At a time when some NSW hospitals can’t afford to buy bandages for their patients and the public transport system is struggling to stay afloat there are some areas of the bureaucracy where money is no object.
Nathan Rees, premier of NSW, has been working hard to find the money to bail out the underfunded state hospitals and transport system. As hollow logs containing large caches of money appear to be in short supply the Premier and his team have resorted to wholesale sackings of nursing and other hospital staff.
But there is a field where sacred cows peacefully graze, safe from any Governmental fuss about money, and it is located right there at No. 10 Macquarie Street — the palatial headquarters of the Historic Houses Trust.
The Trust has a large portfolio of house museums which for some years now have been struggling to attract visitors. These are, in the main, not the humble cottages of workers but elegant mansions which by any reckoning are the cream of the crop. At a conservative estimate, the Trust’s collection of museums would be worth at least $250m One of them alone, Rouse Hill House, is worth perhaps $35m.
The total value of Trust properties is recorded in its 2007 annual report as $201m with an additional $32.5m in objects in their collections. No information is provided in the report to indicate the basis of such valuations. Toss in the Trust’s $25m annual budget and it’s clear there are significant savings to be made by a Government that is serious about cutting unnecessary expenditure.
Some of the failed museum houses stand on rolling acres of parkland or in highly-prized and incredibly expensive harbourside locations. They are furnished with the appropriate antiques, floorcoverings and fabrics and lavishly curtained in the manner of their time. Much expensive research and skill has gone into their conservation. A great deal more expense goes into their continual upkeep, security and staffing.
Some of them, such as Vaucluse House which has extensive parklands, provide a setting for successful musical and other events. The Trust mounts a variety of events, including Sydney Open, which boost the bums on seats statistic but camouflages the failure of a significant number of its house museums.
The citizens of NSW are cordially invited to visit the museums but the trouble is that they no longer want to. The house museum is dead.
At Rouse Hill House, for example, visitor numbers are down to around 50 people per week. The house stands on 13 hectares of land in the Rouse Hill Growth Centre – land that is probably worth around $30m.
When the Historic Houses Trust was founded in 1980 it was intended as a repository for important houses which, for one reason or another, had come into Government ownership. Over the years, as funds were made available, the Trust added to its portfolio until today it has a collection of outstanding buildings.
Some of them are performing well, notably the Museum of Sydney and Hyde Park Barracks, but many of the others have been in the doldrums for years. These include Vaucluse House, Elizabeth Bay House, Government House, Rouse Hill House and Rose Seidler House, as well as Meroogal at Nowra. It was once fashionable to visit them but that trend is so over. The Now Generation simply doesn’t want to go there.
As a result, the Trust’s house museums have been virtually mothballed with opening hours restricted to a couple of days per week. But they’re still sitting there, eating up public money in large lumps. A Government serious about cutting back on expenditure could easily decide to let the failed museums out on long leases or sell them with protective caveats on their titles.
Peter Watts, the recently retired foundation Director of the Trust, has said that the house museum wheel will turn again. But this revolution might be a long time coming. Fashion cycles usually take many years. How long the Trust is prepared to wait for the second coming of the house museum is uncertain. Fifty years? A century?
The taxpayers of NSW are entitled to ask whether they are getting value for the money they spend on the Historic Houses Trust’s collection of period museums. With a staff of a couple of hundred people and an annual budget of more than $25m, the Historic Houses Trust in its present form may be one luxury that the hard-pressed taxpayers of NSW can do without.
Two questions spring to mind on the matter of the Trust’s dud museums: why didn’t the Trust “fess up” to the problem? And why didn’t its political masters dig through the bureaucratic fluff to discover the reality behind the spin?
Call me stupid but $25M sounds pretty cheap for all that heritage. You can walk down any busy street in Sydney and see a few $million in cars parked, and what a waste of money that is. The grounds are not just useless garden. They provide open space which helps preserve some sanity in a metropolis.
The problem you are describing seems to be public engagement with the assets. One school group would double or treble the weekly numbers. It’s not rocket science. So the problem may well be the human resouces in the HHT rather than the assets.
Indeed it may be that it’s just another sheltered workshop for Party mates, marking time, not committed to their vocation, if it’s the same as every other area of the public sector in the NSW: Based on networks and power grip over merit. shunning competitive open job selection or fearless transparency, equal opportunity as lipservice.
The cycle turning might just refer to the next election.
In my view, the Historic Houses Trust is arguably the most dynamic of Australian heritage agencies and is successfully engaging with new audiences in innovative ways. A glance at their latest calendar proves the point, with high tea and dinner at Vaucluse House, carols at Elizabeth Bay House, and children’s programs at Rouse Hill House.
Furthermore, observing the audience at the recent Garden Music concert at Government House, the ‘Now Generation’ indeed engaged with the house, with performances and soundscapes inside interpreting the place in an exciting way. As a member of said ‘Now Generation’, my personal experience is that many of my peers are time and again drawn to events such as the 50s Fair at Rose Seidler House (which draws larger audiences each year), Garden Music, the Becks Festival Bar at Hyde Park Barracks and festivals held at The Rocks. I would be interested to know on what evidence you base your assumption that young people do not engage with these properties.
The trust continues to be at the forefront of collections management and curation in this country, and deserves to be supported. Take the Houses away from the Trust and Sydney, and Australia, would suffer a great loss.
Ian Evans obviously has a major gripe with the Historic Houses Trust but camouflages it by his concern for the State Government’s budgetary position. Evans tried the same tack in the SMH about a month ago. He roundly criticises the Trust but, as a former Trustee, fails to come up with ideas to improve patronage, apart from selling them or granting long leases – a wonderfully visionary way of preserving our history. School groups regularly visit some of the houses, particularly Vaucluse House, to get an excellent first hand experience of the lives of our pioneers. Our history demands to be preserved and if there is a cost associated with that, it is a worthwhile cost to bear.
Bearing in mind Ian’s comment that “it always helps to know where people are coming from”, I also work in heritage. That said, I hope I still have the right to reply to Ian’s diatribe against the HHT and the National Trust.
(And while we’re on the topic, I find it no small irony to note Ian’s own self-descriptor as a “heritage conservationist”. Surely constructive criticism of the state’s two largest non-statutory heritage bodies is more helpful than an ill-advised article promoting the sale and development of some of the State’s best heritage sites?).
Ian’s article is so full of invective and superficial reasoning that it is hard to know where to begin in response. Above all, however, I would emphasise the difficulty in measuring ‘value’ in the conservation of heritage items. It is simply specious, simplistic and damaging to reduce the landmarks of cultural development to mere dollar values; and it is precisely the prevalence of this attitude in the shaping of state policy that has led to the loss of countless sites, aspects and features of our built environment. Don’t mistake me – development must occur and it is one of the primary drivers of a healthy economy. But the economy – and economics – is far from the only perspective by which to see, and measure, the value of things. Intelligent debate on this matter is vital – not reductivist quoting of entry figures as justification for the sale of properties conserved over decades. If anything, this value is reflected in their dollar value, not contradicted by it.
These sites are integral to a healthy environment, and also to future economic growth – judicious conservation is the keystone to successful development. Here in Australia, our failing is that we don’t give our heritage much time to grow old. Go to the UK, Mr Evans, and see what strengths and gifts a healthy National Trust can give to its nation – not a trust that is emasculated before its time. Shame on you.
Mr Evans,
Many thanks for pointing out that I neglected to state my connection with Godden Mackay Logan. I should also point out that I am currently on extended leave from the organisation and working for the Dictionary of Sydney, an independent body. I am also a representative of Interpretation Australia and an active member of the History Council of NSW. More importantly however, I am a long-time patron of the HHT’s properties and events. I would consider it incorrect to claim that my personal comments may be connected with commercial considerations.