C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 19 others, with independent boards, staffing structures and policies. Some receive direct state government funding for operating expenses, while others rely entirely on membership fees, business operations and fund raising to cover costs. The Australian Council of National Trusts (ACNT) was founded in 1965 as a coordinating body. This role has developed over the past 40 years to one of primarily liaising with the Commonwealth Government and other national bodies on Australian-wide heritage issues, such as wind farms and the recently enacted federal heritage legislation. The relationship that both the ACNT and the state and territory trusts have had with each other has changed over time, reflecting the different local issues at various times and the relationships between executive officers, staff, boards and members. ‘National’ in name only, the National Trusts of Australia are now embracing the need for increasing cooperation to ensure their financial future, and the ability to access federal government grants and other funding. The structure of the trusts is not well understood by their memberships, let alone the Australian public at large. The fact that the actions of any one of the Australian trusts affects all the others, through public and stakeholder perception of stances on advocacy and media statements, is only now being fully recognised. This is leading to increased inter-trust cooperation in areas such as policies, publications and membership services, as the wastefulness of maintaining duplicated and costly membership systems, for example, is recognised.The integration of resources also facilitates the sharing of ideas and ensures that the trusts’ broader values remain united. The existence of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 was a small luxury the English National Trust had at its establishment that was not mirrored in Australia. The National Trust in Australia had the unenviable role of national amenity society and often solitary campaigner for the protection of historic places in the complete absence of any heritage legislation. Perhaps the greatest legacy of the National Trust movement in Australia has been successful lobbying for the creation of the state and federal heritage legislation fromVictoria’s Historic Buildings Act 1974 to the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act3 enacted this year. Even with the advent of statutory heritage protection at state level and local authority heritage planning controls, the trusts’ role in heritage advocacy continues, as does their property management function. This is especially important in the absence throughout much of Australia of specific government agencies to manage heritage properties. It was the lack of any statutory lists that led to the Australian National Trusts recognising the heritage value of places through a formal classification process administered by their various voluntary expert committees. Like Sir Nikolaus Pevsner’s Buildings of England series, the trusts’ registers formed the basis of many of the federal, state and local government lists. The Register of Classified places is one of the trusts’ most potent advocacy tools, which the trusts occasionally used to their advantage by deliberately blurring the non-statutory status of the designation that put no obligation on property owners. While some trusts continue to classify places (the New South Wales and Victorian Trusts have classified or hold files on some 12,000 places each, which they are continually adding to) others have ceased to designate new heritage places. Over time the National Trusts’ interests and areas of advocacy have broadened to include a wide range of built and natural heritage issues. This reflects a shift within society and a broader understanding of our wider cultural heritage. The South Australian Trust focuses more heavily on landscape and rural community issues, whereas the Western Australian Trust actively campaigns on many ecological matters. Some of the trusts have all but ignored the cultural heritage value of aboriginal and post-contact archaeology, choosing to concentrate on post-contact heritage places. While there are many differences in the way the trusts in Australia choose to operate, manage and advocate the conservation of heritage, they share a commonality of purpose and have adopted the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter). The trust in Australia has also been instrumental in developing and promoting the use of The exterior of Como
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=