3. Constraints on access
3.1 We concluded the previous chapter by saying that access to heritage
is a right of all. The statement of principle must be qualified
in practice. Various constraints apply, which motherhood statements
about the `right to access' tend to gloss over. Rights in principle do
not necessarily coincide with opportunities in practice. Some of the following
points may be seen as intrinsic limits, accepted as part of the landscape;
others may be regarded as problems requiring action (usually for the sake
of justice and equity goals). Which is which is very much a matter of
opinion. They are mentioned here to put the discussion of user charges
in the rest of the report in context: user charges are only one constraint
among many.
Much heritage is in private hands
3.2 Firstly, much heritage is in private hands, and is either inaccessible
or, if accessible, usually only at a price. Such things include significant
natural areas; the vast majority of heritage listed properties such as
historic buildings; recreated `open-air museums' (sometimes called `heritage
parks') such as Sovereign Hill at Ballarat (Vic.) or Old Sydney Town at
Gosford (NSW); and the many small local historical museums or house museums
around the country. [1] Such places may either
be not-for-profit co-operatives, sometimes subsidised by local councils,
or fully commercial. Where they charge entry fees it is not controversial.
[2]
3.3 No submissions expressed much concern about this situation, except
occasionally to point out in a general way that access to privately owned
heritage `is an issue' (an exception was the important special case of
access by indigenous people to private land significant to them: this
is considered from paragraph 3.25). Submissions on both sides tended to
focus on the public realm, and tended to disregard these other places.
[3]
3.4 This is understandable, since the main debate over user pays is located
in the public realm (through the `we've-already-paid-for-it-through-our-taxes'
argument - see paragraph 4.10). But the place of the private realm in
access to heritage should not be forgotten. Heritage is found in many
guises, and cultural identity is confirmed in many places, both public
and private. The fact that an old municipal zoo is publicly owned but
a new aquarium is privately owned is largely a matter of historical accident.
The old buggy whose owner brings it out for a spin at the annual show
is no less of a heritage item than the one that is donated permanently
to the historical museum. Conservation and presentation, education and
entertainment are (or should be) inextricably linked, and both publicly
and privately owned things may contribute to all of them. Naturally they
are mixed in different proportions in different activities or places,
along a full spectrum; but the fact that conservation and education are
primary in the public museum or national park should not blind us to the
fact that they may also occur worthily in the private heritage park or
nature reserve. If we subconsciously identify `heritage' with the public
realm only we underrate these contributions and potentials. And
if we equate `heritage' with `right of access', applying the general principle
too sweepingly, we will discourage private owners who may be happy to
manage for conservation but do not want to be forced to provide access.
3.5 In so saying the Committee is not arguing that heritage conservation
should be left to the private sector. The Committee would reject that
extreme view strongly (no submissions, even from those favouring user
pays, suggested it). Museums and national parks provide public benefits
that cannot be charged for and would not be provided by private enterprise:
for example, the existence value and bequest value of natural areas, and
cultural enrichment seen as a community benefit (such benefits are the
basic justification for public provision). In particular, even in contexts
where, on the face of it, an operation could be profitable, public
ownership for the public good allows cross-subsidy to non-profit elements
(scientific research; affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups)
which the private sector would not carry out (fear that a excessive `cost
recovery' focus would cause management to downgrade such activities was
one of the arguments of those who opposed user pays). Above all, private
operation tends to exclude the poor - and we have affirmed as a matter
of policy that access to heritage should be the birthright of all. [4]
3.6 Private activities contribute to heritage conservation in particular
niches where circumstances are favourable - where there is enough
income from tourism, for example, or (in the case of museums) where there
is enough sponsorship or high volunteer input with low expenses of research
and curation (the typical situation of small local museums). This contribution
should be acknowledged; on the other hand, private enterprise cannot take
over the many activities which naturally belong in the public realm. Both
have their place; each defines its role by reference to the other.
Poorer people can't access as much as better off people
3.7 A second proviso, when we speak of the `right' to access in principle,
is that we live in a society where, in practice, poorer people don't have
access to as many things as better off people. This point is relevant
to the argument by supporters of user pays that where poorer people are
effectively excluded anyway, free access is in effect a subsidy to those
who can afford to travel (see paragraph 6.9). [5]
3.8 Few submissions dealt with this point explicitly. Since all affirmed
the `right' to access in principle, it is an awkward point for all. It
is obviously more of an awkward point for the opponents of user pays,
in light of the `travel cost' argument just mentioned; and it is probably
more of an issue for national parks than for city museums and galleries
(where the travel cost will usually be lower and the other issues to do
with cultural expectations are more important). Opponents of user pays
tended to respond by claiming that an entry fee might be the last straw
that breaks the camel's back for poorer people, but there was little hard
evidence on this one way or the other. The `last straw' argument does
not consider the possibility that because of travel costs (or, in the
case of museums/galleries, barriers to do with cultural expectations)
the poor may already be excluded anyway. [6]
3.9 No-one suggested that there should be affirmative action by way of
public subsidy for poor people to visit national parks. [7]
The tacit assumption is that while those who can afford it may visit Uluru,
those who can't afford it can picnic in the local reserve and, in context
of a society where it is accepted that some people have more than others,
this is a reasonable outcome. On the other hand, submissions on museums
and galleries showed much concern about the well known tendency for poorer,
less-educated people not to visit, and the perceived need for affirmative
action by way of `access and equity' programs to remedy this situation
(and this issue is a commonplace in museum circles generally). Concerns
about entry fees are part but not the most important part of this.
3.10 That there was a perceived need for affirmative action in respect
of museums and galleries, but not in respect of national parks, reflects
the extent to which museums are traditionally seen as involving education
and cultural enrichment, which are regarded as beneficial to the whole
community. In the case of national parks, while some submissions made
eloquent attempts to describe people's enjoyment of nature as an enriching
and educational thing worthy of similar status as a benefit to the whole
community, the silence of most submissions on this hints a view that the
typical national park visit, compared with the museum visit, involves
a greater proportion of `mere' recreation - which, implicitly, is more
of a private benefit. For example:
`The Committee of the Friends [of South Australia's Archives] would,
however, stress the difference between those areas of cultural heritage
which, from a general point of view, might be seen as more closely related
to recreational activity (eg national parks, historic buildings and sites)
and those collections maintained by archives, libraries, museums and galleries,
the public uses of which are essentially scholarly and educational...'
(The Friends of South Australia's Archives, submission 10 p98)
Some other constraints on access -
3.11 Implicit in most submissions (mostly implicit in their silence)
is that the two constraints discussed above are intrinsic - part of the
landscape. No-one suggested that private heritage owners should be forced
to open their doors to visitors; no-one suggested that we need affirmative
action by way of public subsidy for poor people to visit national parks.
[8] Some other ways in which access is limited,
or reasons for limiting access, which are matters of debate or
are regarded as problems requiring action, are now mentioned briefly.
Handicaps of people with disabilities
3.12 The problems of access to the arts for people with disabilities
are dealt with in a 1995 report to the Australia Council. Barriers may
be practical (such as buildings inaccessible to wheelchairs) and attitudinal
(such as negative attitudes among providers). Presumably similar problems
apply to access to heritage more generally. The Committee makes only a
few comments here:
1. The problems of people with disabilities point up vividly the
contrast between rights in principle and opportunities in practice. `...people
with disabilities expect - and are entitled to have - opportunities to
experience attending concerts and plays, visiting museums, playing musical
instruments, performing in plays, hearing or reading poetry, and all the
other activities that constitute the arts... At the same time, it has
to be recognised that there are ways in which art experiences will be
different for people with disabilities.'
2. Affirmative action may require compromise with the conflicting
interests of others. Examples would be wheelchair access where it requires
unsympathetic alteration to a historic building; or vehicular access to
parts of national parks that arouse the objections of conservation groups
concerned with values of remoteness and pristineness.
3. People with disabilities are generally among the poorer people
in the community, and so are likely to be disproportionately affected
by user charges. [9]
Isolation of country people
3.13 In relation to access to museums and galleries, the disadvantage
of country people is another commonplace.
`That there might be physical barriers impeding equality of access has
long been recognised, and especially in Australia where museums and galleries
can claim a long and innovative history of outreach programs designed
to combat `the tyranny of distance'. [10]
3.14 Several submissions mentioned the outreach programs of the major
institutions. [11] However, few submissions
talked about the role of regional or local museums, or commented on their
contribution to our cultural life - a contribution which may be different
in kind from that of the major capital city institutions, as well as being
physically more widespread. [12]
3.15 A particular issue for country people is whether outreach services
such as touring exhibitions should be regarded as `core services' for
the sake of equity, or as extras that should be charged for. The Queensland
Museum, for example, provides free entry at its Brisbane site but charges
at its regional branches, and acknowledges that this is a cause of complaint.
[13] The issue also arises in relation to electronic
access to museum and library information, which may be particularly important
to country people. This raises question like, should access by Internet
be free to country people to the same extent that the libraries and museums
are to city-dwellers in person? [14] If so,
should access by Internet be free to all? If so, who should pay
the considerable setup costs of digitising collections? Should institutions
seek a return on the vastly increased world-wide use of their intellectual
property that computerisation will make possible?
Senator Tierney: `Huge numbers of people cannot [visit a city
art gallery in person], and access via the Internet, I would have thought,
spreads access considerably. It does lead me to this question on your
plans in terms of digitisation of collections and access to the Internet
for the future: obviously, people who live in central Ohio might want
to view your collection in South Australia, and they will obviously have
difficulty physically, but they will not have difficulty via the Internet
soon, if it is set up properly.'
Mr O'Loughlin: `That is right. There is a very significant issue
here as to whether the taxpayers of South Australia should be paying to
make it possible for people from Ohio to access the entire collection
of the Art Gallery of South Australia.'
Senator Tierney: `I would hope though that people in Queensland
would be able to access your collection; it is just an incidental bonus
if people from overseas can.' [15]
Socio-economic status and cultural expectations
3.16 There is `a commanding body of literature' confirming that museum
and gallery visitors are disproportionately from the educated classes,
those who have the skills and knowledge (`cultural capital') to feel comfortable
in the place and enjoy what it offers; and people with less education,
on average, visit less (the tendency is more marked in the case of art
galleries than history museums). [16] This
is generally regretted, and a staple activity of museums and galleries
is `access and equity' programs aiming to attract a wider range of visitors.
3.17 The important problem of cultural barriers to visitation is constantly
discussed in museum circles, and the Committee will not try to contribute
here. It seems certain that cultural barriers are rather more important
than financial barriers. [17] When discussing
price as a disincentive we must always keep this in mind: to forget it
may create expectations that government subsidy alone can democratise
the arts - expectations that are bound to be disappointed. On the other
hand, this does not prove that financial barriers are negligible. For
our present inquiry the question is: to what extent do user charges compound
the problem? This is considered from paragraph 6.22.
Restricting access for the sake of conservation; `access by proxy'
3.18 Several submissions mentioned that it may be necessary to restrict
access to places or things which are fragile or which are being damaged
by overuse. In the case of national parks some made the point as part
of an argument that user pays can be used to ration access where fragile
areas are being `loved to death'. [18] The
Committee opposes the use of user charges as a way of rationing access.
Where is it necessary to ration access because of environmental impacts,
this can be done by other means such as permits, and this is done in some
Australian national parks. See paragraph 7.107.
3.19 A related concept put forward in relation to museums and archives
is `access by proxy'. The idea is that it is reasonable to restrict access
to a rare or fragile collection to scholars, since they will write books
that bring the information to a wider public. Development of computer
databases of collections takes the concept further, bringing `access by
proxy' to a wider public of those (such as country people) who may be
unable to visit a museum in person. Problems, which museums professionals
are even now grappling with, are similar to those mentioned in paragraph
3.13 in relation to access for country people: who pays for the digitisation;
who should be charged for information; how can they be charged; what should
be placed in the public domain? Concerns about `authenticity' also arise
for those who feel that a computerised photograph does not give the same
quality of experience as access to the real thing. This must be balanced
against the view that computerised access is better than none at all.
[19]
3.20 The possible conflict between conservation and public access in
particular cases, although both are fundamental goals, is a commonplace
in heritage management. The same issues arise as in the case of balancing
conservation and development; different interest groups have different
views, and striking the right balance is essentially a political matter.
In national parks particularly the debate is complicated because the same
activities can often be described as `improving access' or `overdeveloping
the park' depending on one's point of view. Disputes between walkers and
drivers over roadbuilding and four wheel driving in national parks is
a classic of this type of debate.
Conflict between different types of access
3.21 In disputes between walkers and drivers in national parks walkers
typically refer to `overdeveloping the park' (implicitly referring to
fundamental environmental conservation goals); but even if environmental
impacts are not at issue debate persists because walkers attach more value
to the `unspoilt' character of a natural area, and roads and vehicles
destroy the sense of remoteness which they seek. The issue then is not
so much conflict between access and conservation as conflict between different
types of access - different recreational uses (objections to joyflights
over remote areas for disturbing the peace are a clearer example [20]).
3.22 In the Committee's view, when four wheel drive clubs complain about
national parks being `locked up' (that is, barred to vehicles)
and bushwalking clubs reply that the parks are still open to all (providing
you walk), both are being disingenuous. The drivers gloss over the fact
that their access does affect other people's enjoyment; the walkers gloss
over the fact that `open' (providing you walk) in practice means not open
to many people. [21] It would be better to
admit frankly that we are talking about two forms of recreational use
both of which are acceptable in their place, but which cause friction
when they jostle each other, and to manage the parks to allow separate
space for each (assuming of course that environmental impacts can be managed
acceptably) [22]. Moving away from the rhetorical
extremes will encourage a more constructive focus on the real problem,
which is about finding an acceptable balance between them.
3.23 The problem of conflict between different types of access has an
analogy in the case of museums and galleries, in the debate over what
public they should be appealing to. It seems to be generally agreed that
they should be trying to widen their appeal to the sort of people who
are not museum-goers by inclination; but it is not so clear is what the
right course is if this is done at the expense of their traditional constituency.
This problem is usually expressed as debate over how much museums and
galleries should try to be popular and entertaining, or how much they
should stick to their traditional `public improvement' (education and
cultural enrichment) charters, even if this means remaining a minority
attraction; or whether is it possible to achieve both.
3.24 On this the Committee suggests the same answer as for national parks:
in a diverse public realm there should be room for all approaches and
something for everyone - perhaps sometimes under the same roof, sometimes
under different roofs. [23] It is important
to break from mindless traditionalism; it is also important to avoid that
great destroyer of diversity, the tyranny of the latest fashion. The fact
that one institution goes down a certain path (even if successfully) does
not necessarily mean that all others should follow.
Special issues for indigenous people and indigenous heritage
3.25 There are several special issues to do with access to heritage for
indigenous people:
3.26 1. Several submissions mentioned the need for limits on access
to indigenous cultural materials in museums, such as sacred objects, in
accordance with indigenous people's custom. Conversely, there is a need
for sensitivity to indigenous people's desire for access to cultural materials
which perhaps would not normally be on view. Even where museums are now
more sensitive than before to sensitivities about sacred objects, the
question of returning objects to their traditional owners is a continuing
concern:
`It is a problem because people cannot easily get to the capital cities...
The Central Land Council holds that access in that guise [in a capital
city museum] is culturally meaningless... They cannot really employ the
objects as they are meant to be used... Max [Stuart, Deputy Chair, Central
Land Council] has spoken about these objects as needing to come home.
Their home is their part of the country. At present, thousands of them
are removed from the country. Basically we hold that access is meaningless
without repatriation of the objects.' (Dr L Sackett, Central Land Council,
evidence 3 July 1997 p196)
3.27 The Committee endorses these concerns.
3.28 2. A particular concern in submissions was that user charges
in national parks should not limit indigenous people's access to sites
significant to them (particularly since indigenous people tend to have
less money). The issue often arises because the special features of an
area which make it attractive for inclusion in a national park are often
those which have particular cultural significance for indigenous people.
[24] It is a particular concern because indigenous
people tend to be poor in money; but it is a matter not only of affordability
but also of symbolism:
`The natural environment is part and parcel of the traditional culture
and beliefs of indigenous peoples... When you start talking about the
introduction of access charging that, of course, represents something
equivalent to the notion of charging entry fees to churches. It has an
abhorrence for indigenous people.' (W Eldridge, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Commission, evidence 6 August 1997 p227-8)
3.29 Submissions also described difficulties which indigenous people
sometimes face in having access to lands of cultural significance to them
which are in private ownership.
3.30 The Committee shares these concerns and endorses the principle of
free access by indigenous people to national park lands significant to
them. The problem of access for cultural purposes to land in private ownership
goes beyond the scope of this inquiry.
3.31 3. Indigenous control of national park land is a contentious
issue. The Committee visited the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and was
told about the joint management of the park by the owners, the local Anangu
people, and the Biodiversity Group of Environment Australia (the Commonwealth's
national park management authority). The results seem very positive both
for the operation of the park as a culturally appropriate tourist attraction
and for the aspirations of the Anangu people (though there is some continuing
tension over the terms of the revenue-sharing agreement which divides
user charges income between the Commonwealth and the Anangu people). Other
examples in the Northern Territory where land is owned by indigenous people
and leased back for national park purposes are Kakadu and Nitmiluk. The
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission would like to see such
arrangements become the norm rather than the exception. [25]
3.32 On the other hand, some conservation groups are wary of giving control
of national park land to indigenous communities, claiming that the land
should be retained in public ownership for conservation purposes, and
that indigenous owners are likely to have different attitudes to the land
and different ideas about how to exploit it that may not be appropriate
in nature conservation terms. [26] Again, this
raises issues beyond the scope of this inquiry.
3.33 The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal
Land Fund has recently inquired into both the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Government's
proposed replacement for it, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Heritage Protection Bill 1998. In light of these other actions this
Committee will not comment further here. [27]
Comment: rights in principle versus opportunities in practice
3.34 The Committee strongly agrees with the submissions that access to
heritage - cultural identity and cultural enrichment, the opportunity
to have wonder of nature - should be considered a right of all Australians.
We discuss the constraints above not to weaken the statement of principle,
but simply to point out that statements of principle must be qualified
in practice. A poor person has the right to see Uluru just as a deaf person
has the right to hear Beethoven; but in practice the right has little
utility. If we speak of `rights' in principle without acknowledging the
limitations of people's resources and opportunities in practice, we risk
overlooking the handicaps of disadvantaged people and the question of
which rights really need affirmative action in order to be exercised,
and which people can benefit from it.
3.35 The right of access to heritage does not mean that all people can
or should have access all the time. In practice most people most of the
time will not have access to other people's private property. In practice
poorer people, most of the time, will not have access to as much as better
off people. In practice the frail or unfit can enjoy national parks only
where they have access by car. In practice people can enjoy museums only
if, through education and upbringing, they have acquired the necessary
`cultural capital'. The limits must be acknowledged realistically, and
the goal of public policy should be adequate and appropriate access
for all. This may mean a suite of different policies for different places
to provide a range of opportunities.
Footnotes
[1] The 283 museums and galleries in Australia
which have paid staff (in 1995) may be compared with over 1,500 which
do not. Museums Australia Inc, Museums 1995: art museums, museums and
public galleries in Australia, 1996; Cultural Ministers Council Statistical
Working Group, Museums, Art Museums and Commerial Galleries in Australia
1993, 1993, p v
[2] `Heritage parks' and house museums such
as National Trust properties usually charge for entry. The Committee has
no information on the entry fee profile of local museums and galleries.
[3] We omit a possible discussion of the exact
meaning of `public' and `private'. A membership-based non-profit community
organisation is obviously not as private as a private business. In the
present context the most relevant distinction is probably between `the
government/council', to which we pay compulsory taxes and rates,
and everything else.
[4] Private provision tends to exclude
the poor, but does not necessarily exclude the poor: the details depend
on the structure of the market concerned.
[5] Treasury, submission 20 p175
[6] The question requires information on visitation
and elasticity of demand broken down by socio-economic groupings. An observed
correlation between an entry fee (imposed or increased) and reduced visitation,
without the socio-economic breakdown, says nothing about equity for the
poor, since poorer people might be completely absent all along.
[7] The idea is not totally far-fetched, considering
the tradition of national fitness camps and seaside homes for country
children.
[8] It is sometimes suggested, rarely put into
practice, that government heritage conservation grants should depend on
the owner agreeing to open the house to the public from time to time.
[9] Walsh D & London J, Arts and Disability:
a research report prepared for the Australia Council, Australia Council
1995, p12,22
[10] Bennett T, The Reluctant Museum Visitor:
a study of non-goers to history museums and art galleries, Australia
Council 1994, p5
[11] For example, Queensland Museum, submission
31 p248
[12] Regular surveys of museums by Museums
Australia Inc. (previously by the Australia Council) consider only museums
which have paid staff, of which there were 283 in 1995. Museums Australia
Inc, Museums 1995: art museums, museums and public galleries in Australia,
1996; Australia Council, Arts Research Papers 3,6,7,9,12,14. There
appears to be little overview information comparable to this on museums
which do not have paid staff. These - over 1,500 in 1993 - are listed
in Cultural Ministers Council Statistical Working Group, Museums, Art
Museums and Commerial Galleries in Australia 1993, 1993.
[13] Queensland Museum, submission 31 p249
[14] National Film and Sound Archive, submission
40 p341
[15] T O'Loughlin (Arts South Australia), evidence
2 July 1997 p157. See also, for example, Dr D Robinson (Queensland Museum),
evidence 21 May 1997 p111
[16] Bennett T, `The Museum and the Citizen',
in Bennett T, Trotter R & McAlear D, Museums & Citizenship:
A Resource Book, Memoirs of the Queensland Museum vol. 39 part 1,
1996, p9. Bennett T, The Reluctant Museum Visitor: a study of non-goers
to history museums and art galleries, Australia Council 1994, p12
[17] Prof. T Bennett, evidence 21 May 1997
p75
[18] For example, Treasury, submission 20 p173;
M Donovan, evidence 16 September 1997 p497
[19] Australia ICOMOS, submission 48 p427;
T O'Loughlin, evidence 2 July 1997 p 156
[20] For example, The Colong Foundation for
Wilderness, submission 7 p69; Park Watch [journal of Victorian
National Parks Association], June 1997 p11
[21] In one survey of visitors to the Wet Tropics
World Heritage Area, 81 per cent of respondents reported `walking' as
part of their day's activities, but only 19 per cent reported walking
for more than one hour. Driml S M, Sustainable Tourism in Protected
Areas?: an ecological economics case study of the Wet Tropics World Heritage
Area, PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra 1996, p185
[22] Managing the environmental impacts of
access is naturally more often a problem with roads and vehicles, but
is also sometimes a problem with foot traffic in crowded fragile areas,
so there is no difference in principle.
[23] In effect this is the comparison between
the older natural history museums and the newer `science centres', which
are perceived as more of a `fun' experience and can attract a wide public
even with fees. Australian Museum, submission 30 p240. P Filmer-Sankey,
submission 56 p586
[24] Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander
Commission, submission 52 p459
[25] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission, submission 52 p459
[26] The Colong Foundation for Wilderness,
submission 7 p66,68; Peak Environmental Enterprises and Conservation Centre
of Australia, submission 15 p137. M Horstman (Australian Conservation
Foundation) comments generally: evidence 15 September 1997 p466.
[27] Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native
Title and the Aboriginal Land Fund, The Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, 11th report April 1998; The
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998,
12th report May 1998. The bill, with amendments proposed by the government,
was passed by the House of Representatives on 4 June 1998: Votes and Proceedings
of the House of Representatives, 4 June 1998 p3099
Top
|