The Haberfield Association Inc
PO Box 121
Haberfield NSW 2045
ABN 95 746 895 512
Attention: Gemma Bonshek
Australian Heritage Strategy Project Team
Heritage Strategies
Heritage and Wildlife Division
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
GPO Box 787
Canberra 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.
116099225 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.
116099225 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 cooperation, much less long-term outcomes. Plus parsimonious funding.
116099225 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.
116099225 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.
116099225 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.
116099225 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 highlevel 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.
116099225 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 heritage
Who 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.
116099225 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.
116099225 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 nongovernment 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.
116099225
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-thatbe 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.
116099225
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.
116099225
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.
116099225
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 conform
to a pre-set MODEL LEP.
116099225
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 Maher
Secretary, tel 9798 9798
The Haberfield Association Inc.
116099225
p.15 / 15