Key issues we asked the public to consider when making their submissions to the Independent review

1. FUNDING FOR FURTHER REHABILITATION OF TRUST LANDS

•  It is clear that the funding by the Commonwealth Government to date has not been sufficient to complete the rehabilitation of Trust land. Many buildings still require restoration before they can be adaptively reused.

• HPG’s view is that the Trust lands cannot become self-funding (if that is at all possible) until such time as the remediation of contaminated lands and rehabilitation of buildings (including restoration, e.g. Ten Terminal) has been completed

• The Commonwealth Government gifted these lands to the nation, it is HPG’s view that the Commonwealth Government has a moral obligation to fund this work.

• Alternative funding options are canvassed by the review. They could only realistically be achieved through major commercialisation or exceedingly generous benefactors.

• HPG opposes major commercialisation of Trust lands. HPG is concerned that many well resourced, vocal, and vested commercial or sporting interests will push for a significant change of usage, resulting in more developed commercial and sporting infrastructure, which may lead to an inevitable loss of parkland. HPG considers that the correct balance already exist between retaining environmental and heritage values with the adaptive re-use and commercialisation of existing heritage buildings. The Trust Act and supporting plans currently ensure that the correct outcomes are maintained.

• HPG opposes any future amendment of the current legislation, which may seek to erode these very important protections.

2. THE FUTURE OF THE HARBOUR TRUST

The public is asked to consider scenarios for the future management of Trust lands, including whether the lands

• be handed over to the NSW Government or local Councils to manage
OR
• continue to be vested in the Trust as an ongoing independent entity in perpetuity.

HPG says NO to the transfer of land to the NSW Government to manage.

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 Wildlife system. HPG understands that these lands, if transferred to the State, will not form part of National Parks. 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.

HPG says NO to the transfer of land to local Councils to manage.

Local Councils must look after local interests. They do not necessarily have the interests of ALL AUSTRALIANS at heart and local Councils are under enormous pressure to satisfy the wants of local lobby groups in their municipalities. For this reason, HPG is against local Councils owning or managing this land.

HPG strongly believes that the Trust must continue as an ongoing entity with current protections in place.

HPG acknowledges the valuable work undertaken by the Trust to date in rehabilitating the former defence sites on Sydney Harbour and opening them for public access. HPG considers that the Trust is the appropriate entity to continue the rehabilitation and management of these lands. If the Trust is dissolved, and lands handed to another entity, legislative protections currently in place will disappear and there is no guarantee that future protections will be sufficient to protect this land from urbanisation and commercial development.

Headland Preservation Group
January 2020