Access to Heritage
Table of Contents

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