Whilst the structure of the Minister’s public forum offered no comfort about keeping public land in public hands, informative and cogent comments were made by Phil Jenkyn, Nick Hollo, and Peter Lowry, who were involved in the early days of the Trust 20 years ago.
The Reviewers, Carolyn McNally and Erin Flaherty, presented summaries of some of the points that came out of their consultations so far:
Talked to 500 people
Received 200 submissions
People have put forward strongly the sites are unique, they are important to people and of national significance
Most people think the Trust has done a good job
Strong support for Trust lands to remain
Erin Flaherty: Funding was provided by the Government $130 million for capital expenditure and $40 mill for the 1st five years. It was assumed it would be wound up in 2011, but in 2007 NSW transferred North Head and the result was the Trust extended to 2033, and even though the term was extended, they did not get further funding.
One of the other issues is that even though the Trust was initially funded for remediation of the sites a lot of work still needs to be done in relation to the sites particularly Cockatoo and North Head, these two sites represent the vast bulk of funds that need to be expended to open up the sites for the public and provide the access the Trust would like these sites to have.
There is an opportunity to make comments on legislative changes if they are needed, and the consolidated plan which underlines the workings of the Trust. When the Trust was first established by legislation the Consolidated Plan was drawn up and basically the sites have been remediated in accordance withe that Consolidated plan but that Consolidated Plan is now 20 years old and we would like some feedback on whether that Consolidated Plan is fit for purpose.
We were given no instructions of any predetermined agenda.
Carolyn McNally: Public access, there’s been very very very strong support for maximising public access and land use, not just form the community but from everyone… all levels of government, politicians and the business sector everyone sees this as essential for the ongoing future of the sites. Mixed views on funding… you only have to read the media this week, but it’s been controversial at some fo the forums as well. Many have argued for ongoing commonwealth funding for not only the operation of the Trust but the capital site upgrades still to happen.
Others however have acknowledged that the Trust is operationally self-finding with annual revenue of $18 mill per annum. It has relied on its own revenue to operate now since 2010 and has received top-ups for capital upgrades on particular capital projects. People argue that the Commonwealth should continue to make good on former Defence sites and finance the tRust to finish the rehabilitation tasks largely now on Cockatoo Island and North Head. Others however have focused more on the long-term sustainability of the sites and have pointed out that sustainability of heritage buildings is mainly achieved when there is a private sector commercial participation and commercial certainty for the sites. People have identified cases where this exists:
GPO Building Martin Place
QVB
Boat facilities alongside Cockatoo Island
Restaurant and yacht facilities Woolwich
Different commercial uses for different sites. But no one supports major residential, office or large hotel facility.
Questions/comments from the audience
Phil Jenkyn: I was the chair of Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores there were two battles: two years to get the Government to save these lands and then a two year battle on the Act.
And on the act why we are so strong on the Act and keeping the Act it really does oblige the Commonwealth to fund and if you go very briefly to the preamble and into the some of the Clauses of the Act it does state that the Trust is to conserve and preserve the lands for the benefit of present and future generations. That doesn’t mean you’re not given any money to do that, you can’t achieve that without and funds and appropriations. It says also that it is to establish the Trust to manage the land and the facilities and to return it in good order, that’s still there in the Act.
The concept is to actually do the work and to bring these up to good order, that requires money. Then you’ve got in the Act an appropriation… I think it is clause 59 allowing the Commonwealth to make appropriations, which it did in the first 5–8 years. And there’s nothing in the Act that says it has to be self-sufficient. So those four things actually in my view require the Government to properly fund the Trust ongoing.
Reply from Carolyn McNally: On the point about self-funding ,when we met with people in the Trust that were there quite early they did set about setting up the Trust in a way that they could get operational revenue from a policy perspective while it wasn’t in the legislation it seemed to be part of the policy approach that was taken.
In terms of the large amounts of money that have been mentioned around rehabilitation tasks that’s left we are currently looking at that amount of money and what that is supposed to cover and go towards, but I think the issue that gets really sort of pertinent at that point is that the Trust is actually supposed to cease in 2033. If you have a look at needs to happen on those sites, a really important issue that needs to be addressed is the life of the Trust.
Nick Hollo: Good evening I’m Nick Hollo, and I worked at the Harbour Trust for the first 15 years, and I’d like to thank the reviewers for their comprehensive overview of the comments you have received so far. I’d just like to say a couple of things for clarity and to dispel some entrenched options that seem to be, that people seem to think should be, accepted as truth or fact.
During the first 15 years when I was working at the Trust we did not find that a 25 year lease limit was an issue, we had quite a few notable tenancies that invested a hell of lot of money in properties that were well within the 25 years.
The way in which one should look at leasing isn’t commercial bad, community good, and that if you do anything commercial it has to be a compromise, we always must look at it as an opportunity to actually do things that strengthen and further the objectives of the Trust. So it must never ever be an end in itself to either gain finance or solve an immediate problem it needs always regardless of whatever one might think, it must always be grounded in what the Trust needs to achieve and that’s how we did try to do it.
Of course it wasn’t always successful all the time but that’s what must underpin it. And having 25 years where you don’t want to generally lease a whole site because you lose the sense of diversity as a way you can help to achieve it. And there’s not many leases that are currently are up to 25 years.
The whole place has to evolve like an ecology; it’s not like a fish tank that you make up overnight; it’s something that evolves more like a lake. To create a place that’s vibrant and active, it needs a lot of time. You don’t have to do all this stuff all at once, and funding may come and go according to whatever Governments can afford and the opportunity has to be there for it to continue.
The main constraint was the life of the Trust, the limited life, that was the main constraint in terms of business.
Peter Lowry: I was appointed to the interim Trust, and I then served on the board of the Trust for 13 years, so I have a fair understanding of the way the Trust operated. But one of the reasons why the Trust has been working well is because of the work that was put into the Interim Trust… I was disappointed in the slides; one of the slides didn’t mention the interim Trust.
We had a phenomenal Chairman in Kevin McCann. We put a fantastic Chief Executive Geoff Bailey and Nick Hollo here. We consulted, as the Minister said in her speech, ‘consult’ and ‘listen,’ which we did, to all of these different groups. There were 39 different groups, and that went from 1999 to 2001, and there were two fundamental points that came out of all those consultations: do not under any circumstances alienate the land, do not sell off any land, and be very careful how you treat leases. Which is a problem we are coming to now.
So what the opportunities? What I think, what transparency… and the transparency has to relate to the question asked by John down here about the Cockatoo Island Foundation, and I am asking the panel were you aware of all the submission being made by the Foundation, were you aware of the meetings the Trust had with the Foundation?
Answer from Carolyn McNally: Well, I can say I wasn’t. My first understanding of the Cockatoo Island Foundation was after we’d been appointed as reviewers, and they put in a submission, so I had no previous knowledge.
Answer from Erin Flaherty: That’s correct, the first time we were aware, well I was aware of it was you know the first time we started the review the very first Cockatoo Island workshop that we held or consultation we held representatives form that group turned up, so that was the first we were aware of that.