Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad for the opportunity to speak on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021 and, before going further, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's failure to adequately respond to growing calls to review and modernise Australia's national heritage protection framework for the betterment of our natural, built, and First Nations cultural heritage".

Labor is supportive of the chief purpose of this legislation, while noting that it does not address broader issues in relation to heritage protection and how that is properly resourced in Sydney Harbour and elsewhere. But we support the fact that this bill secures the role of the trust in protecting and improving public access to the history, cultural significance and physical beauty of some very precious places in a harbour landscape that has no peer. I say that as someone who comes from and belongs to a port city that I love very much. But I accept that there is nowhere on earth quite like Sydney Harbour.

This bill means that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, which was created back in 2001, will continue to manage 11 key heritage sites in perpetuity, bringing to an end the idea that their management might somehow be devolved within more general state based structures in New South Wales. It's entirely appropriate, in my view, that these heritage places, which taken together are of national importance, should be managed through a specific Commonwealth level arrangement, remembering that the sites include the National Heritage Listed North Head Sanctuary and Cockatoo Island, which is part of the UNESCO World Heritage listed Convict Estate, which of course spans the Australian continent.

Again, to emphasise the way in which our heritage is connected and the way that it makes connections, Fremantle Prison, in my electorate, is also part of that estate, and my great-great-grandfather was once one of its guests, having arrived in WA back in 1863. Those sites speak to a critical point in our history, a period replete with cruelty and dispossession, and it is right that we ensure those places can speak to that part of our history, warts and all, as they say, so that we continue to learn and make progress on the path to reconciliation. Sadly, the terrible mistreatment and incarceration of Indigenous people at the time of settlement has a modern day corollary, and in Reconciliation Week and, frankly, every week we should focus on and do something about the unacceptable and shameful rates of Indigenous incarceration and deaths in custody.

On the reforms that this bill contains, I acknowledge the engagement of the minister and her department with Labor through the process to date. We're grateful that the government has agreed to our suggestion that a requirement be built into the act that will ensure that the trust consults the local community on any proposed leases of longer duration.

As I have said, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust estate is comprised of 130 hectares of land across 11 sites. A number of the sites are layered with stories of First Nations peoples of the settlement-convict era and of cultural, industrial and military activity. All those sequential and intermingled strata of history together make them remarkable places, as places that illuminate aspects of the Australian story. If we take Cockatoo Island of an example of the heritage riches within the Sydney Harbour foreshore era, it is worth noting that, for the Eora people of what we now call the Sydney Basin area, the island was known as Wareamah or the place of women, and it may have been a site of ceremonies and practices led and conducted by Eora women. In 1893, the governor of New South Wales, Sir George Gipps, chose what had come to be called Cockatoo Island as the site of a new penal establishment, and the physical structure of the island began to change substantially. Sandstone was blasted and quarried, barracks and prisons were built and, subsequently, when the island was converted into a major shipbuilding and sustainment precinct, land was reclaimed to accommodate some serious industrial manufacturing infrastructure. The Sutherland Dock on Cockatoo Island, when it was completed in 1890, was the largest dry dock of its kind in the world—210 metres in length with a depth of water over the sill at high tide at 9.7 metres. In fact, it was still the largest dry dock in Australia by the time we reached 1945. The island was the official docking station for the Royal Australian Navy from 1870 to 1913 and had a shipbuilding and maintenance function from 1857 to 1991. For the final 20 years of that period, it was responsible for the sustainment of Australia's submarines. Amazingly, Cockatoo Island was only opened to the public in 2007. To the extent that it was known to a wider Australian audience before that time was because, in the lead-up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, it became an important activist site as a satellite of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, which has been established outside Old Parliament House since 1972.

I note comments from the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights which point to current regulations of the act in question which provide it is an offence for a person to organise or participate in a public assembly on trust land. Surely that goes against some basic principles that we would expect to be observed almost anywhere and it is certainly a restriction contrary to the relatively recent history and tradition of Cockatoo Island. I'm glad the minister has said the government is in the process of reviewing the regulations to ensure they are consistent with Australia's international human rights obligations. We expect there wouldn't in future be any restriction upon the ordinary freedoms of expression and assembly.

Across all 11 sites, the trust has the considerable satisfaction and the responsibility of welcoming 1.8 million visitors each and every year, and in that role is charged with conserving the environmental and heritage values of the land while improving the scope and forms of public access. I'm happy to say I'm personally a very big supporter of living and social heritage. It is not enough to only preserve buildings and physical structures, though it's important to do so; sometimes preserving physical structures can actually be the more straightforward heritage task, putting costs to one side. The harder work is to find a way to keep our heritage alive, and I would rather see a heritage building slightly and sensitively modified in keeping with the principles of the Burra Charter, if it allowed an appropriate use and occupation of that building than see it perfectly preserved in disuse, and that's because making a space alive in continuation in some form of its historic function can mean you get the best of social and built heritage. On that point, I am very conscious and supportive of the fact that the work of the Trust is not just about conserving and restoring these places; the Trust's work is also about making it possible to experience the richness, diversity and even the darkness of that heritage, making it come alive, drawing people to it, allowing it to be seen, heard, touched and understood as vividly as possible. Needless to say, that will only be achieved when communities are fully involved and have real agency in the process of seeking the best outcome.

I don't like to say that the task I've just described is to achieve a balance between heritage and development because I think, unfortunately, the language of balance has been corrupted or hollowed out over time in a number of areas and has tended to mean there is an obligation on heritage or on our environment to always accommodate and give way to commercial imperatives, and that isn't true. Whether we're talking about heritage or our environment more broadly, we need to get away from an approach that is always prepared to compromise those values in the name of profit or private development. In any case, this bill will ensure that a set of critically important heritage sites within Sydney Harbour will remain publicly owned and managed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust in perpetuity.

The reforms we are considering in this debate also revise the eligibility criteria for appointment to the board of the harbour trust to better ensure that members have the knowledge required for the future task and that includes heritage, tourism, military service and business development. There are specific requirements going forward that mean the board must include members with local government expertise and with relevant standing as a First Nations representative.

As I've said previously, I'm grateful for the way the government engaged with Labor through the bill's development, including by making some changes that we proposed to improve the mechanisms for community involvement and input, especially around proposed leasing arrangements.

It will come as no surprise that the present state of recognition and protection of Sydney Harbour trust sites was only achieved through decades and decades of community effort. There will always be pressures that work in precisely the wrong direction when it comes to saving community heritage and public land and amenity from the gravitational pull of private ownership and development. Back in the 1990s, when Defence was first considering the disposal of a number of these sites, a collection of local groups came together under the banner of The Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores, and the work of all involved is to thank for the protection and restoration outcomes that have been achieved and that we enhance through this bill.

Anyone can go to Cockatoo Island—as I was fortunate to do at the end of the week before last—and learn about its First Nations history and its convict, military and shipbuilding history, while taking in the incredible vantage that it provides, this great nugget of sandstone bound in fig tree roots soaked in the Australian sun, midstream in Sydney Harbour. The fact that anyone can catch the ferry and have that experience is thanks to a number of people who fought, campaigned and advocated for that outcome. I begin by acknowledging the work of Tom Uren. The trust was established by the Howard government at the turn of this century, but the vision for a comprehensive scheme to deliver protection of the harbour foreshore was first articulated by Tom Uren. He was the minister within the Whitlam government responsible for establishing the Australian Heritage Commission. Tom's often acknowledged for the stories he would tell about his love affair with the harbour and how that was translated into his tireless work to build support at all levels for the protection of these places. I can say, personally, that Tom Uren's role in recognising and helping to protect the distinctive heritage of Fremantle, especially in the area that we call the West End, is remembered with gratitude today.

It will come as no surprise to anyone in this place that the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Opposition, has, from his earliest representative days, been a champion for Sydney Harbour's heritage. He spoke on the bill that created the trust in 2001, and said:

One of the great things about Sydney Harbour and one of the great things about the creation of green foreshore land that is accessible and available to everyone is that it makes Sydney a more egalitarian city.

…   …   …

Strong protection is needed here because at some point in the future governments under financial constraints will be under pressure to sell land.

And that's spot-on. He and his office have worked hard these last 20 years in defence of those principles. I don't think the Labor leader would mind me saying that the nitty-gritty of the groundwork that gives shape to our values and commitments as representatives often falls to our hardworking staff, and in this case, recently, to the super diligent, focused and good-humoured Sue Heath.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the member of Sydney, who has stood up and spoken out about the precious values of Sydney Harbour and the need for proper Commonwealth protection and management of these sites. What's more, in the debate on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill all the way back in the year 2000, the member for Sydney expressed appropriate caution about the potential for heritage places to be sold or crassly commercialised, either through a failure of protection itself or through a badly framed expectation that heritage should mainly pay for itself. As the member for Sydney said in 2000:

What I will not stand for, and what my constituents will not stand for, is the remaining parcels of bushland around Sydney Harbour being sold off or heritage buildings being overdeveloped to make them attractive for sale or lease.

That is well said, and this remains a line that needs to be held. It is still the case that the trust is expected to be self-funding, yet the government has itself acknowledged how unrealistic and potentially harmful that expectation can be, by providing some $40 million in one-off funding last year alone for work over the forward estimates at North Head and Cockatoo Island. Those works are very welcome.

In supporting this bill, Labor calls on the government to ensure that any future commercial activities that may be proposed with any sites are consonant with their heritage values and with the cultural interests of the including First Nations people. Heritage protection is an end in itself, a public good in itself. These sites were not saved so they could provide exclusive opportunities for enterprises that want prime land, prime real estate, for commercial purposes, especially where such activity is likely to harm or compromise heritage values that belong to us.

All of us who get to argue in this place for environmental and heritage protection know that we do so on the foundation that is laid through community activism—local people, traditional owners, action groups, preservation societies, history buffs, bushwalkers, artists and amateur naturalists, one and all. It is local people who make the case for protecting the things we will share. That has been the case with these sites in Sydney Harbour, and I want particularly to thank community organisations like the Headland Preservation Group for their unstinting work. I acknowledge HPG's president, Jill L'Estrange, for her energy, commitment, patience and professionalism. I also acknowledge Linda Bergin OAM, who has been a tireless advocate for the protection of these sites since the trust's inception.

Finally, it's appropriate in Reconciliation Week to conclude my remarks by acknowledging that the places we speak of in this debate have their deepest heritage in First Nations history and culture. That was a clear theme to emerge from the statutory review of the trust completed last year. Labor supports the imperative to deliver greater emphasis and recognition of the very significant First Nations cultural heritage contained in the site. That's why I've moved the second reading amendment. We should reflect in this debate, a year after the disastrous loss of heritage at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia, that Australia still does not have an effective national framework to protect First Nations heritage. It's more than three years since the government said they would achieve a review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. They committed in their heritage strategy to achieving that by December 2017. It's nearly 3½ years since that commitment has not been met. We're still waiting for that review. We're still waiting for the government's response to the interim report of the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia into the tragedy of the Juukan Gorge caves, and we are still waiting for the reform that must follow.

Labor is pleased that this bill will strengthen and secure the ongoing primacy of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust as the custodian of 11 places of great cultural and heritage significance. We thank and acknowledge all the people who have fought to protect these places in the past and all those who without doubt will continue that vital community involvement in future. I encourage anyone in Sydney permanently or as a visitor to go and visit these places and make them part of your experience and your story.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I speak about the bill before the House this afternoon because this legislation, this amendment of the legislation establishing the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, is one of the most important reforms, one of the most important pieces of legislation, for the future of the great harbour that is Sydney Harbour, a part of which I have the great pleasure of representing in this House. I say that for the single reason that through this bill we resolve years of debate about the ongoing role of the Commonwealth in protecting these sites in perpetuity for all Australians. With this bill that debate comes to a close, with the government making a determined decision to ensure that these sites do remain in the hands of the people of Australia, under the custodianship of the Commonwealth and the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, for all time. That is an appropriate outcome because the sites that are managed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust represent some of the jewels in the crown that makes Sydney Harbour the most incredible place and the most incredible harbour of any capital city in the world.

The sites managed by the trust encompass the full suite of Australian history, starting with the incredible legacy of tens of thousands of years of Indigenous activity around Sydney Harbour. These are sites that were of significance both culturally and also in the day-to-day lives of the Indigenous communities of Sydney Harbour. It is appropriate for that reason alone that they're recognised for the value we place on them today. Over the last 230-odd years they have also borne witness to the development of Sydney as the city that it has become. Each of these sites has a unique and incredible story, representing the military history, the built history and the history of Sydney Harbour as a working harbour in a way that very few other sites around the harbour today reflect.

I think about the broad suite of the properties managed by the trust. There's the incredible beauty and the military and Indigenous history of North Head, through to the places of Georges Heights and Chowder Bay in Middle Head, which again reflect those values. There's the Macquarie Lighthouse, in the eastern suburbs, and the Marine Biological Station, a place of incredible beauty in itself, representing some of the early marine science that was occurring in Sydney. In my own electorate, there are places like Sub Base Platypus, which started its more modern life as a gas station and has been a military facility—it even had a torpedo manufacturing factory—and a submarine base. And then there's the western-most property, the Woolwich Dock, which, again, has such a rich history of the life of our city.

Perhaps the site that encapsulates all of those things in the most dramatic way is Cockatoo Island. This gem on Sydney Harbour has a rich Indigenous history and an incredible built heritage. There are convict facilities which today ring with the sounds of the convicts that endured their sufferance on this island. You can still visit the cells where people were held in solitary confinement in the most appalling conditions, but in buildings which today we cherish and value so much. It also had a role as a dock, particularly in the life of the military in Australia, and in its modern incarnation is attracts people for a range of activities, from the arts to camping and to events and functions which have brought this island alive in a way that merely 20 years ago would never have been dreamed of.

These are phenomenal sites, and to have the opportunity to participate in the development of this bill, as I have, to ensure that these sites do become a perpetual part of the life of the Commonwealth of Australia is an exciting one for me, because it's a long-held view of mine that transferring these sites to others, be they local councils or the New South Wales government, would be a missed opportunity to preserve them as part of the nation's historical legacy, the nation's great gesture of inheritance to future generations. This bill is an important one for me, and I'm so thrilled that the Minister for the Environment has been able to accept some of my views but also engage with me throughout the development of this bill.

The bill reflects the 20-year history of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. It is worth thinking about the fact that, as we consider and debate this legislation today, it is 20 years since the trust legislation was formally enacted. I really want to mention and pay credit to those that were involved in the early stages of the development of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, because, like so much of our harbour, these sites came very close to being lost. They came very close to being permanently alienated from Australians, and it was really through the incredible community activism of some great people, who were passionate about the suburbs they lived in but even more passionate about the natural environment and the built environment of these sites, that we saw community action reach a crescendo that knocked on the doors of this building and was heard by the Prime Minister of the day, John Howard, who established the trust. I think it is probably one of his most important legacies—it's certainly the most important legacy for the city that has been his home throughout his life. I know that Mr Howard is exceptionally proud of the role that the trust has played in the years since he established it.

That community action was led by a number of greats. It's hard to list them all because it was really a mass movement, but I do particularly want to acknowledge people like Linda Bergin, Don Goodsir and Peter James, who were intimately involved in the Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores and the Headland Preservation Group. I also want to particularly acknowledge people like Kevin McCann and Peter Lowry, who are great friends of mine. Kevin went on to become the first chair of the trust. He and Linda Bergin were the two that came knocking on the door here on behalf of their communities to advocate for the trust's establishment and the protection of these lands.

I also want to acknowledge the great leadership that, in those early days, was provided by the trust staff. Gosh, they were visionaries; they really were. Led by Geoff Bailey, they established this small agency. When Geoff moved into the office first allocated to him, it was so small he didn't even have a key. I think he had to climb through the window to get into that office on his first day. But what he built was a nimble and vibrant and future-thinking organisation that recognised that it had a phenomenal opportunity to establish best practice in the use of these former defence lands.

The whole establishment of the trust came about because the land was under threat. With all due respect to the Department of Defence, which does such a great job of keeping us safe, it's fair to say that it does not part with the lands it owns—particularly for no commercial return—all that easily. There were plans being proposed by the Keating government, I think, by then defence Minister Beazley, to sell off some of the lands for development of housing. There were other, less defined plans which would have seen these sites alienated from the community. The trust brought an end to any suggestion that that would occur.

So I am thrilled that today we have the opportunity to make the life of the trust permanent. I want to thank, for its development, the modern iteration of those early activists, some of whom are still involved today. Your commitment to Sydney Harbour gets in your blood. It's that sea salt that flows through you that drives so many of you to fight battle after battle to protect what's so precious. Many of the names I just mentioned are still involved in the cause today, but I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Headland Preservation Group, currently led by Jill L'Estrange, who engaged so effectively and so well with the Minister for the Environment on this legislation.

What was really the genesis for this particular bill was the review of the trust's operations which was established by Minister Ley and led so well by Carolyn McNally and Erin Flaherty. I want to thank them for providing the foundation for the issues we're discussing in this legislation today.

What this bill does is one simple thing—and it removes any suggestion that the trust is a transitional body and that this land would somehow be lost to the Commonwealth and transferred to other levels of government or maybe even the private sector. It says the trust is here to stay. It also has a number of other important reforms which will enhance the operations of the trust, and I want to mention three of those very quickly.

Firstly, the bill does reform the board of the trust. It makes more explicit the skills that are expected of, effectively, the trustees of this land. It makes clear that the board must have experience in areas like environment and heritage conservation or heritage interpretation; Indigenous culture, where, personally, I think the trust can do so much more; land planning and management; business financial property or asset management; tourism or marketing; military service or the law. Some of these were part of the original specifications that were expected of the board, but I think that the clarity resulting from the review that was done is a really important step in making sure that we have trustees that are equipped to manage these sites for all their values. I'm pleased that, as part of that, the trust's membership still must contain someone of Indigenous background and also someone who brings local government experience.

Another reform that is encapsulated in this bill is to do with the leasing of the lands. It makes clear that standard leases issued by the trust can only be for periods up to 25 years, including options that might otherwise extend those leases. But what it does do is recognise that, in some cases, there will be leases that involve capitalising on the interests of those outside government to restore, protect and use these buildings. On rare occasions, they might require leases longer than 25 years, so it envisages a regime where leases can exist for up to 35 years, but under very strict conditions. What this bill does is lock in a requirement—really, for the first time—for the trust to consult with the community before proposals for longer leases are developed, but still ensure that any proposals for longer leases are disallowable instruments by this parliament. But, as part of that, it makes the process more practical because it allows the trust to bring a proposal to the community and, ultimately, to the minister and the parliament so that those steps are gone through before detailed negotiations are entered into. It therefore makes it an easier process for the trust to negotiate with potential leaseholders.

The bill also makes one very practical change, which is to reform, after 20 years, the threshold for which the trust has to seek ministerial approval for contracts. It extends the current $1 million threshold to $5 million, which will make the trust more effective in being able to manage these sites.

I want to again thank the minister for the way in which she has engaged not just with me and others like the member for Wentworth, who's here with me today, but more importantly with the community. I know that the community have appreciated the fact that her door has been open and that she has taken on board their suggestions. Phil Jenkins from Hunters Hill, another one of the long-term defenders of these lands—and someone I haven't always agreed with on this or many other issues, I have to say—rang me as this legislation was being introduced and said, 'We really enjoyed the relationship that we were able to develop with the minister in the development of this legislation.'

To all of those involved: thank you, not just for your involvement in this legislation but for what you have been doing on behalf of our community and on behalf of all Australians to ensure that these sites, dating back tens of thousands of years through to the modern time, will have a life and that we'll continue to protect the incredible natural, Indigenous and built values and history of these sites. In many cases, with the sites having been locked up as defence bases, many Australians are enjoying these sites for the first time. But it's not just for this generation. Every single generation of Sydneysiders, Australians and visitors to our city to come will be able to explore and understand these amazingly incredible parts of Sydney Harbour. I commend the bill.

Dave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to commend the remarks of the member for North Sydney, who has had a long involvement with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust both during his time in parliament but also in the years beforehand. Indeed, he is one of the people here in this place who was present at its creation, so to speak.

The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, the topic of today's legislation, is a remarkably enlightened and innovative piece of public policy. It was a transitional body that was established in 2001 by the Howard government to rehabilitate former defence sites upon Sydney Harbour and eventually open them up to public access. These sites include, in my own electorate of Wentworth, the Macquarie Lighthouse at Vaucluse and the Marine Biological Station at Watsons Bay, but also, of more significance, the sites at North Head and Middle Head, the former submarine base Platypus, Cockatoo Island and the docks at Woolwich. When this body was established 20 years ago now, it was designed to ensure that these lands would be held open and available for public benefit for current and future generations—that they would both rehabilitate these sites but also allow the public to once again access them. As the member for North Sydney said, these sites are some of the most iconic and picturesque upon Sydney Harbour, and if we were to lose the custodianship of these lands, if they were to fall into the hands of developers or private interests, they would be lands we would almost certainly never get back.

Much has happened in the 20 years since the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was established: the portfolio—the number of assets it has under its management—of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has grown; the life of the trust has been extended; the trust has successfully opened all the sites to the public, with only some small areas still closed—but the bulk of these defence sites that were given over to its custodianship in 2001 are now open and accessible to the public; and it's done amazing work to rehabilitate and activate these sites, turning them into treasures for the people of Sydney, for visitors from interstate, across the country, and indeed, in normal times, for visitors from overseas. In non-COVID times, about 1.8 million people per year visit the lands and assets belonging to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.

I want to commend in particular the work of the outgoing CEO of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, Mary Darwell—she's now left—and also all her professional staff there, and the board, which has been led by Joseph Carrozzi for a number of years now. I was privileged to serve on the board of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust for a period, from 2018 to 2019, and I saw firsthand the dedication and the professionalism of the staff but also what an amazing asset they'd created from land that had been underutilised and inaccessible to the public for decades beforehand.

The genesis of this legislation of course is the 2019 announcement by the government to commence an independent review into the trust's future arrangements. That made perfect sense, because the trust, in its 20 years of operation, had done all that was asked of it—it rehabilitated former defence lands and made them accessible to the public and activated it for the public.

This review that the government announced was to map out the future pathway of the trust and to see what duties it should fulfil in future and, indeed, whether it should continue to exist as a body, because, when the trust was first set up and established, the intent was it rehabilitate these lands and pass them back to the New South Wales government. During the time of that independent review, there were over 177 public submissions received to those conducting the review, consultations were held with over 500 people and there were multiple public forums held with affected communities and stakeholder groups, who take a keen and healthy interest in these lands.

The independent review, which was published in 2021, found widespread support for the work of the trust, and it made 21 recommendations to help ensure the trust was positioned well into the future. Some of those highlights were, firstly, to make sure that the trust continued in perpetuity, so rather than the 2033 repeal provision—this is when the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was initially due to come to a close—the independent review recommended that the life of the trust, as the custodian and manager of these former defence lands, continue in perpetuity. Some of the other recommendations of this independent review included the development of an audit plan and a master plan for Cockatoo Island, probably the most challenging of the sites under the trust management; greater recognition of Indigenous sites; and increased focus on the military heritage, again both especially important for Cockatoo Island, which was a site of Indigenous settlement and ceremony in its early history and then an incredibly important naval facility for Australia during the Second World War, in particular.

The independent review also recommended improved volunteer engagement and greater community consultation. The government agreed, by and large, with the central finding of the review, that the trust should become an ongoing entity and retain special responsibility for these sites. Upon the findings of the review being released, $9 million was immediately made available to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to help keep sites safe and accessible, at least as an interim measure. In 2021, in the budget of October last year, a further $40.6 million was provided over four years to provide the trust with support for its work in rehabilitating sites—an important capital injection.

This bill that we're debating today, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021, is the next major step in implementing the findings of this independent review. The bill takes forward four important recommendations from the review. Firstly, it implements the central finding of the review, that the trust should become an ongoing entity. The review found that there was wide community support to retain in federal hands the lands managed by the trust and to ensure that the trust managed these lands on an ongoing basis. And, as I mentioned, this is different to the original mission of the trust, which was to rehabilitate the land and then hand them over to state government custodianship.

The bill also supports the recommendation for a refresh of the trust's membership to ensure that board members are equipped with the skills and expertise needed to steer the trust adequately and effectively into the future. In particular the bill lays out that board members must have expertise in one or more of the following fields: in environment and heritage conservation; in Indigenous culture; in land planning and management; in business, financial, property or asset management; in tourism or marketing; in military service; or in the law. In addition, one of the trust's board members must be a person of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and one must have experience or expertise in local government.

Furthermore, the bill before us today also updates provisions regulating the trust's commercial activities. The last two decades of the trust's operation have shown that sensitive commercial operations have an important role to play in bringing life and amenity and activity to sites and contributing to the cost of upkeep and maintenance. I think the trust's management of Middle Head has been an exemplar, where they've managed to provide a commercial activity for functions and events, for artists, for sports facilities and recreational facilities, whilst making sure the public has full accessibility to the site and full amenity of the site.

This bill sets a new threshold for ministerial approval of contracts to $5 million from the existing $1 million under the existing legislation. This will ensure the efficient functioning and the operational independence of the trust and avoid the minister of the day becoming entangled in the day-to-day operational issues of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The bill will also provide for an indexation of this amount. That original figure of $1 million has not changed since the bill was enacted almost 20 years ago, but this new $5 million figure will be indexed here on in.

The bill also ensures that long-term leases are only available when it's clearly consistent with the overriding objectives of public access, amenity, conservation, heritage and environment. Currently under the legislation, any leases over 25 years must be contained in a disallowable legislative instrument. The independent review found this to be too blunt a tool and that it was unduly restraining potential uses of harbour trust sites that could help meet harbour trust objectives, including conservation and heritage. This is particularly true for Cockatoo Island, which is a difficult and capital intensive site and will require significant remediation and new assets in the years ahead.

Under the new provisions contained in this bill, the trust cannot enter into a lease or a licence for a period longer than 35 years and, for leases of between 25 and 35 years, a proposal must be prepared and tabled for consideration by both houses of parliament with a statement of reasons. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, in preparing this statement of reasons. must engage in community consultation and include their feedback in this statement of reasons. This proposal, which would be prepared and tabled before both houses of parliament, would be a disallowable instrument, which means that it would be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny that these current proposals enjoy. But if, at the end of the disallowance period, the proposal has not been disallowed, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust can proceed to negotiate the terms of this lease or licence. Then a final stage of approval must be granted by the minister before a lease or licence can actually be granted.

Finally, this bill will provide support to the trust in an ongoing role by modernising the language of the act and including amendments related to the review of regulations under the act, which are due to sunset and which are now likely to be remade later this year, following community consultation. Passage of this legislation will be a very important development for all those who care about the preservation and conservation of Sydney Harbour's foreshore—our previous and unique foreshore—including those people in my own electorate of Wentworth, who take a close interest in these issues. The bill will give the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust the certainty to plan for the future, including making provision for the significant investments that need to be made in rehabilitating some of these sites.

I wish to place on record my appreciation for the minister responsible for shepherding this process, the member for Farrer, but also those people who undertook the independent review, Ms Carolyn McNally and Ms Erin Flaherty, who did a tremendous job in engaging the community and providing a pathway ahead for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. I would also like to acknowledge a number of parliamentary colleagues, past and present, who have worked closely on these issues over the years—the member for North Sydney, who I mentioned earlier; Senator Andrew Bragg, the senator for New South Wales, who has been closely engaged with these issues; the previous member for Warringah and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who took a close interest in these issues during his time here; and the former member for Wentworth, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, one of my predecessors, who, similarly, took a very close interest here.

With this legislation, we are ensuring that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust will continue to do so well what it has done over the past two decades so effectively, and that is to be a steward and a custodian of some of our most precious and valuable lands. Anywhere in Sydney and, indeed, anywhere in the world, they are lands that are of tremendous significance for the Indigenous heritage value, for the settlement historical value and for the access, amenity and recreation they provide to citizens to this very day. It will ensure that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust remains fit for purpose in the decades ahead, and I commend this legislation to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to make a contribution to this debate on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. I also want to acknowledge people who have participated in improving this legislation. I met with the chair of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, Joseph Carrozzi, on a number of occasions and also with local community groups, including the Headland Preservation Group president, Jill L'Estrange.

This is important legislation because Sydney Harbour is an asset that is a jewel for the entire country. When you travel overseas and you look at what has happened around foreshores, be they ocean foreshores or harbour foreshores, it is hard to think of a comparison whereby the Australian egalitarian spirit is reflected by the fact that so many Australians have access to the land around Sydney Harbour. Whilst it's true that very few people can afford to live with harbour views, the truth is everyone can enjoy harbour views and can enjoy the amenity around Sydney Harbour because of that access, which is why it's so important that this national parliament continue to do what previous generations have done, which is to protect harbour foreshores. There are attempts from time to time to undermine that to essentially have Sydney Harbour and its beautiful assets, including the islands in the harbour—including Cockatoo Island, which is, of course, part of the Grayndler electorate—for sale. That would, I think, be a very retrograde step, because, if we get it wrong once, it disappears forever, which is why it is so important.

My mate Russell Crowe said this about Sydney: 'The best things about Sydney are free: the sunshine is free, the harbour is free and the beach is free.' This is why you see such a reaction when you have proposals like the proposal to essentially privatise a bit of Bondi Beach. As an Australian doing the backpacker thing that young Australians do, I was quite shocked when I arrived in Europe and people wanted money to use the beach. Here in Australia that's not our way, and it's one that thank goodness we have and we need to hold onto.

But here, of course, we could have privatisation. We went close with some of the proposals for changes to this bill that were advocated for at one stage. The proposal, for example, on Cockatoo Island to essentially privatise it—that's what it was; let's call it for what it was—into corporate hands, dressed up as a way of remediating the harbour but essentially using that island for a for-profit motel and other facilities, was just entirely inappropriate. It's important that they got rejected. It's important that the draft legislation has been changed to remove the proposal for 49-year leases and the free-for-all which would have been allowed under some of the proposals that were put forward. I pay tribute to the assistant shadow minister, the member for Fremantle, who advocated very strongly on these issues, because at risk wasn't just Cockatoo Island but North Head, the Headland Park at Mosman's Middle Head and the Platypus former submarine base at Neutral Bay as well. All of these assets are really critical assets.

When we were last in government, something that would be anathema to those opposite who'd just look at the electoral map is one of the things we funded through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, which was a major upgrade of the old industrial facilities at North Sydney that overlook the harbour. It was turned into an arts space and a space for the community, done along with North Sydney Council. It was a really good proposal. We funded the upgrade of the foreshore at Manly Beach. For neither of those did we look at the electoral map. Both of those have improved an asset that anyone can go to, because they're free, and enjoy the amenity which is in the great city of Sydney with its great natural asset of Sydney Harbour. That is really important. My mentor who would have turned 100 just a few days ago, on 28 May, Tom Uren, was a patron of the Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores. As he put it, 'It really belongs to the people not only of Mosman or of Sydney but the nation as a whole.' That is exactly right.

With this bill, the right decision has been made in the public interest and for the public good. The bill establishes the harbour trust as an ongoing entity. The harbour trust will be able to fulfil its obligation to rehabilitate, preserve and maintain trust sites for future generations of Australians. There's a cap on the leases at 35 years, with leases of longer than 25 years subject to a disallowance by the parliament. What that will do is provide for ongoing protection of public ownership and access. It will help ensure visitor access to more facilities, as they visit the harbour trust's historic sites, and establish operating frameworks that support the future viability of the harbour trust. There will be a need for more investment in some areas, and that includes Cockatoo Island. Cockatoo Island is a gem in the crown. Not many people, probably even those in Sydney, have been to Cockatoo Island, and that's really unfortunate. It should be a place that people can visit. I'm not of the view that you lock places up forever. I'm of the view that public places, particularly in a city like Sydney, are there to be used, to be enjoyed for community activity.

Cockatoo Island's history is in its industrial history in terms of shipbuilding, in the role that it has played in defence, and, might I say, in the role that these sites, these harbour islands, have played in history going back not a couple of hundred years but 65,000 years. There are Indigenous art sites on most of the harbour islands. Indeed, if you look at the islands' history even in recent times, with the role that islands played for First Nations women, and some being for ceremonial use, there is a great deal there that we need to acknowledge and we need to celebrate. We do need to remediate some of the land there and open it up for people, wherever they live and not just for those who live in Sydney, because this is an international asset.

At the risk of upsetting my friends and our US allies, an important alliance, I ask with due respect: San Francisco harbour? Seriously, you go there and, compared with Sydney, you think, 'Really? What's the big deal?' Sydney Harbour has those islands, which should be economic assets as well as preserved environmentally. Many years ago I attended All Tomorrow's Parties curated by Nick Cave on Cockatoo Island. People from all over attended, and that asset was used. It was a fantastic thing. We don't use those assets enough, and when you look at the assets that are available, some of which are in my electorate, whether it be Cockatoo Island or Callum Park, they should be used. Some argue and the Greens political party will regularly argue that they should just be there and no-one's allowed to use them, no-one's allowed to walk on them, no-one's allowed to access them. That's not my view. My view is that great public spaces should be looked after in a sustainable way but they should also be used in a way that promotes public use.

I want to turn to Tom Uren's words to the Senate environmental legislative committee more than two decades ago, when the trust was being established. His words, as a historian of the harbour, are important. He said this:

A public servant when issuing a land grant around Cremorne Point in 1833, stipulated that 100 feet above the high tide water mark should be retained for public access. Balls Head and Berry's Island were publicly acquired by the Lang Government in 1926. The open space on the Harbour shores around Castlecrag was created by the intelligent and visionary planning of Walter Burley Griffin.

So this hasn't just happened. People have fought for these issues. Indeed, Tom Uren fought alongside Tony Abbott to protect some of our foreshore land—a great example of working across the political divide for a common interest for our nation.

We can do much better. There have been visionaries who have done extraordinary things. One comparison, that will perhaps make up for my comments about San Francisco, is with our friends in the United States who created Central Park in New York, in 1853—what a vision for Manhattan, setting aside that public space for generations of New Yorkers and visitors to benefit from, as they have been able to ever since. That's one of the things that makes New York City such a great city. So it is important that we do the right thing by the harbour. This bill does do the right thing. It is true to the vision that that long-ago public servant had, way back in 1833. Imagine thinking that through—for that land above the high-water mark to be protected. It has made an incredible difference. It is something about Sydney.

Like my colleague the member for Sydney, I know, when I cross Sydney Harbour Bridge with visitors, I point to the Sirius building—purpose-built public housing, particularly built for people with disabilities. The state government flogged it off. There won't be any poor people living there now. That was one of the great things about Australia. When we look at the nature of our cities, we have to make sure that things that should be available to everyone are available to everyone. That's why that sell-off was bad and that's why there should not be any encroachment on our harbour or on the other great assets that we have, like the Parramatta River, the Georges River, the Nepean River. They should be protected and preserved for this and for future generations. I commend the bill to the House.

Fiona Martin (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There may be some disagreement in this House, but Sydney really is the best city in Australia. The winner really was, and still is, Sydney! There are many reasons for such an undeniable fact, but I say this while speaking on this bill as I am, of course, speaking about beautiful Sydney Harbour. I rise to speak on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. The government is acting to implement the recommendations of the Independent Review of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. Before I speak to the review itself, and the recommendations, I will briefly outline the important work of the trust. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was established in 2001, following the interim trust, which was established in 1999. Its function is to preserve and, where necessary, rehabilitate prominent former Defence sites on the beautiful Sydney Harbour.

Most Sydneysiders would be surprised to know that so many public spaces and parklands across our beautiful harbour are owned and managed by the Commonwealth government, rather than by the state government or local councils. This is mostly because these sites were predominantly used for national defence, including housing fortifications and gun emplacements, as well as to construct armaments and house and repair naval vessels. Naval and military defence is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government, so each of these sites had to be legally acquired for their intended use.

The trust sites are in part so scenic because they were selected by the Commonwealth for their strategic location, giving them panoramic views of Sydney Harbour and, in some locations, even out to the Pacific Ocean. These sites include Cockatoo Island, where my daughter has just told me she had a school excursion once before, North Head Sanctuary in Manly, Headland Park in Mosman, Sub Base Platypus in Neutral Bay, Woolwich Dock and parklands, the former Marine Biological Station at Watsons Bay and Macquarie Lightstation in Vaucluse. Even today, Sydney Harbour continues to host active naval facilities including HMAS Penguin in Balmoral, HMAS Waterhen in Waverton and HMAS Watson at South Head near Watsons Bay. If you've ever visited Sydney, you have probably been to one of these locations. If you haven't then I highly recommend that you do when you holiday here this year. Each of these locations are unique places possessing a rich heritage and magnificent natural beauty. It is our duty to ensure they are all well protected so we can pass them on to future generations to enjoy in the same way that we have.

The federal government initiated a review of the Harbour trust and its financial governance and legislative arrangements last year. The review was led by Ms Carolyn McNally and Ms Erin Flaherty, and I thank them for their hard work throughout the process, as well as the dedicated secretariat team provided by the department. The terms of reference highlighted some particular considerations for the review, notably the considerable work required at some sites for which the cost would be quite substantial. The review was tasked with investigating the current management structure of the trust, as well as its funding capabilities. The terms of reference also dictated that the review should present multiple options for future arrangements for trust sites, including advice on community views, economic and social costs and benefits, costs to taxpayers and legislative changes required.

The independent reviewers worked closely with the harbour trust, relevant experts and the community to identify the challenges and opportunities facing our beautiful harbour and the trust. Following a consultation period which included four public forums, the final report was released on 18 June in 2020. My own friend and colleague in the other place, Senator Andrew Bragg, made a submission to the inquiry. He outlined three key subject areas which needed review: governance, completion of rehabilitation and partnership opportunities, and conservation. He presented the arguments that the trust's expectations from the community have changed since its federation in addition to changing financial demand of its upkeep. It was initially meant to be a planning and rehabilitation agency. However, today, it is responsible for long-term management of cultural sites, bushland, heritage buildings, and open space for community enjoyment and recreation. Unlike most other parkland agencies and cultural sites, the trust does not receive ongoing financial support from the government and therefore must self-fund its own programs.

An exposure draft on the bill was provided for public comment in the period 2 October to 13 November 2020. This bill responds to four of the recommendations of the review: the federal government will make the trust an ongoing entity rather than the remediate and hand over to New South Wales basis on which it was established; the bill revises the requirements for appointments to the trust to ensure the trust has the skills and experience needed into the future as an ongoing entity; the bill lifts the threshold for contracts that require ministerial approval to ensure that the trust has appropriate operational independence; The bill reforms protections against longer term leasing and licensing of the trust lands to greater than 25 years; and finally, the bill includes changes associated with the review and updating of regulations under the act, which are due to sunset on 1 October 2021. These proposals come following extensive consultation informing the development of the bill. The government has worked closely with key trust stakeholders in finalising the proposal, and I believe it deserves bipartisan support. I strongly commend the proposed changes in this bill as well as the overall work of the trust. It is critical the government continues to support these bodies as they preserve the cultural and historical significance of these beautiful locations in Sydney.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports this bill, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. This bill will ensure that a range of nationally significant heritage sites within the Sydney Harbour area will remain publicly-owned and managed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust in perpetuity. These amendments will also revise the eligibility criteria for appointment to the board of the harbour trust to better ensure that members have the skills and expertise required for this important task in the future, including expertise in areas such as heritage, tourism, military service and business development. Insofar as these changes help protect Sydney Harbour, they are sensible and I welcome them.

Sydney Harbour, as the Leader of the Opposition said, is a special place, not just for those lucky enough to live on its shores but for all Australians. I think tourists coming to Australia from around the world have that image of Sydney Harbour—the Harbour Bridge; the Opera House; our New Year's Eve fireworks; the beautiful jewel of Sydney Harbour—in their minds when they first think of coming to Australia. Labor's essential approach to our beautiful harbour is to make sure that that beauty can be available to as many Australians and as many visitors as possible.

Lloyd Rees, one of our best-known Australian artists, did so much of his work around Sydney Harbour, and he said of the harbour: 'The first glimpse, a picture of a circular frame, opal blue water, a band of golden sand, another of silver-green trees; above them a skyline of coral pink, shimmering against the limpid air. In that first long look Sydney cast her spell and it remains with me ever since.' Lloyd Rees was an extraordinary painter of Sydney Harbour. He had a long friendship with Tom Uren, whom the Leader of the Opposition was talking about earlier, and one of the things that brought them together was that love of Sydney Harbour.

It is a natural site that is close to the heart of most Australians, but we Sydneysiders are particularly in love with our harbour. It is a place of immense heritage value as well as immense natural value. Of course it has tens of thousands of years of First Nations history right along its shores: beautiful hidden paintings and carvings all along the shores—special places with thousands of years of history. It has convict history right along its shores, too. And it has an industrial history. Those of us in the Labor Party have always supported a working harbour. We are in love as much with the old machinery on Cockatoo Island and around the dry docks of Sydney Harbour on Garden Island—the beautiful old buildings—as we are with the natural history. And of course it has that naval history as well. I was again recently at Garden Island seeing the phenomenal work that's going on to upgrade the wharves and other facilities there. From the history of the Eora nation, to the first sight of British settlement, to the docks where immigrants arrived after World War II, to the global city that Sydney is now, the story of Australia can be told in Sydney Harbour, where natural beauty meets that very deep history.

In supporting this bill, Labor calls on the government to ensure that any future commercial activities that may be proposed within these sites are strictly compliant with the values of the sites and the wishes of our communities around the shores of Sydney Harbour. Of course we believe that these areas should be used. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we've had great concerts on Cockatoo Island, there's camping, there's restaurants and there are all sorts of opportunities to use our harbour islands and to use our foreshores, but we have to do that in a way that is sustainable and sympathetic. These are public lands and the trust has a duty to keep them accessible and to keep them democratic.

Sydney Harbour should be a place where any Australian can go, where they don't need a dollar in their pocket to enjoy the natural beauty of Sydney Harbour, and we want that for tourists as well. We want everybody, all-comers, to be able to enjoy our harbour, whether it's our New Year's Eve fireworks, one of the biennale exhibitions on Cockatoo Island, a Nick Cave concert, camping or whatever it is. We want those things to be available as equally as possible to all Australians.

We in the Labor Party have a long history of fighting for this democratic accessibility to this beautiful natural gift. It was the first New South Wales Labor government and its Secretary for Lands, Niels Nielsen, who began the campaign against privatisation of our harbour foreshore lands, against the alienation of that land from public use, launching the Foreshore Resumption Scheme, which returned large tracts of harbour foreshore land to the people of New South Wales. Niels Nielsen inspired Tom Uren in his fight for the national estate and also for a working harbour. It was the Carr Labor government that so dramatically improved the water quality of Sydney Harbour that has seen a return to oysters and other molluscs growing in the harbour, that has seen the beautiful little seahorses that have been bred up and released again into Sydney Harbour and that has seen whales and even sea lions and penguins return to the harbour. It was the Carr Labor government that returned the land on Ballast Point to the people of Sydney.

Also, more recently, my very dear friend and former colleague former Senator John Faulkner, and my very good friend Lachlan Harris helped launch a wonderful walk—and I think this will become one of the great walks around the world—from Bondi to Manly, going through all of those harbourside suburbs, passing historic homes, passing Aboriginal rock carvings and sacred places, passing through the industrial and naval historic sites and going through the remnant bushland that is so precious on the shores of Sydney Harbour. I believe that that Bondi-to-Manly walk will be—when we're allowed to travel again—one of those things that attracts tourists from all over the world to Sydney. That walk sees Bondi and Manly, two of the most iconic beaches in the world, linked by the Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, the historic homes and the bushland. What a marvellous opportunity for people to do that walk. Thank you to all of the councils and the private and public landholders who have supported this walk.

We need to make sure that we continue to protect the remnant bushland along the shores of Sydney Harbour. When you look at those tracts of bush and think how fortunate we are to have kept bushland running right down to our beaches, to our coastal walks and to our harbour foreshores, honestly, we owe a debt of gratitude not only to the foresight of people like Niels Nielsen, Tom Uren, Bob Carr and John Faulkner, who have fought so hard to protect our harbour foreshore but also to the residents' groups all around the foreshore of Sydney Harbour and right up the Parramatta River who have fought so hard to make sure that our bushland is protected and public access to our beautiful harbour is protected.

Can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, much as I love Sydney Harbour, and I think you've probably picked up that I do, and as much as I value the opportunity for every Australian and every visitor to Australia to have the see our beautiful harbour, swim in it, view the fireworks and so on, there is one thing that I do believe is missing from Sydney Harbour. There is something that I would like to see either on one of the harbour islands or in an appropriate place somewhere on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, and that is a national museum and cultural facility for First Nations Australians' culture and history. When you look at great museums like this around the world, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian in Washington DC or the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington, you think about what we could have on Sydney Harbour, particularly if it was on one of the harbour islands. I can imagine arriving by boat, as you quite often do at the Museum of Old and New Art in Hobart, such a fantastic tourism draw to Hobart. You can imagine Sydneysiders and people from around New South Wales, from around Australia and from around the world coming to this gateway to Australia and seeing the depth and the richness of 60,000 years of First Nations culture and history. I think Sydney Harbour would be an amazing backdrop for such a museum and I would hope that one day we will see such a museum in Sydney.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was enacted by statute in 2001 with the objective to preserve, protect and rehabilitate former Defence and Commonwealth lands in Sydney Harbour. Warringah's trust lands including North Head Sanctuary in Manly and Headland Park in Mosman. I acknowledge and pay respect to in the Borogegal people, the traditional owners of the Headland Park, and the Gayamagal people, the traditional owners of North Head. The trust is essential to the cultural character of our community. It has sites rich with Indigenous, colonial and military history. It has green fields and bushlands, and provides habitat for many flora and fauna and for people as they seek relaxation and respite from their busy lives. It must be protected and conserved.

Today we debate this bill, which arises out of the independent review into the legislative, financial and governance arrangements for the harbour trust. Initiated in late 2019 by the federal government, the review is in line with the 10-year statutory review requirement under the trust act. I thank the reviewers, Carolyn McNally and Erin Flaherty, for running an open consultation process and for meeting with many members of the community to understand their views. The review made 21 recommendations to the federal government to improve the governance, the management and legislation of the trust. This bill, if passed, addresses four of these recommendations. There is no doubt that these trust lands are the jewels of Sydney Harbour and enrich the cultural life of our nation. That's why it's vital that the proposed bill helps to protect and conserve these lands for future generations. It was very clear that the community has an attachment through the involvement and vested attention there was in relation to the review. I consulted with the community extensively, the trust and the independent reviewers on the question of whether the trust should remain as an ongoing entity as custodians of trust lands. There was deep-seated concern in the community that some of these lands, in particular North Head, have not been rehabilitated or cared for in the way that they should be. They have been left to deteriorate, and the community is very concerned about that.

I made a detailed submission to the review, but the overwhelming majority of the community members I spoke to, including the North Head Sanctuary Foundation, the Headland Preservation Group, Mosman Parks and Bushland Association and the friends of quarantine station were in favour of the trust remaining as an ongoing entity. There were fears—valid fears, I would say—that the transfer of land to the New South Wales government would risk commercialisation of trust lands and reduce legislative protections currently provided to the sites under the trust act and the environment protection and biodiversity act. So I welcome today's amendments that enable the trust to operate as an ongoing entity in line with recommendation 5 of the review. It is truly a win for the community that the trust will no longer be a transitional body and that the lands will not transfer to New South Wales after 19 September 2033. That was a very big fear for the community.

Attention now remains on the Deed of Agreement for the North Head Sanctuary, which is due to expire in 2032, at which point the site would revert to the custody of the New South Wales government. Many in the community do not want this to happen and are still very concerned about it. With the recent release of the draft concept plan for the North Head, the community seeks an urgent update on discussions between the department of environment, the trust and the New South Wales government on the proposed arrangements for the Deed of Agreement for North Head. As acknowledged by trust chair, Joseph Carrozzi, in a letter to the Minister for the Environment on 31 July last year, the input of the community will be integral to this process.

Board membership was a question that came up in the review. The trust act provides that the membership of the board is constituted by seven members as well as the chair. The board is an essential governance body and has a huge impact on the way the trust is managed. Section 10 of part 3 of the trust act sets out the requirements for membership, and during the review consultation many stakeholders expressed concern that the legislative requirements and the process of appointing members allowed the board to become heavily politicised as well as facilitate promoting members which lack the core skills necessary in areas like environmental planning, heritage conservation and military conservation. I hope the minister will address these issues and ensure that, in fact, the trust board should be de-politicised and should actually be focusing on having the appropriate skills. The review is clear that membership of the board should more clearly reflect the skills and expertise of the harbour trust's needs into the future. This was a recommendation very much supported by the community.

Recommendation 6 of the review stated that the trust act 2001 should be amended to further specify that the appointment of each member of the harbour trust should be based on their expertise in one or more of the following areas: law, finance, public asset management, commercial leasing, architecture, public administration, Indigenous engagement, heritage, environment, tourism and marketing, so I welcome items 5, 6 and 7 of the amendment bill that implement that recommendation. Importantly, both the requirement of a representative of Indigenous Australians and a representative of local government remain. In light of these changes and with nominations for four upcoming vacancies on the trust board currently open, I look forward to the new appointees who have the required skills and knowledge to preside over these lands and ensure that in fact rehabilitation and conservation occurs.

During the review, many in the community felt it was important that the trust remain true to its mandate to protect, conserve and rehabilitate the lands. These are absolutely iconic lands, not just for the community that surrounds them and the Sydney community but for all of Australia because of their heritage and cultural value. There were concerns that commercial interests would eclipse these goals. There were fears that long-term leases would be awarded to inappropriate landholders and alienate the land from the public. The review points to two examples, an aged-care facility at 10 Terminal and a proposal to turn Cockatoo Island into an art precinct. These proposals both brought a strong community backlash. So, to protect against inappropriate proposals, there are various levels of safeguards built into the governance of the trust, as well as the act. There is a proposal that leases over 25 years would be disallowable instruments, which affords the parliament an important oversight function. The review recognised the community concern and believed that leases of longer than 35 years should remain possible but be subject to parliamentary disallowance. However, following community advocacy, particularly by the Headland Preservation Group, on 16 March the government announced that it had halted plans to allow leases over 35 years on Sydney Harbour Federation Trust land. In my capacity as member for Warringah, and as a member of the trust advisory committee, I have been working with the Headland Preservation Group and have advocated strongly for the trust to remain true to its mandate and not allow leases for over 35 years. I congratulate HPG on their advocacy efforts. They have been working tirelessly in the background for almost 24 years to protect these lands.

Items 4 and 8 of this bill implement these changes, and that is welcomed. The bill repeals section 64A and replaces it with a new provision that would prohibit the trust from entering leases or licences for a period of longer than 35 years. For leases between 25 and 35 years, HPG succeeded in guaranteeing strong safeguards on these proposals. The harbour trust will now have to set out a written statement of reasons explaining how the proposal is consistent with the act and plans approved under the act. The trust must also consult with the public and the community advisory committee. The final statement of reasons presented to the minister in parliament must include details of the community's feedback. The minister will then be afforded the discretion to judge whether the terms and conditions of the lease are consistent with the objects of the trust and the act and plans approved under part 5. There is no doubt that that is a win for the community and should go some way to alleviating concerns that these lands can be alienated from public use by way of long leases.

It's an exciting time for the trust sites in Warringah as we look forward to the revitalisation of both North Head Sanctuary, with the recently released draft concept plan, and the 10 Terminal and Parklands Renewal Project. While some funding has been allocated, there is no doubt that it requires more. Unfortunately, since 2001 these lands have been allowed to dilapidate. Areas like North Head, of such rich cultural and military heritage, are falling apart. Whilst there are some uses available of these lands, they must be consistent with maintaining access and community engagement and use. I thank the government for the funding it has provided to these sites, but I will continue to advocate that there needs to be increased funding and continued support by the government to the trust.

I have to thank the community groups very much. They have given so much of their time and their passion to ensuring these lands are protected. They have worked tirelessly, from shortly before Christmas in 2019, to ensure the community was heard, to ensure the community was mobilised and aware of the review, aware of the threat to commercialise these lands, and to ensure that their voice was heard. This is so important. It really highlights the importance of good communication between an organisation like the trust and the community in which it sits. For trust to develop, there needs to be broad consultation and open communication.

The groups I would like to particularly thank are the North Head Sanctuary Foundation, the Headland Preservation Group, Mosman Parks and Bushland Association and the Friends of Quarantine Station. As a member of the trust community advisory committee, the North Head Sanctuary Bushfire Recovery Advisory Group and the 10 Terminal Reference Group, I look forward to continuing to work on behalf of the community to preserve these lands, protect them from development and maintain them as sanctuaries to be enjoyed and loved by all Australians. I thank everyone who contributed to the review of the trust. It has resulted in the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. This bill works to further protect and preserve trust lands. I commend it to the House with my support.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to provide some summing-up remarks. Firstly, I thank the members who spoke passionately on this bill: the member for Fremantle; the member for Sydney; the member for Warringah, who we just heard from; the member for North Sydney—yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker; the member for Wentworth; the member for Grayndler, and the member for Reid. All recognised that these former defence sites are beautiful jewels in the crown of Sydney Harbour, remarkable for their Indigenous, natural and military history.

This legislation demonstrates that the government is faithfully taking forward recommendations of the independent review of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The legislation provides much-needed certainty for the trust to continue its works in protecting and preserving the values of its iconic sites by making it an ongoing entity. At the same time, it ensures the right governance is in place for the trust as it becomes that ongoing entity. The legislation will increase public confidence in the oversight of the trust by providing greater clarity around experience and knowledge requirements for the members. Importantly, the legislation reforms the review and approval processes for the long-term leasing and licencing of trust land and trust buildings. The changes will ensure that the trust has the flexibility to partner with others where it would clearly further the objectives of public access and amenity and that the public can continue to have confidence that the trust sites will be protected into the future from inappropriate commercialisation.

I once again commend the bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fremantle has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.