Australian Society of Archivists
1999 Conference

ARCHIVES AT RISK:
Accountability, Vulnerability and Credibility
- Conference Wrap-up -

John McDonald
Senior Advisor
National Archives of Canada

I would like to begin by again saying how much I appreciated the opportunity to participate in this conference. I would also like to congratulate the organizing committee for the excellent job they have done in producing such a stimulating program.

Of course, a program is only as good as it’s speakers and I would like to congratulate them for delivering excellent presentations which, in drawing on their own experiences, provided us with some rich insights to help us advance our own thinking about the issues being raised under the conference theme. Through their efforts, they almost intuitively helped to provide us with a whole that was greater than the sum of the individual parts.

I was trying to put together a job profile for “conference wrap up person”. I am not sure if the role means that I have to become an “artisan”, in which case I may not be the right person for the job. Regardless, I will try to do my best. From what I understand, I think I am supposed to: offer some observations concerning the conference program; touch on highlights from the sessions I attended; and; provide a synthesis by pulling together some threads inside the context of the conference theme.

I thought I would begin by trying to imagine being back at the office and having people ask me about what I though of the conference. Naturally, I would say it was great and that I met lots of great people. I would also explain that I almost learned how to say “GEBBA” and that I even learned a little bit about cricket. And for those colleagues who were a little envious about my coming here, I would remind them of the burden I had to face in having to endure the harshness of a brutal Australian winter! :)

I would also say that in terms of archives and record keeping, we share much in common. We share an interest in records in all of their different dimensions, from records documenting the broad cultural dimension to records of organizations and individuals. We also share an interest in concepts that blend archives and records and though we may not embrace all of the concepts of the continuum we seem to be heading in that direction.

There are differences. One of the most interesting is the degree of skepticism I detected about government accountability here in Australia as compared to Canada. For instance, issues concerning the position of archives with respect to the situation in New Zealand or the Heiner affair seem to be felt much more deeply and intensely among Australian archivists than I think is the case for archivists addressing somewhat similar situations in Canada.

Having said this, I think we face similar risks, challenges and opportunities which is why I thought the program was so valuable.

The theme of the program was very broad and permitted any number of sub-themes to be developed in the individual sessions. In all of the sessions, however, the speakers linked their remarks back to the conference theme thus leading to a coherence in the program, something which I am sure must have pleased the conference organizers.

I also thought the speakers in the individual sessions I was able to attend did an excellent job in responding to or at least addressing the question, “Are Archives at Risk”. I think in doing so they seemed to be looking at the issue of risk from 3 perspectives:

• the first perspective focussed on an explanation of the nature of the risk itself;
• the second perspective focussed on the landscape we need to understand before we take the steps required to position ourselves to reduce the risk and build opportunities;
• the third perspective focussed on the steps archives and archivists can take to position themselves given their understanding of both the nature of the risk and the landscape.

In the first perspective, we heard speakers talk about why archives are at risk. For instance, we heard from a number of speakers about the impact on archives of the changing nature of government - the rush to privatize government programs, to abandon rules and policies and even standards in order to open the door to greater empowerment and the ability to “get the job done”. We heard about how the lack of cohesion in government and the lack of effective legislative frameworks were threatening the role and position of archives. We heard about the risk to archives emerging from the reality of economic rationalism in the public and private sectors. We heard about the difficulty being experienced within the profession in dealing with incidents such as the Heiner Affair or political and bureaucratic situations such as those being experienced in New Zealand. At a broader level, we heard about the challenges presented by archives which may find themselves almost disconnected from the people they are intended to serve. While the situation concerning the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people comes to mind it seems to be an issue being experienced by others such as those in Cambodia and Kiribati. This last issue suggests that the lack of trust or confidence by a society in its archives can perhaps put archives at far greater risk than the risk an archives faces in dealing with an ever changing governmental landscape.

I thought it was interesting in a number of presentations to see how the appreciation that their archives was at risk had become the trigger or catalyst for people to act, to change, to evolve - sometimes dramatically. If I may draw from the quote we heard this morning at the session on post-Fitzgerald Queensland, the pressure of what was referred to as “evil” (i.e. risk) can be a catalyst leading to cohesion in the community as well as subsequent action which itself can lead to positive change. Why was there action in New Zealand? Because, as Michael Hoyle explained drawing on a well known movie line, “We just can’t take it any more”.

Before taking those first action steps, however, I sensed there was also a recognition that we needed to have a clearer understanding of the landscape. And this brings me to the second perspective (i.e. the landscape upon which archives are positioned). A number of speakers painted that landscape from a variety of angles. We heard from Dr. Towmey who described a world based on globalization, electronic commerce, the delivery of services electronically, the availability of content on the information highways, and the steps government is taking to position itself to take advantage of the opportunities presented by this new increasingly electronic world. We heard from Professor Peter Botsman that the government of Queensland is redesigning itself, becoming an enabling government focussing on the community. Regardless of how far or how fast the transformation occurs, we need to recognize we are dealing with a moving target as government struggles to be relevant, responsible and responsive. If we are to be relevant through time, we need to understand this “target” and the triggers that serve as catalysts to this constant change.

But government is not rooted solely in the austere images of “business” or “the bureaucracy”. It is rooted in values and ethics. As we heard this morning, however, we need to understand how this landscape of ethics and values is evolving if we are to continue to respect the values of both society and ourselves as professionals (even as the values that frame our governments evolve).

We also learned about the legislative landscape. We heard about the legislative framework that governs the National Archives of Australia both now and in the future and the tensions it creates in reconciling a potential regulatory role with a service role. Similar examinations and reviews were covered in other jurisdictions such as here in Queensland. We also learned more about freedom of information laws and other pertinent legislation such as copyright all of which helped to provide the legal context within which we could contemplate how archives might want to position themselves. An important point raised yesterday by Anne Marie Schwirtlich, however, is that we should not lose sight of the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing laws before we run off too quickly to develop new ones.

In a dimension much closer to the theme of the conference, we heard this morning from Sue McKemmish who provided us with an excellent overview of a framework for record keeping and accountability which came complete with definitions, a vision and examples of record keeping failures. She also provided a picture of the role of professional associations in this context.

Finally, in understanding the multiple dimensions of the landscape, speakers highlighted the importance of understanding two things - records and ourselves. We need to understand the power of records in the context of our societies, our organizations and ourselves as individuals. In this respect there was probably no better example than the video on Rob Riley we just saw in the last session - a video on an aboriginal person which underlined the power records can have in transforming an individual’s approach to his own life. In understanding ourselves, Chris Hurley urged us this morning to look within to determine for ourselves, as professionals, how we relate to record keeping failures such as those associated with New Zealand and the Heiner Affair. In another dimension, Ann Pederson demonstrated that most of us were probably guardians (I thought she was actually talking about Canadians) and offered some views on the implications of all of this for our ability to position ourselves, a point that came up in the accountability session this morning. Ann suggested that we use our qualities as strengths as we join the team of partners who are “out there” ready to work with us (if only we would go to the table).

And this brings me to the third perspective. Having recognized the risks and having understood the landscape, how can archives position themselves to be relevant and effective in the future. All of the speakers either set out the concrete steps they were taking or offered recommendations on the steps that could be followed.

For instance, at the broad program level, we heard about the work underway at the State Records Authority of New South Wales as they reposition themselves under their new legislation. At the level of standards, we heard about the leverage (actually the tremendous power) that standards such as AS - 4390 and the competency standard can have to help shape the future role of archives and archivists.

But we also heard about new tools such as those emerging from the SPIRT initiative, a particularly important initiative given the significance of metadata in providing intellectual control over records, especially in an electronic environment.

We also heard about the opportunities presented by the web even as we were also cautioned about the extent to which we view “web collections” as archives.

And speaking about tools, I hope the suggestion is taken up to develop a brief guide based on the Western Australia experience in lobbying one’s position to others especially in the political arena. I thought it would be a great tool which could have broad application across many jurisdictions.

Finally, I think the evolution taking place in education was particularly important. We not only heard about accreditation and the state of education, but in identifying some critical issues and setting out recommendations, we recognized that our views on education and training are evolving. And they are evolving because they need to keep in step with the evolution taking place in the role and position of archives and archivists within the context of a landscape which itself is changing.

Conferences are normally for the exchange of information, to meet one another, and to have the chance to explore some interesting issues. I thought it was useful to see that many of the papers and the discussions featured recommendations for further action and wondered if there couldn’t be some way to bring these together into an agenda that could be used beyond the conference. Some were specific such as Adrian Cunningham’s question the other day concerning the existence of business cases for record keeping systems. Others were much broader such as Dr. Towney’s invitation to enter into partnerships with his office and others who are pursuing national information based priorities and strategies which have strong record keeping implications. Still others were directed to the Australian Society of Archivists. There was one suggestion for the ASA to support the development of education and training programs in Queensland, and another to develop a mechanism around the concept of a “disaster response team” which would swing into action whenever a records issue such as Heiner came into view. In this respect, and as an aside, I think it might be useful if we distinguish between the development of a mechanism for building a timely response to situations such as Heiner and the development of a mechanism for ensuring that over time, everyone concerned learns from the experience. We should not confuse the one with the other.

All this to say that in addition to exchanging information, I hope this conference can be used to build on the rich ideas and concrete recommendations that emerged from the presentations. I think this would go a long way in helping the profession position itself in the future and to help turn the risks we face into opportunities.

Many thanks again for the opportunity to be here. I hope we will see some of you in Ottawa some day where we will do our best to try and extend the same level of warm hospitality I received here in Australia. My only cautionary note is that I would implore you not to come to Ottawa in January and February or, unlike my situation in discussing an Australian “winter” with my colleagues, your colleagues will have every right to sympathize with your plight. Otherwise, we would be delighted to see you.

Thank you