AARG Public Submission to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee – Parliament of Victoria

- Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism in Victoria

The following public submission and response to the Committee's formal Inquiry Terms of Reference is submitted by the Australian Aircraft Restoration Group, owners and operators of the Australian National Aviation Museum at Moorabbin Airport, - Australia’s oldest and largest volunteer run aviation heritage collection. The responses are therefore focused on the issue of Aviation Heritage (both moveable cultural heritage and collections, but also heritage places and built heritage), and therefore responding to the “Heritage Tourism” elements of the Scope.

(1) – Examining the current scope of EcoTourism and Heritage Tourism in Victoria.

The first step in examining the current scope of Heritage Tourism in Victoria, is to determine what is meant by the term “Heritage Tourism” or more simply “Heritage”. To some, Heritage means History, of place, built heritage, or cultural heritage, however others extend it to cover “Natural” Heritage, ie the Natural Environment, which under this inquiry would seem to cross over into the realm of EcoTourism. The term “Cultural” heritage broadens the definition to embrace indigenous Heritage, but under “Multi-culturalism”, the culture of immigrant Australians can also enter the debate, as can the artworks, and sporting achievements of those and all Australians. This leads to the ongoing friction and competition for scarce funding that exists between “Arts” activities and “Heritage” activities, and in particular the status and funding of Arts Galleries from within Museum grant programs. It is therefore important for the Inquiry to seek and establish clear definitions of what is meant by Heritage Tourism. And what therefore is in the current scope, and what could be achieved under an expanded scope. The “Heritage” page of the Federal Department of Environment states: Heritage is all the things that make up Australia's identity - our spirit and ingenuity, our historic

buildings, and our unique, living landscapes. Our heritage is a legacy from our past, a living, integral

part of life today, and the stories and places we pass on to future generations. http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/heritage Clearly the Natural Heritage / environment is considered part of our heritage by the Federal Government, but built heritage, stories and places come through strongly in the theme. The Victorian Heritage Register, administered by the Heritage Council of Victoria, specifically limits itself to: What can be included on the Victorian Heritage Register Buildings and places Objects Gardens and trees Cemeteries Precincts Archaeological places and relics Shipwrecks, relics and protected zones

As an independent statutory authority, Heritage Council of Victoria is the State's main decision-making

body on cultural (non-Indigenous) heritage issues http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/about/heritage-council-of-victoria Clearly the Natural Heritage / environment, in the forms of places such as Gardens and Trees, is considered part of our heritage by the Victorian State Government, but again buildings and places come through strongly in the theme. From a Community Museum and moveable cultural Heritage Collection experience, and point of view, definitions of “Heritage” should be limited to historical/cultural place, built heritage, collections and museums, inclusive of objects, documentary, photographic/film/image/audio and oral history, with Natural Landscapes being considered “Environment” portfolio issues, and Performing Arts, Visual Arts and Art Galleries all being considered “Art” portfolio issues.. Objects, and collections of objects, (and associated records) are usually strongly associated with particular activities and types of places, and therefore preserve and extend the preservation of our heritage. Collections and Community Museums do not get any significant direct funding support from either the Federal or State Governments, survive as best they can on volunteer labour, but many are holding collections and objects of State and National Significance. There seems to be no process for that to be recognised, and increased funding to be allocated to support those museums with more significant objects and collections. While Community Museums / Heritage Collections continue to suffer a lack of access to formal curatorial expertise, cataloguing, storage and display space, advertising and marketing (ie Tourism) support, but by far the largest issue is access to capital funding for redevelopment or improvements to housing these collections. The reality is, unless a Victorian community collection gains the support of the local Government, or is considered for State support due to either its significance or its regional development values, it will not gain any funding, and unless of national significance, will not gain any serious Federal funding. This of course ignores the issue of pork barrelling/election promises and other situational opportunities that sit outside the norm. A Museum is in itself is clearly a “Heritage Tourism” facility and asset, yet currently in Victoria, the State owned Museums (Melbourne Museum in the Carlton Gardens, Immigration Museum in Flinders Street, and ScienceWorks in Spotswood) are all “Arts” Portfolio responsibilities! While walking tours, and trails can also form a Heritage Tourism strategy, Community, Regional and State Museums are all within the scope of “Heritage Tourism”. For a Community volunteer based Aviation Museum / Collection, life is even more complicated and difficult to navigate. There is a constant leaking of funding, confusion and blurring of the lines between Arts, and Heritage at both State level and to a lesser degree at the Federal level. More recently the combining of those responsibilities at the Federal level into a single Government and Opposition Shadow portfolio from March 2013 until the election offered the opportunity to better define, support and fund these two competing cultural interests of “Heritage” and “Arts”. However since September the incoming Federal Government and the Opposition have again split these portfolios across differing Ministerial responsibilities.

HERITAGE VICTORIA At the Victorian State level, Heritage (in the form of place, built heritage, and heritage objects/collections/moveable cultural heritage) sits under the Planning Minister, and in the control of the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria. http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage That administrative, regulatory, political and funding focus is primarily about town planning, architectural preservation and compatibility, collections and community museums are a small and forgotten element of that activity, and foreign to the Ministerial focus and core business – a distraction. While Heritage Victoria can offer small grants and advice on conservation, preservation, significance assessments etc, there is little or no funding vehicles for any actual preservation or capital works, unless an object can be placed onto the Victorian Heritage Register. However the permits regime, and management processes are all designed around heritage buildings etc http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/grants Heritage Victoria's grants program is currently under review to ensure efficient and effective support for

Victoria's heritage places and objects. Further information about heritage grants available in 2013 will

be available from this page soon.

The Department of Planning and Community Development administers a range of grant programs that

can support heritage places. Projects within metropolitan Melbourne to reuse and revitalise community and local government managed heritage places may be eligible under DPCD's Community Support Fund Community Infrastructure Stream Projects in regional Victoria to reuse and revitalise community and local government managed heritage places may be eligible under DPCD's Putting Locals First Grants Program. The AARG has obtained a Grant from Heritage Victoria to undertake a Significance Assessment of its aircraft and engine collections, that report is currently in draft form and due for completion and delivery to Heritage Victoria by the end of 2013. ARTS VICTORIA Arts Victoria, and the Arts Minister portfolio is largely focused on the performing and visual arts, other than the management of the State owned Museums, and selected others. http://www.arts.vic.gov.au/Home A Museum is in itself is clearly a “Heritage Tourism” facility and asset, yet currently in Victoria, the State owned Museums (Melbourne Museum in the Carlton Gardens, Immigration Museum in Flinders Street, and ScienceWorks in Spotswood) are all “Arts” Portfolio responsibilities! There is funding for “cultural organisations” (but not community museums as “heritage cultural organisations”) http://www.arts.vic.gov.au/Funding_Programs/Organisations_Investment_Program

The Program introduces three new categories, sitting alongside the existing Major Performing Arts Organisations. These categories offer multi-year funding within a tiered and transparent framework that better reflects the range and needs of Victoria’s arts and cultural sector. There are three open and competitive investment streams:

1. Developing Organisations (a) - supports newer organisations that will be generators of new ideas in artform and cultural practice; offer new ways to engage audiences or communities; and/or demonstrate new operating models.

2. Developing Organisations (b) - supports arts and cultural organisations undergoing a major change in direction.

3. Established Organisations - supports arts and cultural organisations with a strong track record in artistic excellence; growing and engaging audiences; and leveraging partnerships and funding.

There are two negotiated investment streams:

1. Lead Organisations - supports nominated organisations which provide infrastructure and services of scale and significance for the Victorian arts sector and broader community.

2. Major Performing Arts Organisations – supports the country’s 28 leading performing arts organisations through an ongoing, negotiated partnership between State and Federal Governments

Community Museums and Collections are largely shunned by Arts Victoria, other than funding provided via Museums Australia (Victoria) for collections training and conservation works, where the funding is competed between Private, Community and Local Government Art Galleries and community historical societies, museums and collections. It is therefore critical for the success of “Heritage Tourism”, that a clear definition of what type of Heritage is to be supported, funded and promoted as tourism destinations and activities. Marvellous Melbourne and colonial Victoria hold unique stories, collections, community museums historic places and built heritage, that are not duplicated in the smaller states of Tasmania and South Australia, the younger States and Territories of ACT, NT or WA, or contained within the larger states of NSW and QLD. From a Tourism point of view, we do not have the gold coast beaches and endless summer weather, or the tropical rain forests or coral reefs, to compete with Queensland, or the majesty of the Sydney Harbour views, the Harbour Bridge or the Opera House as iconic views and “must sees” for international tourists. What we DO have is unique early Australian heritage and stories, that can only really be experienced by visiting and touring Melbourne and Victoria. - Early Settler farm houses, and small towns preserved - Gold Rush places and built heritage at Ballarat, Bendigo and Maldon - Bush Ranger heritage in Kelly Country - Paddle Steamer heritage at Echuca, Swan Hill and Mildura - Trams, tourist railways, railway museums and collections, Puffing Billy, the Williamstown Railway Museum. - Industrial heritage (we have made a steam driven Sewerage Pumping Station into a historical and technology museum at Science Works”) - Automotive collections and history, linked to the Grand Prix Major Event - Military History – Point Cook the heritage site, and the associated RAAF museum - Puckapunyl and the Army Tank Museum - Fort Gellibrand and Fort Queenscliff - Maritime History – Polly Woodside, HMAS Castlemaine, FlagStaff Maritime Museum

The AARG is aware of other submissions focusing on the above themes, but intends to focus its response and proposals around Victoria's Rich Aviation History. - Aviation History - Volunteer museums such as the AARG's collection at Moorabbin, the B-24 Liberator at Werribee, the Australian Gliding Museum at Bacchus Marsh, the TAA Museum at Essendon, the Airways Museum at Essendon, along with the heritage places of Essendon Airport, Laverton, Port Melbourne Factories and Ballarat/Benalla/Mildura/Nhill wartime airfields. Unlike Arts Organisations, and the Performing and Visual Arts venues, only a handful of the activities above get any significant State or Federal funding support, many are struggling volunteer groups operating on the smell of an oily rag, and without any true professional support from Tourism Victoria, and limited support from Arts Victoria and Heritage Victoria. There is great “SCOPE” to take these heritage themes, to invest in their facilities and organisations to lift their preservation and public presentations from third world, to world class – and position Victoria's unique strengths in Heritage Tourism for interstate but also strong international tourism growth, in the Asian Century. The AARG would argue Victoria sits on a wonderful opportunity with its existing Aviation Heritage, its surviving built heritage and existing collections, to invest and develop a world class Aviation Heritage tourist attraction in the form of a National Aviation Museum for Australia, in Victoria. While the State invests Tens of Millions of Dollars every two years to host an International Airshow at Avalon as a Major Event tourism Strategy to bring in 200,000 airshow visitors every two years, to promote our Victorian Aviation Industry, however many of those visitors are in fact simply local Melbournians and Victorian's or interstate visitors, and its a once every two year investment and return, without any lasting legacy infrastructure from each bi-annual investment as the site is built up and dismantled each time. Where as a permanent infrastructure investment in a National Aviation Museum facility, to bring together pre-existing volunteer owned collections, which could likely bring in excess of 250,000 visitors annually to Victoria in the Asian Century from the rising Asian Middle Class and as an experience un-matched in the Asia Pacific, and only really available in Europe or the USA as alternative destinations. It would extend and compliment, rather than compete with the existing major event strategy and investment in the Avalon Airshow. This would not be the sole attraction to entice international visitors to Victoria, but it would be a reason for an additional day and night stop over in Victoria, and a reason to spend more time in Victoria and less in neighbouring states when here. It would attract more than just aviation enthusiasts and airshow visitors. The AARG's own collection recently hosted a high powered visiting Chinese Delegation from the State owned Enterprises Network, this is becoming an annual event with ever more senior delegates coming in successive years. Our smell of an oily Rag museum is one of their key attractions during their 3 week visit to Australia including Queensland and NSW, and other than shopping in Melbourne, the Great Ocean Road and the Penguins at Phillip Island we were the only cultural or heritage tourism attraction they were interested in visiting in Victoria. Tourism Victoria's own Cultural Heritage Strategies recognise the visiting strength of Museums and Historic places, over Performing Arts and Visual Arts, yet the Victorian Government investments are strongest via Arts Victoria into those activities and NOT into the Museum and built heritage sectors.

Heritage Tourism opportunities will not blossom unless they get the same investment and support previously given to Major Events or other Cultural attractions and activities such as “Sport and the Arts”. As we see our manufacturing industries decline and move off-shore into the developing Asian markets, we need to focus on our Services Industries, our international Education and Training Industries, our remaining precision and heavy engineering industries, and of course our Tourism, to drive ongoing employment and growth in Victoria. Heritage Tourism provides a unique opportunity for Victoria to invest in, develop and promote its rich Victorian history. Victoria's rich Aviation History, surviving built heritage, and already existing world class collections offer such an opportunity.

(2) – Examining the Best Practice in EcoTourism and Heritage Tourism Victoria is lagging badly behind both NSW and Queensland in the funding of both Heritage/Objects (ie collections) and Museums. A contrast between museum & Historic site/collections funding in NSW and Queensland and Victoria shows a significant shortfall per capita by Victoria both Nationally and relative to the other two eastern seaboard states. Victoria - Historic Sites / Collections (Heritage Victoria spending on buildings & community museums) Victoria = $175M NSW = $227M QLD = $290M Museums ie State owned - (ie Arts Victoria spending on State Owned Museums etc) Victoria = $81M NSW = $262M QLD = $59M The above expenditure and following graphs are from an Age Article which are based on ABS data. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4172.0Main+Features12012?OpenDocument http://www.theage.com.au/data-point/victoria-ahead-in-spending-on-the-arts-20130816-2s260.html

Victoria is clearly being out spent in everything relating to Heritage Tourism such as “Historic Sites & Objects” (Collections) as well as “Museums” by both Queensland and NSW who have undertaken multi Departmental approaches to their existing and new capabilities. Victoria is only leading those states other than Performing Arts $17M, Performing Arts Venues $101M and Film & Video ($41M). However the chosen investments by Arts Victoria, don’t reflect the Tourism Victoria publication of “Victoria’s Arts-Theatre & Cultural Heritage Tourism Action Plan 2010-2014”, which identifies on page 9 in figure 3 that International Cultural Visitors to Victoria, visit Museums, Art Galleries, History, Heritage Buildings and Historic Sites at three times the rate 600,000 to under 200,000 that visit Theatre, Performing Arts, Arts Studios and Fairs. Yet this is the Sector continuing to be over invested in by Arts Victoria while Museums, Historic Sites and Objects (Community Collections/Museums) are continually under invested in Victoria by Heritage Victoria.?

While Visiting Performing Arts is more attractive to Domestic Visitors from interstate, as shown in Figure 4, the Victorian Growth Opportunity in the Asian Century is attracting more International Cultural Visitors to Victoria, not more Interstate Visitors, the relative populations on offer clearly evidence that, and clearly show where the ongoing focus and investment needs to be. http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/component/edocman/?view=document&id=247&Itemid=0

From a Victorian Community based Aviation Museum point of view, this has seen the AARG directed from door to door to find a responsive Government Department willing to show any interest in its Aviation “Heritage Tourism” opportunities, with little success over the last 13 years, while smaller, less significant regional aviation collections interstate are thriving on Capital Investments from their respective State Governments. In @2003 the South Australian Aviation Museum received @$3M investment from the South Australian Government to relocate into large buildings located in the Port Adelaide Museum Precinct, they are clustered with the National Railway Museum and the South Australian Maritime Museum and pay no rent in their large display and workshop buildings. http://www.saam.org.au/ Recently in Darwin, the NT Aviation Heritage Centre received $1.5M for a new Entry building for shop sales and refreshments. http://www.darwinsairwar.com.au/ In Queensland the Hinkler Hall of Fame (a Greenfield start up museum with no historical aircraft in its collection and since acquiring 1 historic aircraft and a set of fibre-glass mockups, received significant local, State and Federal Government support in excess of $6.5M and is now pursuing a further $7.5M of corporate funding following the capital works from public monies. http://hinklerhallofaviation.com/our-history

Pivotal to the development and success of the Hinkler Hall of Aviation project has been generous cash and in-kind support from the Australian Government (for $4 million), the Queensland Government (for $1.485 million) and the (then) Bundaberg City Council (in excess of $1 million). In addition to these funding sources, the Hinkler Hall of Aviation is pursuing corporate partnership to fulfil the ongoing development budget of $7.5 million. Also in Queensland is the QANTAS Founders Museum, created an Aviation Museum in Longreach around the original QANTAS 1924 Hangar, where the Queensland Government, Federal Government and Local Government combined to contribute $8.5M

Queensland Heritage Trails Network (QHTN) However it was not until the Centenary of Federation and the associated QHTN initiatives eventuated that the QFM board's original dreams could be realised. The Queensland Govt. through the QHTN, has contributed $5.75m, the Australian Govt. $1.75m and Qantas Airways Ltd in excess of $1m plus resources and in kind. In addition, LRSC have made a substantial contribution and a number of private sector organisations and individuals have responded. Further fundraising is planned to allow us to add to the attraction, expand our range of education, training and development activities and ensure an ongoing program of refreshment and development. Victoria is clearly being out spent in everything relating to Heritage Tourism such as “Historic Sites

& Objects” (Collections) as well as “Museums” – particularly by Queensland, with its Heritage

Tourism QHTN strategy already being funded and implemented, and who have clearly undertaken

co-ordinated multi Departmental approaches to their existing and new capabilities.

It will not be possible for Victoria to compete in the Domestic and International “Heritage Tourism” market place unless it significantly re-balances the funding shortfalls that have starved Victorian collections and capabilities for many years. Funding needs to be pivoted away from the focus on Performing Arts and its venues to Heritage sites, Objects, Collections and Museums.

(3) – Examining the Potential for the development of ecotourism and heritage tourism in Victoria.

New Zealand has a small domestic population, is on the end of very long international flights, yet manages to attract aviation museum tours to their country due to the quality of museum attractions, and the strong focus on combining departmental efforts to maximise outcomes.

Despite it being further away from Europe than Australia, New Zealand attracts tour groups to its Aviation Heritage Tourism Attractions from as far away as England. Victoria has a similar land area to New Zealand, slightly larger domestic population, and other resources, but is being far out performed in “Heritage Tourism” and particularly Aviation “Heritage Tourism” despite Victoria’s rich aviation history an surviving heritage assets and collections.

http://www.ianallantravel.com/aviationtours/

Ian Allan Aviation Tours organises aviation tours led by aircraft enthusiasts for aircraft enthusiasts: from long weekend tours in Europe to 10-21 day tours to countries around the world. Our programme of Aviation Tours throughout the year will include all the different areas of aviation: civil, military, classic and antiques, warbirds, preservation and restoration, museums and air shows – and more. Whenever possible, pleasure flights will be offered, as an option, on some of the most famous and classical aeroplanes flying today: civil and warbirds!All visits to military bases, and the taking of photographs, are to be confirmed - unless stated otherwise in the tour itinerary. Visits to civil airports and airfields will include ramp tours wherever possible, and at museums we ask to look around their workshops and restoration facilities.Our tours are based on the requirements of aviation photographers; however, we welcome ‘non-photographer’ enthusiasts and spotters. http://www.ianallantravel.com/aviationtours/tours2013.htm

Note that in 2013, Ian Allen took tours to New Zealand, USA, North Korea, Norway, Germany, Poland, Russia, France, China, Greece, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates, but not to anywhere in Australia (because such Aviation Museums in Australia are spread too thinly other than in Victoria!, but even then, the Avalon Airshow still does not attract a tour!.

The Victorian Based collections of the AARG, B-24 Group, Australian Gliding Museum, TAA Museum, Airways Museum along with the nearby RAAF Museum, and the stored Museum of Victoria collection, as well as the rich built heritage of the historic Point Cook site, Laverton, Essendon and Ballarat heritage listed airfields, provide an existing resource of Aviation Heritage Collections far in excess of those available in New Zealand, yet Victoria is under-investing in them, under promoting them, and eventually undermining their long term sustainability, and large tour groups fly past Victoria to get to NZ.

MOTAT is New Zealand's largest transport, technology and social history museum. Spread across 40 acres, MOTAT will take you on an interactive journey to explore and discover the achievements that have helped shape New Zealand, from the 1800s to today.

MOTAT opened in 1964. Volunteers have worked to support MOTAT from its start. Since the passing of the MOTAT Act in 2000, MOTAT has also been able to employ professional museum staff to aid development.Since opening MOTAT has been explored and enjoyed by millions of local, national and international visitors. It is an interactive museum with a focus on creating a fun, visually stimulating environment for its visitors

http://www.motat.org.nz/

In the UK a very successful Heritage Tourism site exists at the WW1 RAF Airfield at Duxford. http://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-duxford This site is home to the Imperial War Museum, the American Air Museum, the Duxford Civil Aviation Society and its collection of Airliners, - it is effectively the National Aviation Museum of the UK. Duxford, at an active civil and former WWI Royal Flying Corp, and WWII RAF Battle of Britain airfield, attracts over 400,000 visitors per annum, with an annual revenue of over £4.8M (@ AUS$9M). Australia and Victoria could have a “Duxford Downunder” to attract middle class Asian Tourists to visit here rather than Europe or the USA. A National Aviation Museum at one of the 7 proposed sites in Victoria could duplicate that success. Historic Airfields in Victoria such as Point Cook, Laverton, Essendon or Ballarat could add to the Heritage Tourism value of a National Aviation Museum located in the State. If a National Aviation Museum were to be sited on one of those historic sites, the historic buildings, and preserved built heritage, and heritage of the place, would combine with the displays and collections of the museum to create a significant Heritage Tourism Attraction. Such an outcome could be developed as a National Aviation Museum/Heritage Park and operating Airfield, to match the success of the aviation museum at Duxford in the UK, and follow the Sovereign Hill model in Ballarat, to success, as an internationally-renowned and-commercially viable tourist attraction. (Australia’s most successful tourist attraction, and a living museum of Victoria’s gold rush heritage) We all now accept the historical importance and tourism values of the Ballarat Goldfields, although the success of Sovereign Hill could not have been imagined by the Ballarat Apex Club when they commenced the project in 1966. The overseas examples of the successful Aviation Museum at Duxford in England and similar facilities in the USA demonstrate how Australia’s aviation heritage can also be made interactive and attractive to tourists. Indeed Sovereign Hill attracts over 500,000 visitors a year, generates an income in excess of $15M and an economic benefit of $30M to the Ballarat district. It generates sufficient income to cover its operating expenditure; however, government grants and corporate donations have been provided to develop the attractions and expand the site- indeed the property has a capitalisation of over $22M, yet has returned an operating profit every year since its creation thirty years ago.

(4) - Determining the Environmental and heritage issues associated with large scale tourism The Heritage issues associated with a Large Scale Aviation Heritage Tourism development are quite simple, Victoria already has the Aviation Heritage collections such as the Volunteer community owned collections such as the AARG, the RAAF Museum at Point Cook and a collection owned by the State Government itself in Museum of Victoria (although currently the Museum of Victoria is proposing to sell a rare 1930’s Lockheed 12 Airliner it acquired in the 1990’s for the NASMA Project, and which it has since had on loan to NSW museums – it is likely to be sold into NSW! The very simple issue is securing the best site to bring these various collections together into one place to create a critical mass, and to efficiently and economically build a world class facility to preserve and display them, and then to promote them. The AARG requires funding support from either the Victorian State Government, or the Federal Government, or both, to further protect its collection and continue to ensure the success of the museum. This Feasibility Study Scope therefore seeks development of two complimentary but separate business cases: Part A : Redevelopment of the AARG “Australian National Aviation Museum” at Moorabbin

To examine and report on the financial and operational feasibility of redeveloping the existing AARG community based “Australian National Aviation Museum” at Moorabbin Airport, based on 4 options. Option A1: Partial redevelopment of the existing Museum site at Moorabbin. Option A2: Expand and Redevelop the expanded and existing museum site at Moorabbin. Option A3: Full redevelopment of the existing Museum site at Moorabbin. Option A4: Develop a Greenfield site for the museum elsewhere at Moorabbin. There is no “do nothing” option, the AARG will be left to soldier on as a volunteer group funded by current revenues, limiting any redevelopment of the current site, and exposing the external aircraft to continued deterioration, the museum would therefore need to implement other strategies? Part B: Establishment and Operation of a National Aviation Museum under the CAC Act.

To examine and report on the financial and operational feasibility of establishing a Federally funded statutory “National Aviation Museum” under its own act and administered under the CAC Act, based on the collection of the AARG “Australian National Aviation Museum” and other Victorian collections and assessed at various Victorian based sites, based on 7 options: Option B1: Develop a Greenfield site for the combined museum elsewhere at Moorabbin. Option B2: Develop the combined museum at Essendon Airport. Option B3: Develop the combined museum at Avalon. Option B4: Develop the combined museum at Ballarat Aerodrome Option B5: Develop the combined museum at Essendon/Tullamarine/Avalon and operate in conjunction with the proposed Victorian Aviation Training Academy. Option B6: Develop the combined museum at or adjacent to Point Cook and operate in conjunction with the RAAF Museum. Option B7: Develop the combined museum at Laverton (1AD) and operate in conjunction with the RAAF Museum at Point Cook.

(5) - Determining whether the local industry is sufficiently advanced to manage increased tourism

and any obstacles to this The existing Aviation Museums within Victoria, including the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, are not sufficiently advanced to manage increased Aviation Heritage Tourism. Point Cook is an operational military base, Defence requires visitors to get out of their car, and present their drivers licence to the guard house and sign in on entry.

The AARG Collection is manned by volunteers and open 3x ½ days during the week and Saturday/Sunday and on public holidays, its single seat per gender toilet facilities were a significantly limiting factor during its recent Wings and Wheels Vintage Car show event. The Museum of Victoria’s aviation collection is stored away off-site with no public access, with two items currently being considered for de-accession and sale /disposal to other collections, with a rare 1930s Lockheed 12 Airliner (considered of National Significance by the MoV in its ROI material, expected to be transferred to a NSW collection where it is already on loan. The AARG has had a comprehensive Feasibility Study proposal in front of both the Victorian and Federal Governments since 2011, and allowing for the recent change of Federal Government in August 2013, is yet to see significant response from the Victorian State Government. The Major obstacles are silo planning by the various Victorian Government Departments, rather than commencing an inter-departmental working Group as was done in 1986 to re-visit the NASMA Opportunity recognised and pursued by the Kennett Government through to 1998. There remains the opportunity for Victoria to pursue a joint venture project with the Federal Government to deliver a National Aviation Museum for Australia in Victoria. There is a short window of opportunity now open, for the State of Victoria, to formally respond to the current Federal Government’s re-opening of consultation in relation to the development of an Australian Heritage Strategy. The Environment Department has published the past consultation undertaken by the previous government and on 1 November 2013, re-issued invitations to “All Australians”. The AARG made a confidential submission in 2012, and was one of two Aviation Heritage related submissions of the total 97 received in 2012. The Australian Government released the Public Consultation Paper for comment on 15 April 2012. Comments closed on 15 June 2012.

Ninety-seven submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions will be considered in the ongoing development of the Australian Heritage Strategy.

Overall most submissions were received from individuals and groups involved in historic heritage, with some from individuals and groups involved in indigenous or natural heritage, and conveyed a depth of community commitment to heritage, with diverse views about what 'heritage' is.

Issues discussed in public submissions to date have included:

• achieving clarity about core issues, including what heritage is and who is involved in heritage • the challenges facing Indigenous heritage particularly, as well as natural and historic heritage • identifying priorities for the identification, protection, management, communication and leadership

of heritage across Australia.

The State Government of Victoria, “could” make a submission to the Australian Heritage Strategy, proposing a partnership with the Federal Government, to deliver the long overdue National Aviation Museum for Australia, in Victoria, which after nearly 40 years, remains the one major recommendation not yet delivered from the 1975 Piggott Report Federal Senate Inquiry into Museums and Collections. The Australian Heritage Strategy will provide a common framework and priorities for Australia’s heritage and help ensure our heritage is recognised and protected for future generations.

All Australians are encouraged to participate in the development of the Strategy.

The Strategy will address:

• the Commonwealth’s role in heritage

• partnership opportunities

• community engagement with heritage A draft Strategy will be released for public comment during Australian Heritage Week in April 2014. Your ideas can be sent to us now. http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/heritage/australian-heritage-strategy

(6) Summary and Conclusion: Studies, Inquiries and Reports Victoria has existing in its lap the opportunity to establish a major Heritage Tourism outcome by bringing its existing volunteer and other aviation collections into a single site, with a critical mass and appropriate infrastructure to attract, inform, entertain and educate the public, and interstate and international tourists. Victoria already invests massively in the Avalon Airshow near Geelong every two years as an Aviation related Major event, for its tourism benefits to the Geelong and Victorian Economy, valued even more so now with the loss of Qantas maintenance, and impending closure of Ford, as well as the uncertainty of the future of the Shell Refinery and Alcoa Aluminium Smelter at Point Henry. But that investment provides no lasting legacy infrastructure, or aviation heritage tourism attraction benefits outside that 1 week period every two years? The AARG has been promoting its proposal for a National Aviation Museum as a Heritage Tourism opportunity for at least the last 13 years, of its 50 years existence, and appreciates this opportunity to make this submission to the Victorian Parliamentary Committee for Environment and Natural Resources. We would be pleased to invite the committee to visit our museum and to see Australia’s and Victorias aviation heritage and Melbournes best kept secret. There have been ongoing studies into our collections, our museums, our moveable cultural heritage, our heritage themes and our Heritage Tourism Opportunities, what we need now is action, and we hope the committee shares our enthusiasm for the opportunity at hand. The Committee may be interested to view the findings of previous Government inquiries. Beyond highlighting shortcomings in the collections and museums across Australia, the Piggott Report recommended the creation of just 3 “National” museums, including a National Air Museum, a theme of particular interest and relevance to the AARG and its own collection. http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/1269/Museums_in_Australia_1975_Pigott_Report.pdf 2.12 While many proposals were put to this Committee for the creation of a variety of specialist national museums, we recommend that no more than three themes merit special museums. We recommend that early priority be given to a national maritime museum in Sydney and to a national aviation museum at a growth centre such as Albury-Wodonga, and that later consideration be given to locating a Gallery or Museum of Australian Biography within the Parliamentary Triangle in Canberra. 13.3 To warrant the word ‘national’, collections or museums should usually’ have a special significance for Australia. Generally the activities or sciences depicted should have made some impact on Australian history in order to merit prominence in a ‘national’ museum. 13.4 In rejecting proposals for a scatter of national museums we accept the argument that certain vital themes would be covered more successfully in a specialist museum. Maritime history and aviation history both merit special coverage in separate national museums. While shipping and aircraft, because of their importance in the history of an isolated nation, should have a place in the main Museum of Australia, they also merit separate institutions where their particular needs can be met. An effective maritime museum must be by the sea; in discussions the directors of several maritime museums in Europe were more emphatic on this point than perhaps on any other. A similar, thoughless emphatic, argument suggests that a comprehensive aviation museum of aircraft requires a larger area of flat ground than seems likely to be available in the proposed site for the Museum of Australia in Canberra. Moreover, a remoter site for the aviation museum would enable models of early aircraft engines to work without creating obtrusive noise.

A National Aviation Museum 13.14 Arguments for a separate museum of aviation have already been set out. Aviation is important in

Australia’s history. Many Australian airmen won world fame in the era when aircraft first crossed

oceans. Names such as Charles Kingsford-Smith, Harry Hawker, Ross and Keith Smith, Ulm, Hinkler

and Taylor almost symbolised a generation of Australian history. These 120-kilornetres-an-hour

aviators pioneered many of the main air routes of the world. Within this continent their mall routes and

emergency medical and supply services eased the acute isolation of outback settlements. In the Second

World War the influence of aviation on the course of the fighting in the Pacific and on Australia’s

defence effort was powerful. 13.15 The strongest argument for a separate aviation museum is more practical than historical. Aircraft require an unusually large space for storage and display: offsite storage, moreover, is impractical. In addition, it has been suggested that an airfield site would enable some of the pioneering aircraft to be so restored that regular flying displays would be feasible; the National Museum of Science and Technology in Canada conducts flying pageants, using the old biplanes and flying boats of half a century ago. Whether similar flying pageants should be organised in Australia is an open question. The preservation of aircraft and flying equipment is the main aim of an aviation museum, and only the directors, curators and aviation officials of the Department of Transport can judge whether the particular aircraft in their care should be risked in flight in old age. On the other hand, an aviation museum which stands on the edge of its own

airfield can certainly be a centre for air pageants and for rallies of privately-owned vintage aircraft or

museum replicas of early aircraft. 13.16 The National Aviation Museum should include civil and military aircraft, for in many decades the two were interchangeable. In collecting military aircraft it should cooperate with the Australian War

Memorial, and usually offer the older institution priority if a prized war-time aircraft comes on to the market. At the Australian War Memorial,shortage of space for display and for storage will serve to

regulate such competition. A major airport is not suitable as a long-term site for the National Aviation Museum. Clearly then, both State and Federal Governments see the role of Aviation Museums to primarily be a “National” one, however it continues to elude the Nation, and Victoria with its natural and obvious opportunity, is yet to seize and deliver a successful outcome. http://www.nma.gov.au/research/understanding-museums/AMConde_2011.html In April 1974, the Australian government established a Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections. The museum sector, including the Museums Association of Australia, had been lobbying for it for years. Clearly there was a belief that Canberra did have a role to play in the museum field. In announcing the committee, Special Minister of State Lionel Bowen noted that, despite great public interest and dedicated service, the development of museums and collections had been piecemeal, and valuable collections were at great risk. Moreover, there was no institution committed to telling ‘the story of Australia to Australians’. The new committee would give particular attention to the establishment of a national museum, ‘not as a storehouse of things dead and past’, but a ‘living, dynamic institution’. The committee’s investigations extended from Australian government and state museums, collections and galleries to university museums, and local, private and open-air museums. If suspicions were aroused within the museum profession by the fact that only one member of the committee was a full-time museum practitioner, there were benefits. In common with the general public, most committee members would rarely have been behind the scenes in a major museum, and the shock of what they found had a

powerful effect on the published Report.

Deterioration of collections housed in basements and other storage areas could be acute. Collections

spilled out into cellars and corridors, were stacked against external walls and hot water-pipes, and crammed into galvanised iron sheds. Only 10 per cent of museum storage space was temperature controlled. Few museums had the space for conservation laboratories and there were fewer than 10

professionally trained conservators in Australia. The Report is liberally illustrated with photographs contrasting spacious and inviting museum displays – at the Australian War Memorial, for instance – with ghastly storage conditions behind and beneath. The committee recommended the establishment of a Cultural Materials Conservation Institute, and postgraduate training for conservators. Perhaps the next most striking aspect of the Australian museum sector for the committee was the hundreds of small museums that had been founded in the previous 15 years. This was a ‘popular and vigorous grass-roots movement’, it thought, arising from a curiosity about everyday life in the past that was not being satisfied by the major state museums. Dozens of these museums made submissions to the inquiry, and dozens more were visited by the committee or surveyed by its consultants, some of whom became weary and footsore in their work. ‘The sun never sets on the homespun proliferation of museums throughout the land’, one of them reported. Problems of definition troubled the committee. What could be counted as a museum? Still, the committee admired the work of the volunteers who ‘humbly and generously gave their best’ in small museums. These were the people whose work Max Harris had been keen to protect from the ‘dead hand of Canberra’ in 1965. The committee did indeed urge against imposing any bureaucratic plan to centralise local museums into a ‘grand regional museum’.

Many submissions to the committee came from people and organisations advocating the establishment of

specialist ‘national’ museums, especially on aspects of technology and natural history. It recommended

just three: a national maritime museum in Sydney, a national aviation museum in a place such as

Albury-Wodonga, and a museum of Australian biography in Canberra. Despite the exhaustive 1975 Federal Senate Enquiry resulting in the Piggott Report, many of the concerns and issues identified in that report in regards to collections and moveable cultural heritage remained 25 years later in 2000 when the National and Cultural Heritage Theme Report was undertaken by the Federal Department of Environment and Heritage. http://www.environment.gov.au/node/21691#2.4objects Key findings regarding heritage places and objects as part of State of Environment reporting 1995-

2000

2.4 Objects The proportion of collections catalogued across all heritage sectors appears to be expanding, but small and large museums generally have documentation systems that are idiosyncratic and inadequate to meet current demands of scholarly and public access. Only 42% of small museums surveyed have 90% or more of their collections catalogued. There is no coherent, agreed, national definition or shared view of what might constitute cultural heritage or cultural heritage collections as they relate to State of the Environment reporting. Neither are

there agreed national approaches to the management of collections across the major organisations with responsibilities in this area, despite the release of The National Conservation and Preservation Policy and Strategy for Australia's Heritage Collections. When dealing with collections, documentary and archival records have not been considered in the brief for this report yet they are fundamental tools in understanding the cultural significance of places. The link between archival storage, accessibility of records and heritage places needs to be examined further and a method found to ensure those records are not lost.

3.4 Heritage objects - heritage collections Environmental conditions in the major collecting organisations appear to be reasonable in all sectors. Storage capacity is an issue highlighted by many organisations, however, and appears to be a priority

issue for national attention. Conservation and preservation programs are driven by a wide range of organisational needs, and there appear to be limited resources available for the systematic treatment of collections.

For Community based Aviation Heritage Collections in Victoria, many of the problems and issues identified in the Piggott Report in 1975, and the 2000 State of the Environment Report of 2000 remain, such as display space, storage space, cataloguing and access to professional curatorial resources.

The AARG is seeking to address such issues itself via:

• A new Archive Facility achieved via peppercorn rent from Moorabbin Airport Corporation, recently fitted with new Library and Archive shelving via a National Library Community Heritage Grant.

• Completion of new policies and procedures compliant with the National Standards for Museums, and submitted to Museums Australia (Victoria) as part of the Victorian Museums Accreditation Program.

• Research and drafting of a Significance Assessment of the AARG Aircraft and Engine Collection as part of a Heritage Victoria Grant with draft submission completed and the final version underway with assistance from a retired Technology Collections Curator of the Australian War Memorial.

Development of strategies for redevelopment of its volunteer museum at Moorabbin, or participation in the development of formal National Aviation Museum of Australia through the publication and circulation of a Feasibility Study proposal (Parts A and B) for a Stage 1 Business Case. Following a course of action recommended by Arts Victoria in 2008, and developed with the assistance of the National Museum of Australia then Director Morton Craddock, and NMA project managers, who provided Feasibility Study templates compliant with the Federal Department of Finance and Regulations two stage approval process and to also comply with the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance Investment Management Guidelines in terms of identifying Problem Definition, Solution Definition, Benefit Definition (including where relevant the creation of an Investment Logic Map, Benefit Management Plan through the use of an Accredited Facilitator and conducting Problem, Solution and Benefit Workshops) and the delivery of a DFR Stage 1 Business Case also compliant with the DTF standards. http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/pages/investment-management-home Part A : Redevelopment of the AARG “Australian National Aviation Museum” at Moorabbin

To examine and report on the financial and operational feasibility of redeveloping the existing AARG community based “Australian National Aviation Museum” at Moorabbin Airport, based on 4 options. Part B: Establishment and Operation of a National Aviation Museum under the CAC Act.

To examine and report on the financial and operational feasibility of establishing a Federally funded statutory “National Aviation Museum” under its own act and administered under the CAC Act, based on the collection of the AARG “Australian National Aviation Museum” and other Victorian collections and assessed at various Victorian based sites, based on 7 options: There is no “do nothing” option, the AARG will be left to soldier on as a volunteer group funded by

current revenues, limiting any redevelopment of the current site, and exposing the external aircraft

to continued deterioration, the museum would therefore need to implement other strategies.