Submission to the Review by Sarah Benjamin and Phillip Keir
Published with permission
Dear Carolyn McNally and Erin Flaherty,
I am writing a late submission to the review having been unaware of its existence until now so rather than a full submission addressing the set criteria, this is a general response to the reports of a forty-nine year lease to Cockatoo Island Foundation and the review process generally.
There have been various reports that Cockatoo Island Foundation - a registered charity - is seeking the extended lease to allow it to set up long-term arrangements. The length of the lease at forty nine years is close to perpetuity. This would result in the alienation of public land for a virtual life time. Moreover, the corpus proposed by Cockatoo Island Foundation is wholly insufficient for a term of forty nine years. Over that period this investment is barely $1.5m per year. Given the Sydney Harbour Trust has claimed that it still has very large remediation costs in the years ahead the suggested investment by Cockatoo Island Foundation is totally inadequate unless they drive the commercial development of this location in a very aggressive manner.
This project was been described on ABC Radio Breakfast as something akin to the Naoshima Art Island in Japan and to the hugely successful Mona in Hobart. The difference between these two projects and the Cockatoo project could not be more stark. Both Naoshima and Mona were developed on private land. Both were developed in “unexpected” locations often remote from very large cities. Cockatoo Island already has a long history of cultural and community activities. It has hosted the Biennale of Sydney continuously for the last 12 years. The differences could not be more extreme.
It has been suggested that this project will introduce large pieces of art onto the island that are beyond the capacity of the Art Gallery of NSW and the MCA to achieve. This scale of ambition is unlikely to achieved on a budget of $1.5m per year. This brings us back to the inevitable conclusion that this project can only be delivered if funded by a harbourside commercial property play on a mammoth scale.
The timing of the review of the Trust gives the impression that the bigger game for the Federal Government is to renege on the initiative made by the Howard Government to return the former defence force sites to the people of Australia in perpetuity and create the finest foreshore park in the world. Sydney harbour is the great civic space of our city and the Sydney Harbour Trust sites are a magnificent and precious asset to the people Australia and visitors who come to enjoy them. One of the wonderful things about these sites is their obvious lack of commercial activity. They are a place of pure enjoyment and recreation. The valuable spaces of the Sydney Harbour Trust are loved for their layered histories and remanent flora and the very real sense that they belong to us all, not to one group or another.
It is unfortunate that the plans for Cockatoo Island made by the Cockatoo Island Foundation Project appear so well formed and yet the general population have had little time or even awareness of the issues at stake, let alone transparency of process. It looks like something that has been in the planning for some time with the knowledge of both Federal and NSW State Governments and a few invested individuals. I imagine the vision of the Cockatoo Island Foundation and its backers is genuine but the impact of what is proposed would be profound. Despite claims of philanthropy by Cockatoo Island Foundation, the community would not be the long term beneficiaries because Cockatoo Island would be the thin end of the wedge for the long term leasing of all or other of the trust sites.
I see that in her letter to the Chairman of the Trust Mr Joseph Carrozzi, Minster Ley writes of ‘moving closer towards the founding objective when the Trust was established that, over time, it would become self funding” I’m sure you are aware that the self funding model referred to by Senator Ley does not appear in the Act. This gives the impression that the present federal Government is simply looking for cost shifting and savings rather than investing time, thought and funds to allow this fabulous cultural heritage precinct to flourish. The Sydney Harbour Trust has delivered on its brief despite ongoing financial constraints, now it's time for adequate funding for this magnificent public asset to be assured with public funds.
Sincerely
Sarah Benjamin and Phillip Keir