National Archives Closure

This is a précis of information given in a telephone call between Dr Stephen Ellis, Assistant Director General, Operations and Preservation and the NAA Consultative Committee in Perth on 30 November 2009. In response to concerns raised by the Perth Consultative Forum, Mr Ellis cited several reasons for the closure of the NAA offices in Darwin, Hobart and Adelaide. The following is a summary of the call:

·        The NAA has been asked to find savings of approx 700k per annum for the next 3 years, representing a $2.1m cost saving.

·        The collections in Darwin, Hobart and Adelaide represent 4% of the NAA archives

·        The offices cost some 720K to run. This includes staff, leases and running costs.3

·        Lineal metre costs are in the vicinity of $90/m. Sydney costs approx $20/m. Therefore the offices are deemed uneconomic.

·        Leases for the offices are coming up for renewal in 2010, therefore closing the offices will coincide with the final dates of the current leases.

·        Records will be digitized; however, it is impossible physically or temporally to digitize all records. Records selected will be those which are currently heavily requested.

·        Records that are deemed to have ‘significant local importance’ will be identified and devolved to state organisations.

·        Staff will be offered redeployment or transfer or redundancies.

The last three points are of key concern:

Records will be digitized; however, it is impossible physically or temporally to digitize all records. Records selected will be those which are currently heavily requested.

There is no protocol for the selection of records to be digitized, other than those records which ‘are most commonly requested or are likely to be requested in the future’. This methodology is quintessentially self referential and significantly slanted towards popularist genealogical research. It neither encompasses (nor gives thought to) the need for ongoing historical research in areas not yet identified as ‘popular’ or administrative research of government itself, quite apart from new fields of enquiry  by researchers not yet identified.  It neither addresses the current lack of adequate identification of records that exist (coupled with lack of sufficient contextual explanation in the online catalogues) nor the self evident flaw – that those outside the NAA are not necessarily even aware of the records that are held by the NAA. Of concern, is that this, of itself, creates opaqueness for future investigation of the national record.

There is also an arrogant assumption that everyone uses a computer – and a computer with an internet connection to boot! Certainly, this is an issue for the Darwin office – how many indigenous communities have access to the internet, let alone individuals and families.

Records that are deemed to have ‘significant local importance’ will be identified and devolved to state organisations.

This is a classic case of cost shifting by the Commonwealth to the States as there is no funding to be provided for this ‘devolution’. As we know, there will be little potential for taking on responsibility for NAA records by state bodies without funding.  It also begs the question, once again, of the identification, selection and process for devolution of such records.

From collections perspective – NAA has legacy documents from its takeover of State functions from 1900 – 1920s approx. In WA this includes passenger lists, and colonial lighthouses, postal and telegraph records (including plans of same), patents records, etc. It is likely that there are similar records in the other states.  While repatriation of these records to the relevant State authorities would no doubt be appreciated, it would need to be in a staged manner – with the records properly listed and described – so that the States can allocate resources for storage and maintenance. One to three years is not going to be enough, unless they solely focus on the NAA transfers.

As a background, NAA has been looking at reducing its collections in the States and territories, other than the ACT, for over ten years. This may in part have been prompted by the sell off of the various regional repositories, but also by a focus in the NAA on the most ‘used’ collections (used being equated with valued). Statistically, these are the records used in family history – large, discrete, easily identified series of records, such as naturalisation papers, war service records and immigration lists.

In order to focus on ‘used’ records, NAA commenced a de-accessioning, reappraisal exercise, circa 2002. This caused considerable angst and was the direct catalyst for the NAA customer focus councils. One area where de-accessioning was particularly opposed was in Queensland when the repository at Canon Hill was to be closed.  The Federal representative for the area, K. Rudd, spoke out against the closure.

Staff will be offered redeployment or transfer or redundancies.

Not having personnel assumes two things: a) that the online archive is complete and that within it the records are adequately described for a person to self guide; b) that a researcher is aware of all of the records that might be available for their particular research. As we know, historical research is an iterative process and researchers often discuss their work with archivists to be guided to resources of which they were hitherto unaware.

Time to pick up your pens and write to Mr Rudd about the closure of the office without sufficient forethought

Felicity Morel Ednie-Brown
15 December 2009