Natural and Cultural Heritage Theme Report
Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report)
Lead Author: Jane Lennon, Jane Lennon and Associates Pty Ltd, Authors
Published by CSIRO on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2001
ISBN 0 643 06752 3
State of knowledge about Australia's heritage (continued)
Knowledge of historic heritage places
Country towns, with your willows and squares,
And farmers bouncing on barrel mares
To public-houses of yellow wood
With "1860" over their doors,
And that mysterious race of Hogans
Which always keeps the General Stores...
Knowledge of historic heritage places is still largely based on government heritage registers. These collectively are the only current body of information that is readily available for analysis, and can be easily compared from one State of the Environment reporting period to the next. However, the inadequacy of registers has been recognised for years. They have been formed through highly variable methodologies and tend to be skewed to certain types of places and areas within States and Territories, and it is recognised that they are an inadequate and incomplete representation of the heritage of Australia.
The analysis in this report is still based largely on register information, for want of anything better. Other approaches might include the analysis of heritage surveys that have adequate methodologies to represent a full range of heritage place types and to effectively represent the geographical spread of the survey area. This would give a measure of the area of Australia that has had its historic heritage places identified, which could be compared from period to period. 'Adequate' methodologies might include the consideration of cultural landscape approaches, which are currently seen as being one way of more comprehensively identifying the various heritage values of an area or region.
The following text first addresses the Register of the National Estate, then the State/Territory government lists. The key conclusion is that either the process for developing the heritage nationally has to take a more systematic approach to reflect the geographical and typological distribution of historic heritage places, or some new measure of knowledge has to be devised.
There were 9875 historic places listed on the Register of the National Estate and 13 160 historic places listed on State/Territory registers at the end of 2000.
The rate of historic place additions to the Register of the National Estate and Interim List remained comparable between 1990-1995 (17% increase) and 1995-2000 (16%) (see Table 1). During the 1995-2000 period the Australian Heritage Commission developed a new strategic approach to historic place assessments and formulated and followed clear priorities to reduce the ad hoc nature of the listings. The priorities included: Central Activities Districts (CADs) of the capital cities as high priority due to development pressures; Commonwealth owned or managed heritage properties; places either scheduled for disposal or major adaptation, demolition or re-use; listings arising from thematic and regional studies; and nominations of places which were the subject of funding applications. Some places such as North Head, Sydney, and the Maribyrnong Munitions Factory are regarded as cultural landscapes, along with the World Heritage listed Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park, but this category of place is not counted separately in the Register statistics for listing. This also applies to memorial tree plantings such as avenues of honour.
An analysis of the Register of the National Estate indicates that there are very large areas of Australia, outside the eastern and south-western coastal fringes, where overall knowledge of historic places is poor. This is reflected in Figure 9, which shows the distribution of listed historic places in 2000. While it is thought that the State and Territory and local government registers might provide an increasing knowledge of the dispersed historic heritage, the Register of the National Estate pattern reflects a general knowledge gap. This gap probably reflects both the early concentration of listing activity on a limited range of site types, and the perceived poor cost-benefit of undertaking identification work in remote areas.
Figure 9: Distribution of all historic heritage places listed in the Register of the National Estate at the end of 2000 (by Australian Government regions).
Source: Environment Australia, Register of the National Estate Data Base
In the historic environment, the number of places listed in State and Territory Government heritage registers still remain fewer in total than those listed in the Register of the National Estate (see Table 6). However, listing processes have been introduced in New South Wales, where a register is now being developed, Tasmania has started developing a register under its 1995 heritage legislation, and several other States are actively building their registers, with the result that the number of registered places has doubled in four states since 1995. The number of places in local government heritage lists now also considerably exceeds the Register of the National Estate, numbering at least 37 000 places by 2000, and may provide a basis for future state of the environment indicators for monitoring trends once access to the information is made easily available (as is the case since 1999, for example, through the New South Wales Heritage Database).
| State or Territory | Number in 1995 A | Number in 2000 | Change 1995-2000 (number / %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACT | 37 | 47 | 10 / 28% |
| NSW | 626B | 1 254C | 628 / 100% |
| NT | 33 | 98 | 65 / 196% |
| Qld | 937 | 1380 | 443 /47% |
| SA | 1 970D | 2 145E | 175 / 9% |
| Tas. | - | 5 700 | |
| Vic. | 1 140 | 1 794 | 654 / 92% |
| WA | 281 | 742F | 461 / 164% |
| TOTAL | 5 024 | 13 160 |
A The figures are taken either from data provided by the States and Territories, or from Marshall and Pearson (1997), which included mostly 1994 figures.
B Number of Permanent Conservation Orders, June 1993.
C The NSW State Heritage Register was created in April 1999, and is still under development. Approximately 20,000 places are identified in local government, SHR and government Agency registers.
D In 1995 this figure was reported as being 1545 places.
E 2047 places were also listed in local heritage lists, but the degree of duplication is not known.
F A further 15 600 places are identified in the Western Australian Heritage Council's Place Database, including Municipal Inventory listings.
As Australians we value our diversity, but no analysis exists of the diversity of cultural heritage represented on heritage registers, the adequacy of surveys of the heritage of various cultures or thematic studies, etc. Heritage organisations tend to be organised by the dominant cultural group rather than representing all cultural interests. The Australian Heritage Commission released Migrant Heritage Places in Australia - How to Find Your Heritage Places - a draft guide in 1995. The final guide, based on experience in using the draft, was published in 2000.
Migrant heritage places in Australia
Whether this will result in the identification of more places of significance to contemporary migrants, such as the Bonegilla migrant reception centre, as distinct from places associated with 19th century migrants, such as Chinese joss houses or market gardens and Afghan cameleer routes, could be a subject for investigation during the next reporting period.
Bonegilla Migrant Centre Camp.
Block 19, the remaining block of Bonegilla's 24 blocks, built in 1940-41, is nationally significant as the first of former army camps to open as a migrant reception and training centre in 1947 after the Second World War. It is now a museum.
Source: K. Maloney/Australian Heritage Commission
Temple of the Holy Triad, Breakfast Creek, Brisbane, Qld.
This temple was built in 1884, closed in 1930 and reopened in 1966 by the Chinese Club of Queensland. It is maintained by the Chinese community for its original use.
Source: Mike Pearson (2000)
The significance of historic and post-contact sites to Indigneous people continued to be recognised in the current reporting period. For example, seven sites at Wave Hill were listed. These sites, which mark the events and places of importance during the Wave Hill Walk Off in 1966, are of national significance in contemporary Indigenous affairs. The Wave Hill Walk Off marked the turning point in the recognition of Indigenous land rights. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam symbolically granted the return of land at Wave Hill to the Gurindji people in 1975. The story of the Walk Off is also commemorated in popular songs, such as 'From Little Things Big Things Grow'.
Two historic places were also listed for their significance to Indigenous people. These were the Cyprus Hellene Club and Australian Hall, and the Redfern Block, both located in the Sydney area. Both places are major focuses in the story of contemporary relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Cyprus Hellene Club was the site of the 1938 Aboriginal 'Day of Mourning' conference. This event was a milestone in the campaign for the civil rights of Indigenous people. The Redfern Block has played a major role in the movement of Indigenous people between their country and the city. It was one of the first pieces of urban land to be purchased for Indigenous housing, and symbolises the ability of Indigenous people to maintain their identity in an urban situation.
Cyprus Hellene Club and Australia Hall, Sydney, NSW.
Built in the Federation Romanesque style during the 1910s, the place is held in high regard by Indigenous peoples for its associations with the 1938 Aboriginal 'Day of Mourning' and civil rights protest.
Source: K. Charlton/Australian Heritage Commission
Some State National Trust lists also provide an indication of community identification of heritage places, especially in the historic environment. However, while the National Trust's State or Territory based registers are growing, the information available on changes in numbers of places in the registers over time is inadequate to identify trends.
The National Shipwrecks Database in 2000 lists 6500 shipwrecks, while the National Shipwrecks Relics database lists 25 000 objects. The State of the Environment report in 1996 reported that 'about 5000' shipwrecks had been recorded by 1995, about 15% of which had been located. The National Amnesty Database, which lists objects reported by individuals since the passing of the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976, has 26 000 entries, and 50 000 coins are listed in the Shipwreck Numismatic Database. The potential state of knowledge of shipwrecks is different from that for land-based heritage places in that, theoretically, almost every shipwreck can be identified in the historical archives and might be identified on the sea bed. The latter appears to be the focus for most government funding of shipwreck identification.
While Australia had 14 properties inscribed in the World Heritage List by December 2000, there was no listing for a place with historic cultural values. The World Heritage Committee rejected Australia's nomination of The Greater Blue Mountains Area on both Indigenous and historic cultural criteria, while inscribing it in 2000 on two natural criteria. The nomination of the Sydney Opera House (foreshadowed in the 1996 State of the Environment report) is still under development, as is a nomination of serial convict sites (places in various locations exemplifying outstanding values in relation to aspects of convict history).
Conclusions and implications for knowledge of historic heritage places
- Taking into account all government heritage registers, there was an apparent 28% increase in the number of registered historic places from 1995 to 2000. However, the real increase is considerably less than this aggregate, because many places in the Register of the National Estate have been added to State and Territory registers during the period, giving an as-yet unmeasured degree of double counting. The increase is therefore an interesting indication of a change in government responses, and a willingness to identify heritage places, but it tells us little about changes in the actual level of knowledge of such places. The 16% increase in the number of places on the Register of the National Estate is probably a more accurate indication of the growth of knowledge as it is reflected in registers. There has been a substantial change in the listing activities of the States and Territories, shown by the fact that four states have nearly doubled the size of their registers, and Tasmania only started its registering process during the reporting period.
- An unstructured perception stemming from the survey of 12% of historic places in the Register of the National Estate is that roughly the same gaps in the geographical distribution of registered places, and to a lesser extent in the range of place-types represented, still permeate all government registers in 2000, as they did in 1995.
- The knowledge gap that exists in the heritage registers means that the nature and extent of historic heritage places across much of non-urban Australia is not identified and is therefore not able to be monitored for this reporting period. The extent to which this knowledge gap in non-urban Australia continues or changes should be monitored in the next reporting period.
- This knowledge gap has implications that are identified throughout this report. There is a growing local government data resource, but this is not readily accessible as a consolidated register in most States ad Territories, and is difficult to analyse. Even in New South Wales, where the local government registers have been placed online, there is generally no information available about the places beyond a place name and address. In the survey of historic places, 27 out of 200 registered places surveyed in South Australia had no citations - another knowledge gap. With the projected closure of the Register of the National Estate as an active register, it is critical that State, Territory and local government registers acknowledge and address this present information gap. It is also an issue for the Commonwealth's proposed National List. Without a proactive identification program, it is likely that the information gaps identified in 2000 will remain in 2005.
- The absence of any World Heritage historic environment nomination is a noticeable gap in the representation of Australia's heritage places of outstanding universal significance. The proposed development of the National List may stimulate increased work in establishing the historical contexts and assessing nationally significant sites, and this in turn might convince the community and governments that there are Australian historic places of world significance.
- The shortcomings of heritage registers as the sole measurable indicator of knowledge of historic heritage places have been long acknowledged. The active exploration of other ways of assessing the extent of knowledge of heritage places (such as analysing areas surveyed rather than places listed, or using an approach based on cultural landscapes) should be an issue for all heritage agencies, led, in the context of the Commonwealth's state of the environment reporting, by the Australian Heritage Commission or its successor. The knowledge provided by heritage registers is about their existence, rather than about their condition. The latter issue is dealt with more fully in the next section.