Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2021L01869:reg:6:p35
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2021L01869
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 6 (pt 35/86)
Character Range: 122207–125183

is an essential activity that ensures Old Parliament House remains relevant and vital; it can present both risks and opportunities to the heritage values. Change is often necessary to ensure legislative compliance.
  Compliance with legislation that protects the heritage values must be balanced with the Building Code of Australia, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cwlth), the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth) and other Australian standards. Catering to the diverse needs of the various users of the place – including visitors, staff and tenants – may also prompt change activities.

  The tools used to manage change at Old Parliament House include the Action Proposal Process (Chapter 11), the Permitted Action Schedule (Chapter 12), and the Old Parliament House management strategies (Chapter 13).

  The Action Proposal Process is the key mechanism for considering new actions in and on the place. It includes a method for identifying, analysing and treating risks to the heritage values. Risk management enables staff to manage change effectively, so that progress at the place is achieved in harmony with the heritage values.

     6.2.  Summary of identified pressures on the listed values

  The risks to the identified values at Old Parliament House generally fall into two categories:

      * risks to the fabric and form of the place

      * risks to the less tangible values of the place.

  The effects of this first category of risks tend to be measurable. They also tend to be the risks that are more readily identifiable in advance and therefore can be prevented. These risks include:

      * fire, flood, theft, vandalism, natural disaster, terrorist attack etc

      * inappropriate conservation work resulting in damage to heritage fabric

      * inappropriate physical intervention (such as demolition or unsympathetic addition) of parts of Old Parliament House

      * inappropriate use and/or inappropriate maintenance resulting in damage to heritage fabric

      * the slow erosion of values through incremental change such as physical deterioration owing to aging, culminating in major impacts on the place

      * declining budgets and resources resulting in reduced and/or inadequate maintenance and monitoring.

  The second category of risks relates principally to the less tangible values of Old Parliament House, and the need to ensure its ongoing use by, and the interpretation of its values for, a wide audience. These risks include:

      * a change of use to all or part of the place, or the carrying out of inappropriate activities
    (including inappropriate promotions) that results in a diminution of the symbolic values of Old Parliament House or a reduction in public access
      * the failure to appropriately tell the stories of the place through ill-informed or ineffective interpretation

      * the disengagement of important stakeholders (such as government and the public) from Old Parliament House as