In 1991 Davison and McConville described the 'heritage business' as being "subject to constant tension between the demands for bureaucratic consistency and impersonal expertise on one hand and for popular participation and local autonomy on the other" (p. 11). The decisions and debate over the fate of Australian political icon Gough Whitlam's birthplace 'Ngara' more than 20 years on suggests that despite changes to legislation, the chasm between perceptions and procedures used to define built cultural heritage continues to loom large.

'Ngara' (meaning "to listen, to hear and to think"), rose to media prominence on the discovery it was coincidentally scheduled for demolition the day Gough Whitlam died. The following two days saw finger pointing between the Planning Minster, Heritage Victoria and Boroondara Council against a backdrop of public outcry at its potential loss. The decisions, statements and processes that occurred around 'Ngara' give rise to questions regarding the efficacy and consistency of Victoria's planning mechanisms surrounding built cultural heritage and whether they represent public interests.

This paper juxtaposes relevant examples of the birthplace of leaders from Australia and draws on interviews and surveys as well as analysis of documents including legislation, policy decisions and media responses. Using Gough Whitlam's birthplace 'Ngara' as a case study, it explores the legislation, processes and decisions used to determine cultural heritage in Victoria and explores if the systems and bodies in place provide consistent outcomes, adhere to the adopted "best practice" of the Burra Charter and adequately represent community views.