any sense of heritage “partnership. It applies especially to homeowners in Conservation Areas like Haberfield. If, in the public interest, they have to accept restrictions on what they can “do” with their heritage home, then there should be some financial quid-pro-quo to recognise the SOCIAL value of this input.

The community gets a benefit, called heritage. The homeowner should benefit too –with an equivalent in some level of tax relief – or tax discount for heritage related expenditure. If it can happen for negative gearing – why not heritage. If there can be incentives for manufacturing, or drought relief for farmers – why not for heritage. If there can be incentives and concession for first home owners, why not for heritage ?

This will be a marker by which ordinary people will measure how serious the powers-that-be are in introducing an Australian Heritage Strategy. The quid-pro-quo doesn’t have to happen overnight, and may not be a direct subsidy. But it must be something -- interest free loans or help for specific maintenance. Perhaps, free specialist advice, But not, as now, nothing.

And what happens when Grants are offered, either by State or Commonwealth. To an ordinary member of the community, the application process itself seems both arcane and arbitrary. A simpler system, with more transparency would help, whether funding levels increase or not. Perhaps grants at a fixed rate (parallelling per-child pre-school subsidies) ie per (say) house-size, may be easier and more transparent.

As to criteria for selection re awarding grants - there seems to be no recognition given for community “group” achievement or contribution over time, no recognition that a local body might know more about what would work on the spot, than a nameless bureaucrat on the 10th floor of a govt tower. As for applying re something that involves intangibles like heritage information/education or initiative, beyond refurbishment of a disused station/church/hall as tourist tearoom - forget it.

“Grant” disillusion and “application” fatigue are soul-destroying turn-offs. For a volunteer group it’s just too hard and too disappointing because there’s no help, no feedback, and never any ongoing encouragement.

document.doc p.11 / 15

Another word re Networks and Partnerships. Habas agrees that these would be a useful way to expand heritage influence throughout the community, and to leverage input into heritage involvement and promotion. However, to make these work, takes time, persistence and personal connections. If an Australian Heritage Strategy sees such relationships as part of our national heritage future, then it must be prepared to must make appropriate provision for all the ramifications required to ensure smooth liaison, ongoing supervision.

Whether the partnership is with corporate entities, NGO’s, other government/levels, private owners or volunteer projects - it is not enough to just give the go-ahead. Mutual input means mutual effort – and funding to match.

9. Protecting and managing heritage Are the current models for assistance effective, well-directed or adequate for the task ahead ?Is there a consistent promotion of heritage best-practice in Australia ?Are lists and reserved lands the best way to manage heritage – and if so are they adequate ?How can heritage identification, management and celebration be supported most effectively in Australia ?Are there adequate resources to support heritage best practice, including availability of heritage trades and training ?What groups or organisation would benefit most from support or assistance ?

The Public Consultation Paper talks about having a range of “well resolved processes for this”. The comment is a joke. The framework for legislative support in protecting and managing heritage is so under-resourced as to be non-existent. And in NSW it has been diluted, diminished, with virtually no way for community input or redress. So far as the Habas experience is concerned, a legislative framework might exist in words – but is more honoured in the breach. .

It will also be clear that the Haberfield Association has no confidence in current models for assistance, financial or otherwise. No matter what the SoE’s say, the best that can be said of it is that it’s better than nothing - but certainly is not adequate for now and future needs. We believe that a rethink at all levels is long overdue.

In fact, establishing a centralised system for information-sharing should be high on the priority list for an Australia Heritage Strategy. For instance – the various reference material and bibliographies included in the material with this Consultation Paper are a treasure trove of heritage-related resource material – yet almost none of it would have been known or readily available without this project.

Some State governments do brochures better than others – but there is no central point for making it available – leading to either replication. or lost opportunity to share costs, and reach more readers. The principles of tuck-pointing and mortar mix are the same, be it in Sydney or SA. Care for weatherboards and corrugated iron doesn’t change that much between Qld and Perth. It would be a logical development for a national heritage body to be THE information focus - a central point for generating and managing such materials.

Ideally, this should build into the National Heritage Reference Library, based in Canberra (possibly in partnership with the National Library) but available on line. What a unique heritage resource facility that would be. It would surely assist the promotion of heritage best-practice – which is far from consistent right now.

document.doc p.12 / 15

One reason for the inconsistency is education and training – lack of. At a professional level, you can be a self-declared heritage architect without having done a single semester specialising in heritage. You can be a fully qualified town planning officer dealing with a major Urban Conservation Area like Haberfield and never studied heritage as a subject. In fact, at Ashfield you’ll be lucky to get more than one hour’s familiarisation with heritage – in a Council that has dozens of different Conservation Areas, ranging from Victoriana to inter-war retro.

The truth is, taking heritage out of the “optional extra” category of electives will mark a huge step forward in an Australia Heritage Strategy for lifting standards and consistency in terms of heritage practice generally, let alone as a first start towards “best practice.

The question regarding heritage trades and training is of equal concern, where the lack of specialist skills is even more parlous than that in town planning. There is not only a dire shortage of trained crafts people – but those we have are ageing, retiring – or more recently helping rebuild Christchurch.

We are very aware of the dismal situation as revealed in the recent HCOANZ Report by Richard Mackay – few courses, scattered attendance, scant formal qualifications in the Cert system so no recognition, – and few financial incentives to specialise in the first place.

This is a topic that the Haberfield Association has a long connection with – in fact our (unsuccessful) application of 1998 for a Centenary of Federation Grant was to assist in the development of Yasmar Estate as a heritage training campus for craft skills, including use of the former Juvenile Justice trades workshop facilities.

More recently, we know that the Construction & Property Services Industry Skills Council (CPSISC) has been working with HCOANZ/State Heritage departments in a Joint Scoping/Feasibility Study to ascertain market viability. Note - this highlights yet again how essential it is to have solid facts as the cornerstone for any Australian Heritage Strategy.

The UK experience as indicated by Kate Clark, suggests that a proposed “National Heritage Skills & Training Project” could be the breakthrough needed, not only in heritage restorations, but also in both new momentum for the Construction industry at large, AND in sustainability by facilitating retention of embedded energy in existing buildings.

=====

As far as Heritage Lists are concerned – Habas can supports these in principle, though speaking mainly for urban Items. As a way to recognise & reward heritage significance, a.Heritage Register is easy to follow. However, to carry community confidence, the list must be seen as competent and reasonably comprehensive.

While the flux and flow of heritage understanding means that there will always be additions (and maybe deletions) but any glaring gaps, like Haberfield, tend to sabotage its relevance. Listings must not only be appropriate – they must be seen to be so.

Right now, the NSW SHR has been so mismanaged and short-changed in both funding and listings that we consider it an object of disrepute. In contrast, we know the Victorian Heritage Register has more Items, and more credibility. If all State lists could be lifted to similar standards it would definitely assist the community in evaluating heritage standards and expectations.

document.doc p.13 / 15

However, to ensure this new consistency over time (ie, free from political manipulations) we would urge a admin that includes national oversight – and access-point. In short – the lists might be compiled by the local/State authorities, but the central record is kept at a central point as yet another “information” element in the overall Heritage Strategy.

Ideally, the central Lists should include Conservation Areas, and Local Items. A number of the background/Essay comments refer to the uneven patchwork of current heritage info – for instance even now, the NSW Heritage Council can’t say for sure how many Conservation Areas there are in NSW. Or heritage-listed bridges. Or churches. Or cemeteries and graves.

Getting it all together in one place means taking a strategic leadership role. It may take some time to co-ordinate a complete record – but the wealth of information it delivers will become a huge heritage asset in its own right. Well worth it.

CONCLUSION

To conclude this submission on behalf of the Haberfield Association, here is a summary of some key suggestions.

Taking a LEADERSHIP ROLE is not just needed – it’s essential. Change in ATTITUDE required – heritage in not an optional extra Understanding of heritage as PRO-ACTIVE ASSET & economic contributor The aim is to have CONSISTENCY in heritage management. This includes significant HARMONISATION – standardise terminology and terms

of reference, formats for brochure and promotion etc Harmonisation starts with NAMES, as in Heritage Australia, Heritage Victoria,

Heritage NSW – SA – WA – NT – Qld – Tasmania etc. Harmonisation includes co-ordinating State Heritage Registers & lists Real need to get serious about a SUPPORT STRUCTURE, not lip service. Support includes centralised information DATA BANK and reference library Support includes pro-active help for VOLUNTEERS, inc via web-links Support includes Financial - new approach to GRANTS & TAX INCENTIVES etc. All-new national cohort of certified HERITAGE ADVISERS available to help both

Council staff and heritage home-owners etc National Heritage Skills & Training Project underway for CRAFTS & TRADES -

professional upskilling also needed architects/town planning Establish a HERITAGE CHARTER as a statement of principles, showing clear lines

of responsibility between different Govt levels Establish a CODE OF CONDUCT for heritage management, with admin channel

that enables Ombudsman-style appeal, inc from community Develop a HERITAGE ‘MODEL ACT’ as basis for State Legislation –

There should be no complaint from the State Govts re this format, since this is precisely the same system they use when requiring local Councils to conformto a pre-set MODEL LEP.

document.doc p.14 / 15

Working on this Submission has been an arduous but enlivening adventure, inspiring hope that heritage in Australia may at last be rescued from the doldrums it’s inhabited for so many years, and especially at a national level. We trust the observations and ideas in offered here on behalf of the Haberfield Association will be of interest and help in your considerations, and that at least some of them will be put into practical use.

We look forward to a final Strategic Report that points the way to a dynamic, inclusive, heritage-friendly future.

Emma Brooks MaherSecretary, tel 9798 9798The Haberfield Association Inc.

document.doc p.15 / 15