Go to National Library of Australia Home PageNational Library of Australia Online

SEARCH:

The terms of reference for the review specifically required the consultants to present options for the most effective representative organisational structure for the sector and outline initiatives which might be implemented to provide leadership for the industry in the 21st century. The review was assisted by oral and written representations which specifically put forward various options to the review.

Before considering a number of options for reform, it needs to be acknowledged that the options are put forward on the basis that there are some limitations, some common aspirations and some essential characteristics that should be considered in the development of various options.

It is the strong desire of the library contributors that a peak body should be independent. The need for an independent body was strongly endorsed at meetings in capital cities and in written submissions. Such a view was in part a reaction to the relationship between the NLA and ACLIS creating a perception that ACLIS was not independent. It should be noted, however, that no evidence or allegation was put to the review that the NLA has improperly used its position in relation to ACLIS. On the contrary, the NLA indicates that its relationship with ACLIS has on occasion constrained its own activities. The essential point is that while the NLA provided considerable financial assistance to ACLIS at its birth, the continuation of such assistance nine years down the track goes well beyond what was originally anticipated and it creates an undesirable perception in the industry and profession that ACLIS is not independent. Such a perception even extends to a state committee of ACLIS itself.

It is essential that a single peak library body address national, state and regional needs and interests of the industry and profession as reflected in the current structures of ACLIS and ALIA. During the review it emerged that at state level there was an inadequate awareness by members of the activities being pursued at a national level. It appears that this information gap needs to be addressed by providing members with more information about national activities.

Whatever the outcome of this review, it needs to be acknowledged that sectoral groups such as CAUL, CASL and ASLA will continue to represent their own particular interests. Thus any single peak body will need to not only better represent the needs and interests of the library industry and profession, but it will also need to implement measures which provide for a high level of coordination.

5.1 The Status Quo

At no time during the review was it suggested that the status quo should remain. On the contrary, all the evidence and views put forward to the review suggest that there is a strong and urgent need to improve representation and coordination in the library sector so that it can take full advantage of and promote the interests of the sector. At state level, reform of library representation offers the prospect of a more efficient use of scarce resources particularly where activities are unnecessarily duplicated.

5.2 A Federation

The second option to consider is the establishment of a federation of existing library bodies. It is claimed that the benefit of a federation is that it would improve coordination between existing bodies which would allow the sector to put forward a more unified view to governments and other decision makers.

The federation option was considered at all the capital city meetings, however, it was rejected on the basis that it would add yet another organisational tier on what generally was accepted as an unsatisfactory existing structures. In particular, it was felt that a federation structure would not address the broader concerns across the library sector relating to the weaknesses of the existing structures. These weaknesses are set out in some detail in section 4 of this report. Furthermore, members of the library sector commented to the review that they had serious reservations concerning the willingness of existing organisations to make a strong commitment to a new umbrella body which may necessitate a certain loss of authority by the individual members of the federation.

Of the submissions received by the review, a small number supported the establishment of a federation of existing library bodies. Only the submission by the South Australian State Committee of ACLIS provided details of such a federal structure and explained how such a federal structure would operate. Under the South Australian ACLIS proposal a federation would be established with the following features:

  1. ACLIS would continue to exist as an organisation concerned with institutional issues;
  2. ALIA would continue to exist as a body dealing with individual issues, and ALIA would have to reconsider its present role in relation to institutional membership;
  3. a national executive committee would be established with equal representation from both ACLIS and ALIA drawn from their national committees and including their executive directors. The executive committee would be called the 'Library Council of Australia' or 'Libraries Australia.' The role of this body would be to consider issues as they relate to either the profession or to institutions and to direct them to the appropriate body for consideration.

According to the South Australian Branch of ACLIS this federation option would have the following advantages:

  • the autonomy of the present associations is largely preserved;
  • most elements are already in place;
  • it would be relatively easy to implement with the minimum of disruption;
  • co-location in itself would encourage co-operation and collaboration;
  • the 'Library Council of Australia' or 'Libraries Australia' etc. as the umbrella committee is likely to be strengthened by evolution based on experience;
  • the arrangement easily translates to the state and regional level, again with a minimum of disruption;
  • affiliation of other library associations is encouraged through institutional membership;
  • liaison with professional bodies with related interests (National Book Council, Copyright Council, etc.) is improved.

John Brudenall in his submission considered the establishment of a new 'federation' of all library and information services bodies, however, he recognised the shortcomings of such a federation when he stated:

"The peak body may not have the authority or standing to speak on behalf of a diverse group of organisations and it would take exceptional leadership to achieve such a position of authority. Compared to this is the possibility of a combined ALIA/ACLIS organisation which can draw on the total strength of the two organisations, forming alliances with other organisations where there are common interests to pursue. I believe it is very doubtful if a 'Federation' or peak body would be worth the additional cost in its establishment."

The consultants consider that the federation option put forward by the South Australian Branch of ACLIS suffers from the following shortcomings:

  • it fails to address the serious concerns expressed within the industry and profession that the distinction between individual and institutional issues is artificial;
  • the federal-type structure is likely to substantially add to administrative costs at the expense of delivering benefits to the members of the sector;
  • the federation option does not address the on-going roles of ACLIS and ALIA which, in the view of the broader membership, involves duplication overlap and inefficient use of scarce resources;
  • the federation does not address the long-term future financial viability of ACLIS;
  • the federation proposal would require ALIA to give up its institutional membership when this is not likely to be the case.

For the reasons set out above, the consultants do not believe that a federation-type structure will offer any significant benefits to the industry and profession and that it would really defer the need to deal with the existing concerns identified in the review. In an historic perspective the move to a federation-type structure would run the serious risk of being merely another small change to industry representation consistent with previous initiatives, but failing to deliver major changes which are required to meet the challenges into the next century. In these circumstances, the federation option is rejected.

5.3 A Single Peak Organisation

The next option considered by the review is the proposal for a single peak library organisation to represent the broad interests of the library sector. While both ACLIS and ALIA acknowledge the artificial distinction between institutional and individual interests, the issue was considered extensively throughout the review both in discussions at meetings in capital cities and in written submissions. As far as the meetings were concerned only two issues were identified as creating possible irreconcilable differences. The first related to the role of any such new single entity in industrial relations. It was generally agreed that ALIA had not adopted a trade union advocacy role in relation to industrial relations but had established an advisory service for its members. ALIA members expressed a strong desire for the growth and development of industrial advisory services against a background of rapid structural and legislative industrial reforms. Only a small number of ALIA members actually suggested that ALIA should extend its advisory role to an advocacy role in circumstances where union representation in the sector of library interests appears to be rather weak.

The second area which creates potential tension between institutional and individual interests relates to the issue of free access to public library services. While ALIA maintains a strong in-principle support for free public access to libraries, institutions are increasingly under pressure as a result of financial constraints to impose charges on library users. The meeting held in Canberra considered this issue, however, one library representative referred to these differences as being no greater than the differences that would emerge either within ALIA or within ACLIS at the present time and which require resolution. Such differences were described as, 'shades of gray' and not as differences which were not capable of being reconciled.

In its written submission to the review ACLIS states:

"... it is perhaps academic to try to fit every issue into a box marked 'individual' or 'institutional.' What is vital to understand is that the approach to each issue, and the result sought from addressing each issue, may well be different for the individual and for the institution."

In any event, the description of ALIA as a professional body does not pay adequate regard to ALIA having nearly 1000 institutional members not including voucher-only members.

Support for a Single Peak Organisation

The review received overwhelming support for a single peak library organisation. Of the approximately 50 written submissions to the review, more than 40 strongly argued for a single peak body. It is important to recognise that this support came both within the membership of ACLIS and ALIA and was also supported by other sectoral organisations including CAUL and ASLA. For example, Alex Byrne, President of CAUL, stated:

"The most promising approach would seem to be the establishment of a new 'ALIA' consisting of two strong divisions, the professional and the institutional, with matrix-style connections to specialist committees (e.g., UCRL, Cataloguing). This would demand a restructured General Council consisting of, say, four representatives elected by members of each division plus a chair elected by all members."

The ALIA View

ALIA believes that it has the capacity to represent both the needs of individuals and institutions and it claims that this already occurs within ALIA without difficulty. In other words, ALIA believes that there is a capacity for one peak organisation to meet the needs of both individuals and institutions when it states:

"Through a process of continual assessment we believe that our Association is well placed to emerge as a strong and forceful entity in the next century.
During the consultations associated with this review the issue has been raised of the capacity of one peak organisation to meet the needs of both individuals and institutions. This already occurs within ALIA without difficulty. Indeed, the interests of the individual and the library organisation are not easily separated in the manner that might be associated with trade and industrial bodies. Institutional issues in our sector are not principally employer oriented as, in the main, libraries and information services are part of a larger organisational structure (such as in universities, TAFE, schools and special libraries). In the work of ACLIS, a body exclusively representing institutions, the key issues of business revolve round service delivery, co-operation with related sectors and legal and regulatory matters (copyright and on-line content regulation for example). All of these issues are relevant to the individual and are reflected in the program of activities undertaken by ALIA.
It is in the area of copyright that ACLIS has played an outstanding role in recent years. There exists no reason why ALIA could not perform this role into the future should ACLIS no longer exist. Indeed, the reason that ALIA has played a more low-key role in relation to copyright has been for the practical purpose of recognizing the futility of duplication of activity. It has not been a response to the proposition that copyright is an 'institutional' issue. Indeed it is difficult, on any basis of analysis, to reach such a conclusion.
In the light of the foregoing there is nonetheless potential for the re-evaluation of services provided to institutional members within ALIA. This is a recurring item of business for our General Council and, in the event that ACLIS does not continue to exist, this matter would become the focus of detailed study and consultation with library institutions. Any number of options for organisational reform resulting from such review could be proffered. In the absence of detailed evaluation such suggestions would be of little immediate value.
ALIA has an extensive network of relationships with other related organisations. The networks are both formal and informal and extend beyond the library and information service community. There could be scope for the formalisation of a network of library organisations through the establishment of an annual summit where key issues are discussed. This may facilitate the exchange of views, the avoidance of duplication and the identification of areas for collaboration between ALIA and other groups such as:
  • Council of Australian University Librarians
  • Australian School Libraries Association
  • Council of Australian State Librarians
  • Australian Law Librarians Group
  • New Zealand Library and Information Association."

The ACLIS View

In its submission, ACLIS places on the record its willingness to work cooperatively with ALIA to achieve the highest quality of service to Australia's libraries and libraries' staff. ACLIS further states that the current climate of change provides an excellent opportunity for the two organisations to put aside any perceived or real differences and create a new organisation which will deliver that quality of service.

The National Council of ACLIS suggests that the way forward for ACLIS and ALIA is to:

  1. agree on a vision for a new organisation to represent both individuals and institutions;
  2. agree on a timetable for achieving a new structure that would translate that vision into reality;
  3. agree on a memorandum of understanding which would allow the two organisations to achieve the desired outcome as soon as possible."

ACLIS suggests that a memorandum of understanding entered into between ACLIS and ALIA should address the following issues:

  • a clear and agreed statement of role and objectives of any interim arrangement;
  • a national council elected by and from the institutional membership base;
  • a designated senior member to act as head of the 'institutional arm;'
  • agreed financial arrangements;
  • access to appropriate office accommodation, staff and services at reasonable cost;
  • an agreed assessment and review process, covering assessment methodology, timeframe and windup provisions.

The merging of professional and institutional interests into a single body also needs to be accompanied by an initiative which will achieve greater coordination with sectoral groups: university, TAFE, schools, special state, national and public libraries. It is recommended that a peak library body should invite key sectoral bodies to participate in a loose-knit library coalition to address national issues of mutual interest. The role of the library coalition would be to:

  • exchange information;
  • address national policy issues impacting on the library industry and profession, and
  • where appropriate, commit joint resources to particular national activities.

It is suggested that the library coalition would be convened on an annual rotating basis by each of its members. Membership of the library coalition should be extended to ensure the widest possible representation of national library interests, and it should of course include the NLA. The library coalition should initially meet on an annual basis.

5.4 Conclusion and Recommendations

The overwhelming support from within the library and information services sector is for a single peak body. Given the enormous amount of goodwill expressed across Australia for such a body, this goal should be pursued as quickly as possible.

While some submissions to the review refer to a "merger of ACLIS and ALIA" and others refer to the establishment of a new body, it would appear that ALIA has a credible claim to be such a peak body. Such a claim is based on ALIA's role and aims, its role in the library and information sector, and the significant resources which are at its disposal to carry out such a role. In these circumstances, it is recommended that ALIA and ACLIS should immediately commence discussions for the purpose of merging the two organisations at the earliest possible time.

While a merger of the two bodies will be a first step in enhancing library representation, it needs to be accompanied by important administrative changes to accommodate the broader needs of the library community in relation to professional and institutional interests. For example, a single peak library organisation will need to address the outcomes expected by members as advised by representatives of the sector at the Sydney workshop and as outlined in section 4.3 of this report.

The detail of internal changes required to be made by ALIA to take on the role of a single peak body are largely beyond the terms of reference of this review but should include the need for institutional members to have voting rights, and attention to policy issues such as copyright. Like all peak bodies they are established to represent the interests of members and for governance and accountability reasons there is also a need to evaluate the performance of such a body.

However, we view with some concern the proposal that a single peak library body establish a separate council to represent institutional interests. We caution against such a move on the basis that it runs the serious risk of maintaining the somewhat artificial distinction between professional and institutional interests presently applying between ACLIS and ALIA. Experience with peak industry bodies in their attempts to establish separate councils in circumstances where there are similar agendas have not been successful.

The establishment of a single peak body representing the industry and the profession will not only address the shortcomings of existing representation, but will well equip such a body to represent the interests of the library industry and profession into the next century. Further, the establishment of a coalition of library interests will provide an important new structure to better coordinate library representation in Australia.

Following implementation of changes arising out of this report, it is recommended that a review to assess their effectiveness be implemented three years after their commencement.

April 1997


Return to the Start
About This Site | Copyright | Privacy | Accessibility | Site Map | Site Search | Content A-Z | Contact Us