The independent review of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Public consultation paper included a series of ‘discussion’ questions to “assist interested parties in developing their input”. The paper says “These discussion questions are intended to be ‘thought starters’ only. They do not reflect any desired outcome from the review.”
Many of the community members who participated in the three public forums (Cockatoo Island, Headland Park Mosman and North Head Sanctuary Manly) had strong views in response to those questions. Some felt many questions were leading questions, that perhaps there was a hidden agenda.
Here are our responses to those questions.
Harbour Trust sites
Question 1. Are you familiar with the vision, objectives and policies for Harbour Trust sites set out in the Comprehensive Plan and management plans? Do you think these are still appropriate? Why? Why not and what would you like to see changed?
HPG is totally familiar with the vision, objectives and policies for Harbour Trust sites having been closely involved in the establishment of the Trust, and the drafting of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 and supporting Plans.
The Comprehensive Plan and Management Plans are still appropriate. They serve to protect the lands from inappropriate development and maintain their aesthetic, cultural, historic, indigenous, convict and defence heritage for all Australians.
HPG does not support any changes which would water down the protections afforded by the Trust Act, the Comprehensive Plan and the Management Plans.
Question 2. Do you think there are any barriers to the full potential of Harbour Trust sites being realised, such as accessibility? If yes, how do you think these might be addressed?
Lack of Government funding is the obvious barrier to the realisation of the full potential of Harbour Trust sites. Accessibility to the sites is limited where heritage buildings, such as 10 Terminal on Middle Head are closed to the public through lack of remedial funding.
When the military vacated Trust sites extensive remediation was required before some of the sites could be opened to the public. There was no attempt by the Defence Department to remediate the sites. It was left to the Trust to do this. The initial funding, however, given to the Trust by the Federal Government to allow for the full remediation of contamination caused by Defence activities, has been insufficient to complete this huge task.
The Australia New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) has stated that “government agencies who have contributed to or exacerbated contamination by the exercise of operational functions should be liable for contaminated site remediation”.
The funding predicament the Trust finds itself in now is a direct result of this initial lack of funding. ‘Self-funding ‘of Trust sites is clearly the aim of the Commonwealth even though it is not referred to or defined in the Trust Act. The Trust may never become self-funding without more capital being allocated by the Government or major commercial investment to complete the necessary remediation. The latter would be in direct contradiction to the aims of the Trust Act, Comprehensive Plan and Management Plans. HPG is totally opposed to major commercial developments on what is public land.
A major barrier to the success of Trust lands is transport to and from Trust sites. These sites are on the harbour and would benefit from being connected by a ferry service. Public access would be maximised by the introduction of such a service .It would enable the sites to be readily accessible to all Australians, and at the same time, making them a very attractive tourist destination.
Question 3. Are appropriate consultation processes in place to capture and respond to community aspirations for Harbour Trust sites? If not, how might these be improved?
The CAC (Community Advisory Council) is made up of representatives from all the Trust sites. There are, however, only 4 meetings of 2 hours p.a. There is very little time for discussion. The first hour is usually a lecture by the Trust covering what they have done and the second hour includes a refreshment break and then a short time for discussion of concerns about the different sites.
Sometimes the whole of this time is dedicated to one site. There are not enough avenues for consultation. There is also no guarantee or assurance that the results of the CAC discussions are conveyed to the Board. To ensure the CAC’s views are heard, a CAC representative should have a seat on the Trust Board. There is little point to having the CAC if its views are not given due consideration and weight by the Board.
The Trust consults with those whom they consider are stakeholders; however the biggest stakeholder, the wider community, is largely ignorant of the Trust’s activities. The public profile of the Trust is limited and it needs to do more to engage with the community.
Question 4. Do you think the Harbour Trust or governments should put more investment in one site over another? Why?
All the sites are different. They have differing layers of heritage telling stories of indigenous habitation, the early struggling NSW colony, defence of Sydney Harbour and Australia in Colonial times, WW1, WW2 and Vietnam War. Cockatoo Island was an industrial site with huge buildings and World heritage listing and will therefore need much more money to fully realise its potential.
Similarly, North Head is a very large area of land with many buildings to rehabilitate. Platypus had much contamination to clean up (which the Federal Government to its credit did fund) and was a largely industrial Defence submarine site after being the site of a gas works. Middle Head’s 10 Terminal has a great deal of asbestos that needs removal.
It follows that some sites will obviously need more investment than others.
Question 5. What balance do you think should be struck in retaining the natural environment and heritage value with commercialisation of old buildings to cover the costs of further rehabilitation?
HPG supports the present balance between retaining the natural environment and heritage values of Trust lands whilst adaptively re-‐using heritage buildings for small scale commercial or public benefit purposes. This enables the Trust to generate enough income to cover ongoing maintenance and minor enhancements of its lands and heritage buildings. However, it cannot hope to generate income without first undertaking the extensive remediation work currently delayed due to lack of capital.
Over-commercialisation of Trust lands and buildings would irreversibly compromise their heritage value, restrict public access and not accord to the provisions of the Trust Act.
The proposed Aged Care Development on Middle Head was a stark example of over commercialization and privatisation. The heritage value of 10 Terminal would have been destroyed and the public denied access to the buildings or the surrounding grounds. Such commercial development does not accord with the Howard Government’s aim to return the harbor foreshore land to the people.
Question 6. Who do you think should maintain and rehabilitate the land around Sydney Harbour that is currently managed by the Harbour Trust?
The Trust should have its term of office extended in perpetuity to maintain and rehabilitate the land around Sydney Harbour that it currently manages. It is Commonwealth land given to all the people of Australia as a federation gift. It should not be handed over to the NSW government or local Councils. This land belongs to all Australians whether residing in NSW or elsewhere. It should remain Commonwealth land protected for the benefit of future generations.
Role of the Harbour Trust
Question 7. How effective do you think the Harbour Trust has been in performing its role to date? Do you think the Commonwealth should have an ongoing role in managing its sites?
The Trust has been very effective in the past. However, in recent years, with changes of board members, engagement with stakeholders has fallen away. HPG believes that the board needs stronger governance, broader stakeholder representation and an injection of expertise in areas of environment and heritage conservation.
Question 8. What barriers, if any, do you think the Harbour Trust faces to achieving its objectives? How might these barriers be overcome?
The major barrier the Trust faces in achieving its objectives is lack of money for remediation of contaminated sites and adaptive re-use of the remaining historic buildings. It is clearly unrealistic for the Trust to become self-sufficient in funding whilst such multi-million dollar restoration work is pending.
The Commonwealth Government should allocate the necessary funds to allow this work to be completed.
Question 9. Do you think the Harbour Trust has achieved the right balance between public benefit and commercial outcomes in managing the sites vested in it? If not, what should change?
TThe Harbour Trust has achieved the right balance between public benefit and commercial outcomes in managing the sites vested in it. At Headland Park, however, the Trust through lack of funding has been unable to complete the job of adaptively reusing 10 Terminal buildings. These buildings have been left to deteriorate since the establishment of the Trust.
HPG is concerned that the current Trust Board has a preponderance of “business management” appointees, potentially giving it a bias towards commercialisation of Trust lands and buildings. Since there is no environmental, history or heritage expert on the Board despite object 6(b) of the Trust Act requiring the Trust to ‘to protect, conserve and interpret the environment and heritage values of Trust land’ HPG is concerned that environmental concerns may be overlooked or discounted in
favour of business considerations. Major commercialisation of the Trust lands would compromise all the aspirations of its founders and the Trust objects. It would sell the Australian people short. This is our nation’s heritage and we have very little of it left. We must preserve and conserve what remains. Other countries value their heritage and preserve it for future generations. It is incumbent upon us to do the same.
Harbour Trust resources
Question 10. Do you think it is an appropriate or realistic expectation for the Harbour Trust to become self-sufficient through the revenue it obtains from commercial activities? If not, what alternate financing and/or governance models should be considered?
It is unrealistic to consider that the Trust can become self-sufficient through the revenue it obtains from commercial activities without first being able to rehabilitate contaminated land and buildings. The Trust needs additional seed funding to rehabilitate historic buildings to where they can be appropriately used for public purposes, or leased. There is acknowledgement that longer leases may be attractive to tenants enabling them to amortise their financial outlay. It is however important that the terms of such leases do not in effect, result in the alienation of public land for a private purpose.
Senator Hill said (2nd reading speech on passage of the Act 1998) “We are not setting up this trust for the purpose of wealth creation; we are setting up this Trust for the purpose of conserving the asset.”
The Headland Preservation Group is opposed to inappropriate major commercial development on nationally significant land.
Question 11. How do you think the Harbour Trust should prioritise rehabilitation at sites with outstanding works to be completed? For example, the Barracks at North Head?
This question implies that it would be necessary for the Trust to prioritise rehabilitation work subject to the availability of capital. HPG’s view is that capital must be provided by the Commonwealth Government for this purpose. Prioritisation would then be dictated by the ability of the Trust’s staff to identify priorities and properly and efficiently manage each site.
Harbour Trust activities
Question 12. How do you think the Harbour Trust might encourage greater private and philanthropic investment in the sites it manages without risking impacts on public access or amenity? What do you think are the key barriers to the Trust achieving this?
The Trust needs to become much more proactive in seeking private and philanthropic investment in the sites it manages. It needs much more engagement with the local community organisations and individuals who have an interest in helping to preserve the history and heritage of these sites. Private investment, however, must not lead to over-‐commercialisation and alienation of Public lands from the Australian people.
The life of the Trust should be extended so that appropriate leases can be granted to investors who are able to meet the conservation and public access requirements of the Trust Act.
The future of the Harbour Trust
Question 13. What mechanisms should be put in place to protect and enhance the environmental and heritage values of the Harbour Trust?
The Trust is currently protected by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 Trust Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC). These acts give excellent protection to the environmental and heritage values of Trust land.
The key objectives of the Trust Act are:
The ensure that management of Trust land contributes to enhancing the amenity of the Sydney Harbour region;
To protect, conserve and interpret the environmental and heritage values of Trust land;
To maximize public access to Trust land;
To establish and manage suitable Trust land as a park on behalf of the Commonwealth as the national government.
The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 plays an important role in strengthening heritage and environmental safeguards. Both these Acts should be kept in place to protect these unique and priceless lands from inappropriate exploitation.
Question 14. How could the Harbour Trust enhance its role as the custodian of the rich and multi-layered history of Trust sites, including in relation to the First Nations peoples?
The Trust could enhance its role as the custodian of the rich and multi-‐layered history of Trust sites, including First Nation peoples, by undertaking education programs for school children especially. The Trust lands are potential outdoor classrooms of history, both colonial, social, military, indigenous, geography, marine science and many others. The Trust should reach out to country, migrant and indigenous children, bringing pupils to Trust lands and in particular to Headland Park, North Head and Cockatoo Island to learn about this important diverse history.
With the new 80 kilometre Bondi to Manly walk about to be launched in early December, the harbour lands will become one of the great urban walks of the world. Middle Head is in the middle of this walk. With vision and promotion, 10 Terminal could be used for short term accommodation and respite for walkers.
An Art Gallery of Indigenous Defence Personnel could also be located in part of the 10 Terminal complex – a very appropriate location for such a display.
Interpretation centres highlighting indigenous, colonial and military heritage should be established at Headland Park and Cockatoo Island, similar to the one on North Head. These centres could be manned by volunteers.
Question 15. Do you think the land vested in the Harbour Trust should be returned to the New South Wales Government or local councils to manage?
HPG is opposed to the transfer of land to either the NSW Government or local councils.
It was the intention at the end of the tenure of the Trust that the Trust lands were to be handed to the NSW Government for inclusion in the National Parks and Reserves system. However, this intention is not embodied in legislation. There is no guarantee that the lands will end up in the National Parks portfolio. In any event, with the push by the NSW Government to commercialise national parks, HPG is not in favour of the NSW Government managing these lands.
The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service is itself underfunded and subject to NSW government commercialisation pressures to generate revenue. It is not set up to manage a complex heritage park such as Headland Park. It is likely that the NSW Government would push for Headland Park to be absorbed into another Government entity with unpredictable consequences in terms of major commercialisation.
Local Councils must look after local interests. They do not necessarily have the interests of ALL AUSTRALIANS at heart. Many Mosman residents, for example, already regard Headland Park as their backyard with plenty of “spare land” for sporting uses. Mosman Council is under enormous pressure to satisfy the wants local lobby groups. For this reason, HPG is against local Councils owning or managing this land.
If the Trust is dissolved, and lands handed to another entity, all legislative protections currently in place will disappear and there is no guarantee that future protections will be sufficient to protect this land from urbanization and commercial development.
HPG strongly believes that the Trust must continue as an ongoing entity with current protections in place for all Trust lands.
Question 16. Should the Harbour Trust’s role be expanded to include other areas of Commonwealth land? If yes, what sites should be considered?
HPG would be in favour of such an extension of the Trust’s role only providing sufficient funding is provided by the Federal Government to facilitate any remediation work required. An additional burden on the Trust without adequate funding would be totally counter-productive.
Question 17. Do you think there would be general acceptance of changes to legislation to allow the Harbour Trust to pursue more commercial avenues to fund its operations?
HPG opposes any amendments to the current legislation, which would seek to erode the current protections in the Trust Act by promoting major commercialisation and alienation of public land by developers.
The consultation paper provides no guidelines as to the possible amendment of the Trust Act except to say that longer leases will provide greater certainty and security for a prospective tenant and thus will be a more attractive proposition for prospective tenants. (The Act presently restricts leases with a term beyond 2033 – namely 13 years away, without Ministerial approval.)
The Consultation Paper provides no indication of the length of lease envisaged. HPG is opposed to long term leases that would alienate public park land from the public indefinitely.The existing provisions of the Trust Act and supporting plans ensure that the balance between commercial activity (i.e. confined within existing historical buildings) and the protection of heritage and environment is maintained. These provisions should not be amended in any way.