OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION The objects of the Association shall be: i. To foster the care, preservation, and proper use of archives and records, both public and private, and their effective administration. ii. To arouse public awareness of the importance of records and archives and in all matters affecting their preservation and use, and to co-operate or affiliate with any other bodies in New Zealand or elsewhere with like objects. iii . To promote the training of archivists, records keepers, curators, librarians and others by the dissemination of specialised knowledge and by encouraging the provision of adequate training in the administration and conservation of archives and records. iv. To encourage research into problems connected with the use, administration and conservation of archives and records and to promote the publication of the results of this research. v. To promote the standing of archives institutions. vi. To advise and support the establishment of archives services throughout New Zealand. vii. To publish a journal at least once a year and other publications in furtherance of these objects. ARCHIFACT S Published by the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand 94 ARCHIFACT S Editor: Susan Skudder Editorial Committee: David Green Michael Hoare Gavin McLean Bruce Ralston Reviews Editor: David Green Archifacts is published twice-yearly, in April and October. Articles and correspondence should be addressed to the Editor at: P.O. Box 31553 Wellington intending contributors should obtain a style sheet from the Editor. Printed by Wright and Carman Ltd, Upper Hütt, New Zealand Copyright ARANZ 1994 ISSN 0303-7940 Contents Editoria l í Mor e Perspectives on the Ham Report Ken Scadden Smalkr Institutions 1 Trish Oliff , Bruce Symondson Records Managers 5 Rachel Lilburn The Ham Report: Miniskirt or Maxi? 21 Business and Archives David Retter Doubtful Guests: Business Archives in Research Libraries 35 S. R. Strachan Worlds in Collision 47 Letter to the Editor Robin M. Startup Burn? Bury? or Donate? 52 Book Reviews 54 Accessions 70 Archives and Records Association of New Zealand Inc. P.O. Box 11-553, Manners Street, Wellington, New Zealand Patron Her Excellency Dame Catherine Tizard, GCMG, DBE Governor General of New Zealand Council President Sheryl Morgan Massey University Library, Palmerston North Vice Peter Miller 114 Evans Street, Presidents Opoho, Dunedin, Thérèse Angelo c/- Royal NZ Airforce Museum, RNZAF Base Wigram, Private Bag, Christchurch Secretary Philippa Fogarty c/- National Archives, P.O. Box 12050, Wellington Treasur Michael Hoare Police Centennial Museum, Royal NZ Police College Private Bag, Porirua Membership Thérèse Angelo c/- Royal NZ Airforce Museum, Secretary RNZAF Base Wigram, Private Bag, Christchurch Council Alison Fraser P.O. Box 2907, Wellington Jan Gow P.O. Box 25025, Auckland 5 Tiena Jordan Whakatane District Museum, P.O. Box 203, Whakatane Margaret Morgan Registry, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin Brad Patterson 20 Khyber Road, Seatoun, Wellington 3 Mark Stoddart Regional Archivist, P.O. Box 91220, Auckland Jane Tucker 53 Moana Road, Highbury, Wellington EDITORIA L This issue of Archifacts is something of a miscellany. First, we have the remaining papers from the seminar on the Ham Report, for which there was not room in the April issue. We also publish a paper by David Retter from the Stout Centre seminar on Business Archives, which was somehow omitted from the October 1993 issue. The paper, on the Alexander Turnbull Library's holdings of business archives, complements Peter Miller's on the Hocken's holdings, and includes a very useful list of the business archives in the Turnbull Library. The editorial team apologises to David for the omission of his paper. Rachel Lilbum's article on the Ham Report was not a paper presented at the seminar in March. Rachel provides the unique viewpoint of one who is now a provider of archival education, and has been a working archivist and a recipient of archival education. Her views make a valuable addition to the discussion on archival education. Finally, we have a paper on collection valuation presented by Stuart Strachan to the ARANZ conference in Wellington in August 1993. The requirement to place a monetary value on archival holdings now affects National Archives, the Alexander Turnbull Library and the Hocken Library. As one who has had some involvement in collection valuation, I fee that we do need to talk about the process, what it means for us and how it relates to our core archival work. I hope that Stuart's paper will be a starting point for that discussion. In this issue we also provide an example of that rarest of beasts— a letter to the editor of Archifactsl We hope that this is the beginning of a trend. This is the last issue from this particular version of the editorial committee. Neither Bruce Ralston nor I will be continuing our involvement, mainly because we feel that our other commitments mean that we cannot give the energy and time that Archifacts deserves. David Green will revert to being Reviews Editor only. The other members of the team will be continuing, and the search has begun for others to join them. I look forward to the next issue and wish the team well. Mor e Perspectives on the Ham Report Smaller Institution s Ken Scadden Wellington Maritime Museum Like many of you I was directly involved in the abortive Training Review back in 1987. I strongly support the concept of a Training Report and was involved as a member of the Sole Charge/Small Institution Working Party. I hope that this report will not become a point of contention between groups or individuals for political purposes. It was largely to avoid such problems, I suspect, that ARANZ brought in an independent consultant. My first reaction was that there are no real surprises. Nevertheless, it is a good solid effort which covers all the bases. In some respects, however, it may not go far enough towards taking archival training into the twenty- first century. It could have been written by many archivists practising in New Zealand today, but for reasons alluded to earlier this was done by an overseas expert. Let us ignore the 'colonial cringe/overseas expert telling us what to do syndrome' we may be suffering from. We must make the best of this opportunity—we may not get another! Whether we care to admit it or not, overseas influences have had a major influence on archives development in New Zealand e.g. the Smith Report, the founding of ARANZ and postgraduate training. Section V is where the substance begins. My initial reaction was that pegging our training on a postgraduate qualification was being overambitious, but careful reconsideration shows that this is the best strategy. We need a strong intellectual spearhead for the profession, and this graduate-level qualification will provide it. The 'Past Training' paragraph notes that in the USA, Canada and Australia, pre-employment training has only comparatively recently been seen as a prerequisite to beginning archives work. I agree that we must follow suit. We also need to have parity with overseas colleagues. We must establish the qualification mark at a level sufficiently high to 1 Archifacts enable us to play a full role on the international archives stage; in meetings with international colleagues, contributions of articles to archives journals, etc. The impact on the profession in New Zealand made by the graduates from the University of New South Wales and elsewhere shows that a postgraduate qualification is the absolute minimum desirable standard. Furthermore, if the profession is to attain and then maintain parity with other professions, notably librarians and museum workers, a postgraduate course is essential. In the area of programme delivery I was intrigued by the range of options. In spite of the need for a graduate-level training course, my gut feeling is that the greatest training need for the greatest number of archivists is for a polytech-level course which could be made available for people who are working full- or part-time as archivists. The report does not go far enough for these people. Wellington is the logical place for the postgraduate course but I am not convinced that the School of Librarianship at Victoria University is the ideal venue, at least without major reform. In a School of Librarianship, the archives course is bound to be the poor relation. Major structural change would be needed to give archival training an equal status. In the case of the Wellington Maritime Museum I do not see the possibility in the foreseeable future of recruiting.an archivist with a postgraduate qualification who would be solely employed in archives work. When I was last looking at recruiting staff, I was asked whether I would employ an archivist, a librarian or a museum professional—my answer was preferably all three rolled into one. Versatility is the key in a small institution. At this stage none of my staff would be able to undertake a postgraduate archives diploma. Several non-graduates may be interested in a polytech-level certificate : or short block course or part-time training. I am not totally convinced by arguments that a polytech-level course and a postgraduate diploma could not coexist, although resources would obviously be a problem. The report pays littl e attention to the training undertaken by other arts and cultural heritage professionals. Investigations should be undertaken to see if common-core subjects (e.g. conservation, computerisation, biculturalism, etc) for archives, museum and library para-professionals could be taught jointly. The Whitireia Polytechnic in Porirua has a course which, if modified, could become a model. The option of a national archival institute is attractive. It could accommodate a range of training options, and would take training away from the avarice of polytechs and universities.