Sydney Morning Herald Opinion by Linda Bergin
9 December 2019
See full story here: www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/rushed-review-of-harbour-body-needs-explanation-20191128-p53f49.html
Text:
On October 30, without fanfare, the Morrison government’s Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, announced a first-ever and wide-ranging “independent review” of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, the 20-year old Commonwealth agency that manages some of Australia’s most priceless and historic harbour sites.
The review leader, the former NSW secretary of planning, Carolyn McNally, said “that her focus would be on listening to the public”.
Harbour trust chair, Joseph Carrozzi, said the review was to “strongly encourage our community to have their say” so the sites are “fit for the future”.
What do his words mean? Will the review deliver more needed investment or more unwelcome commercialisation?
Given these emphases on the importance of engaging the public in "the first full review of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, which manages some of the nation’s most historic sites", it is utterly baffling why the review has not been actively promoted by either the government or the trust. What are the “legislative and financial impediments” Ms Ley claims the trust has.
Announced in 1998 by the Howard government, the trust acquired surplus former defence lands at Cockatoo Island, North and Middle heads, Georges Heights, Chowder Bay, Woolwich, Watsons Bay, and Vaucluse. Sub Base Platypus in Neutral Bay was added later. When announced, prime minister Howard said: “I am immensely proud of the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. It is a great national asset. It is an asset that belongs to all of the Australian people.”
The trust by law must be wound up in 2033. Trust lands might then be transferred to others, potentially losing their protections and funding, unless the Act is amended to make the trust a permanent body.
The trust is also an innovative agency. It generates its own revenue to partially fund its expenditures, and also receives appropriations. But these tend to be ad-hoc, not guaranteed annually. Although the trust calls itself a self-funding agency, there appears to be no requirement in law for this. So why did, on initiating the review, Minister Ley claim "self-funding" to be a “founding objective” of the trust? Complete self-funding may never be achievable or desirable. It would no doubt cause the trust to focus on commercial opportunities rather than broad public enjoyment and access.
In its 20-year life, the Harbour Trust has excelled at public consultation, considered by many the best ever undertaken by a government body. However, the review consultation is being managed by the federal Department of Environment and Energy, not the trust, and it falls well short.
Added to the undesirability of a December 23 deadline for public submissions, some information about the three public forums was initially missing, for at least five days after the minister’s announcement.
The terms of reference are impossibly broad, spanning governance, financial, and legal – even asking the public to provide “case studies that illustrate the potential” of the 11 diverse sites. A tall order considering the trust spans 145 hectares, has 165 tenancies, numerous heritage buildings, monuments and structures, and had almost 2 million visits last year. It also generated $18 million of its own earned revenue last year.
So far, newspaper publicity has been mostly official “public notices” on back pages, rather than prominent editorial. Newsletters were emailed to the trust’s extensive lists, but mention of the review was hard to spot, with the exception of an email from chair Carrozzi.
The first public forum was held at Cockatoo Island. Only 10 minutes were given to explain the detailed 15-page “public consultation paper” to the 25-30 people present. One attendee suggested putting a department store on trust lands. The official map omitted a trust site called Drill Hall Precinct.
Aside from the clearly inadequate consultation, the government needs to clearly articulate its reasoning for this rushed review. Given the review’s stated need for additional funds for the trust, and the incredible importance of the lands, it would be a tragedy if the trust was pushed into major commercialisation detrimental to Mr Howard’s founding vision.
Linda Bergin is a long-time advocate for the protection and preservation of heritage sites on the Sydney Harbour foreshore.