 I'm William, a student at ANU, and today I'm talking with Heritage Architect and National Trust Council member, Mr Eric Martin, and head of the new ANU Centre for Heritage and Museum Studies within the School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Professor Laura Jane Smith. It's nice to be speaking to you today, Eric and Laura Jane. Good morning. Yes, good morning. Thank you. There have been a number of conferences with the future of heritage as the theme lately. This seems to be prompted both by uncertainty about the future and the creation of a national heritage strategy. Do you think Australia needs a national heritage strategy? Absolutely. It's very important to have a strategy that can be used as a basis for debate and discussion. However, I think the current strategy is very much stuck within the authorised heritage discourse. It is incorporating a sense of heritage that is very traditional, very much based within the framework of great men doing great white deeds. I think the strategy really needs to rethink its definition of heritage to be a lot more inclusive of multicultural Australia, to present a sense of heritage that speaks to indigenous Australia, that incorporates the diversity of historical and contemporary experiences in this country. And setting up a strategy that incorporates a traditionalist sort of view of heritage won't do that. I actually think that the national strategy is really fundamental, but I also think it needs to go another step further in respect to actually the states and territories needs to then develop their own heritage strategy and really it needs to come down to the local government level for a heritage strategy as well because the bulk of our heritage is at the local level and we actually need to engage with the communities to actually form a critical mass in respect to this whole heritage strategy development. So it needs to fit within the legislative framework, it needs to fit within the structure that exists at the moment and I think it's fundamentally important. I would agree, I mean I think there is an assumption within the traditional understandings of heritage that heritage is national and that's where it should be, but heritage is very much something that is engaged with at a local level and it's just as important, local heritage is just as important as national heritage in forming people's sense of place and sense of belonging. So yes, I'd agree. Yeah, absolutely. And so as a new national heritage strategy what can we learn from past efforts in this field? Well actually I think it needs to, the heritage strategy probably has several focuses at the moment, one is the community engagement, one is innovation and one is actually just setting an agenda at the federal level. We I think it needs to, well you may accept that as a framework, I think you really need to delve into a lot more detail and one of the things that came out very strongly was to actually get the, accept the current financial restrictions, it's very difficult to change that, but work within it and work, get the strength within the community and get the community directly involved and then build the strength from that point of view and I think that's one of the things that came out very strongly was the community involvement and engagement is really fundamental important. Yeah, I mean absolutely, but that has to be resourced as well, it's, you run the risk also of letting it go to the community, devolving it down to the community, but without those, the resources to allow the community to be engaged, to make the decisions that it needs to make, to develop its own sense of heritage, nothing will happen, the authorised understandings of heritage will remain. So I think it's very important that yes communities are engaged, but they are engaged in a way that allows them to actually do something. Okay, very interesting. So it seems like really devolving is really a core, one of the core features of this, or taking it down to the people who are making the decisions on the local level or community engagement, that kind of thing. But beyond that as well, what specifically would you see should be the features of such a strategy and how important is the manner and the timing of its implementation and the way that it's done? Timing is really important. It's interesting that we need to reflect on where we are with heritage and whether it's the whole issue of intangible heritage and other aspects of it need to be strengthened and better understood and was even raised the issue about whether the borough charter is the right way and whether heritage has been, its current situation is a situation of its own current, a previous success. And what we need to do is to really focus on how we can actually build on what structure exists and strengthen it and strengthen it with whatever level of commitment, whether it be a bureaucratic commitment with the state and territory levels or whether it's community or the NGOs do have a fundamental role to play in all this as well. And somehow we've got to build a strength from those groups. And then if you like, get an acceptance at a ministry of level that heritage is important at the grassroots level and that will give strength, a new strength, I think. It's important for the strategy to be inclusive, but to be inclusive in a way that engages debate at grassroots levels with traditional national understandings of heritage. I mean, to ask that communities be included into the national program, I think misunderstands the nature of heritage and the importance of heritage, there has to be a redefinition of how we're defining heritage, one that is driven by debates, social and public debates about what heritage means, what history means in Australia, what the legacies of that history and heritage have been, to rethink what we mean by heritage and what it means for people at different levels, at the national level, community level and individual level and so on, familial level and so on. To add to that is really to really articulate the value of heritage and the value of heritage should be seen in as broad as possible ways, whether it be an energy related issue, whether it's a tourist related issue and I think there is actually not a full appreciation of the real value of heritage and the contribution that heritage makes to our society as a whole. It is a positive contributor to that whole process and I don't think that's been emphasised enough, particularly in the tourist side of things and also particularly in the, that really is the energy and the values there and need to be appreciated and understood and that'll come through at a strategic level of articulation and definition. Very interesting. So really placing more emphasis and value on the value of the heritage but also as you suggested, Professor Laura Jane, that it's important that we reformulate the way that we see heritage. So one of your particular interests is the way that the story contextualises heritage and that heritage isn't just physical objects but that it has to sit in its historical place and it has the stories and the stories are intangible but they are a core part of the heritage. So would that be one of the core features? Oh, absolutely. I think that we need to understand that heritage is a process. It's a cultural performance. It's not just the things that we value. It's how people use those things that is actually important. Heritage is a popular cultural process in which the past is made present and the past is used to help us navigate the issues that we face in the present. They help us to explore those values that we want to take forward, those values that we want to forget or relegate to the past. It helps us to explore the historical narratives and cultural narratives that we want to utilise in the present and to use for planning for the future. So it's not just about preserving historic buildings or pretty landscapes or whatever it may be. It's a process in which people, governments, communities, individuals are constantly remaking or re-remembering the past or utilising the past to help them make sense and navigate the present and to make plans for the future. So I think it's very important to rethink how we engage with heritage because if we allow that that is a process, then it requires us to engage far more fundamentally than we have in the past with communities and other individuals who have a stake in how the past is understood and how it's used in the present. Very interesting. Do you think we'll move on then to, maybe I'll put the next question that, so speaking of the present and the future, but how do you think heritage in particular can help us deal with the uncertainty of the future and what should we be taking forward in particular? What should we have our eye on for that? Well again, it's about, there is a sense in which we want within the authorised discourse there's a sense or in traditional policy there's a sense in which we are saving the past for the future but really we're utilising the past to help us, as I said before, navigate the issues and needs of the present. I think the things that we need to be concentrating on are those things that allow us to debate what the past means for the present. Not just the good and the great but the dissonant and the contested as well. I think they're very, very important in terms of helping us understand what are the legacies that we've taken from the past. In terms of discrimination, prejudices and so on as well as those cultural values that are more positive. So I think it is those aspects that we need to be concentrating on, the dissonant, the debates. One of the keywords that came out was respect and respect is really important to actually appreciate whatever the culture, whether the Indigenous or other communities or multicultural communities is. It's respecting their appreciation of their culture and how that might translate into whatever heritage aspect, whether it be paintings or whether it be other stories or structures. It's a matter of having a respect and understanding of that and then building upon that and then articulating what is the core components of those communities and then reinforcing those as part of the heritage story. I think that really is important. Yeah, very interesting. To me it really appears that we do need more nuance between pulling a respect in to have a more pluralistic view of it as well and equally weight the different parts of it, so the dissonance in historical narratives and discourses is really important, which is often missed. The balance probably hasn't been there in the past and I think that somewhere where heritage practitioners can pick up and learn from is to get the balance between the tangible, the intangible and the respect to make it work. Yeah, a balance between those things that are positive and those things that are dissonant. I think respect is a very important word, as is acknowledging what's happened in the past and using that acknowledgement in positive, respectful ways to engage with contemporary issues. Excellent. Well, it's a fascinating talk this really. We could go on for quite a while with it, I think, but it seems like we're moving. We have the opportunity to move in different interesting directions and I have to say that as a young person, I hope that we'll be able to use Australia's heritage experience to move into a new heyday for heritage and with these kind of ideas, I'm sure that we will. I'm sure we will. Thank you very much, Eric and Laura Jane. Very much enjoyed talking. A pleasure. Yep, thank you, thanks very much.