Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I do not know whether I can be as brief and erudite as Senator Mason in his contribution. I do want to go into the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2007 in some small detail but I will not be too long. The Democrats support this legislation. It is very straightforward and basic. But I do want to take the opportunity to speak on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust in general and to note the Democrats’ role, and my role, in the initial implementation of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 and to draw attention to the enormous success that it has turned out to be in the five or six years since it came into operation.

The legislation before us will extend the life of the trust. The original reality in the act as it stands was for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to be a transitional body to manage Commonwealth land in and around the Sydney Harbour region, to work on rehabilitating those lands—former Defence Force lands predominantly—and maximise public access into those areas until 2011 when the land was to be transferred across to the New South Wales government for inclusion in their national parks and reserve system.

This legislation extends the life of the trust to 2032, for another 20 years or so, which is a pretty big expansion, and that is as a consequence of a recent agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments to transfer crown land at North Head in Sydney to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust until the year 2032. That basically means that the act needs to be amended to recognise that agreement and also to increase the time for which a minister’s written approval for a lease or a licence of trust land must be provided. Any of the lands under the trust’s management that they wish to put a lease upon has to have ministerial approval. There was previously a limit to the length of that lease of 10 years; it can now be up to the length of the life of the trust, or until 19 September 2033, to be precise. As I said, that is because, with the land at North Head of Sydney Harbour being transferred into Commonwealth jurisdiction, there was some uncertainty about who actually had title or oversight of it.

I want to emphasise the crucial role that the Senate played in setting up the trust in a way that has enabled it to work so successfully and, indeed, the crucial role the Democrats played—and, if I say so myself, the crucial role I played. When the proposal was originally put forward—and indeed when the legislation was originally put forward—following an election promise, from memory, by the Prime Minister, it was with regard to these former Defence Force lands around Sydney Harbour foreshore in, not surprisingly, some spectacular locations and some very significant historic locations as well. There was no protection originally against those lands being sold off once they were taken out of Defence Force control and put under the management of the trust. Potentially they could have been sold off down the track, particularly after they were handed back to the New South Wales government, which does not have a very good record in managing lands on the shores of Sydney Harbour. A lot of terrible developments have degraded badly both the environment and the public amenity along the Sydney Harbour foreshore.

The original legislation put forward by the government also did not provide adequate protection against some of the assets or lands that would come under the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust management from being leased for inappropriate activities. I am not saying that this was planned but examples floated around of high-class commercial hotels for high rollers being set up through leasing existing buildings or lands on some of these places. Many people would know North Head in Sydney Harbour and the old Quarantine Station around there. It is an absolutely spectacular location, as are some of the others. Cockatoo Island is a magnificent and extraordinary island in the middle of Sydney Harbour and there are other defence facilities such as Chowder Bay around near Middle Head and Georges Heights. These places have absolutely beautiful scenery and are very important historically as well in some respects.

There were not adequate protections against those sites being leased out. Indeed, it was almost going to be mandated, because part of what was required was a lot of expenditure to make some of these sites suitable for public access. With regard to Cockatoo Island, that meant decontaminating significant parts of it, which was very expensive. There was no guarantee of an adequate budget being provided to do that work to make the sites accessible to the public, to do the restoration work and to undertake some of the other activities that were needed on the sites, let alone to do the other activities of the trust—which, I might say, have also been part of the reason for their success, particularly their public consultation processes. The amendments that the Democrats were able to negotiate put in place guarantees against sell-offs, even when the sites were handed back to the New South Wales government. Indeed, as this explanatory memorandum notes, when the land is handed back it will now be required to be transferred into the national parks and reserves system of the New South Wales government. That protection was not there until the Democrats got involved.

We also managed to ensure that much greater protections against long-term commercial leases for inappropriate purposes were inserted into the legislation. That is why ministerial approval is required and there are time limits on the lengths of leases. It is also why we were able to get much greater community involvement, both in the actual management of the trust and in ongoing consultation mechanisms with stakeholders—local councils, local communities and those with relevant expertise and interest. It is a real tribute to the trust and to the federal government and the relevant minister that it has been able to operate in a way which has provided enormous success.

Until this legislation came along back in 2000 or somewhere around there, I was not aware of many of these places beyond North Head. The history and industrial heritage of Cockatoo Island are quite extraordinary. ‘Industrial heritage’ is not a phrase that people talk about too much. It does not imply nice scenery or even nice buildings, and some of the buildings are not overly pretty. But they are very significant in terms of the industrial development and history of the working harbour of Sydney Harbour. Indeed, it was not until after the legislation had been put in place that I discovered that my father had done a three-year traineeship working on Cockatoo Island when he was developing his skills as an engineer. There is some amazing history there, and not just because of my father’s involvement—it goes back much longer than that. Some of the original convict work was done there. There are some extraordinary underground grain silos and all sorts of hidden treasures. There is also some extraordinary military history in the military facilities around Chowder Bay. Some of the things are perhaps slightly better known, such as the cannons that were put up on Middle Head in years gone by.

It is not automatic that this history gets protected, particularly when the body managing it has an imperative to try and find money from somewhere. The inevitable temptation is to sell off a bit of it or to lease out a chunk of it to the highest bidder rather than for the most appropriate use. It was not until the Senate and the Democrats were able to strengthen this legislation that those protections were put in place. The government and the former environment minister, Senator Robert Hill, to their credit, were able to reach agreement within whatever the arcane processes are that are required within government to get approval for most of what we wanted—not all of it but most of it. We really got a good outcome.

I make that point not just to blow the trumpet of the Democrats but to emphasise the positive role that the Senate can play for the government’s benefit. Frankly, there is no doubt that, if the current circumstance had applied and the government had controlled the Senate, it probably would have been railroaded through at first go without any amendment, or at best perhaps a few little token changes to address some of the many concerns that were put forward. The outcome would have been less good for the government, for this is a real success story that the government can point to. Not surprisingly, it very rarely mentions the role that the Democrats or the Senate played in that success story—that is life. That is why I have to mention it: because nobody else does. But it has nonetheless provided a great result for the benefit of the government and a great legacy.

Far more importantly than whether it provides a good political legacy for the government, the Democrats or anybody else, it provides a great legacy for the people of Australia and the people of Sydney in particular. As a Queenslander, providing a great legacy for the people of Sydney is not necessarily my No. 1 priority, but I am quite happy to do it when the opportunity arises. Sydney Harbour—particularly with some of those areas that have that enormous history attached to them—is an asset and a great icon for all Australians, not just the people of Sydney. I wanted to take the opportunity to emphasise that.

I mention in passing that the efforts of the Democrats were opposed both by the Labor Party and by the Greens at the time. We were accused of all sorts of things, such as putting all of this at risk of being sold off, even though what we did was precisely the opposite. The Labor Party did not support it because they wanted it all to be just handed back to the New South Wales Labor government, although quite why anybody would want to hand it back to the New South Wales Labor government, given the mess that they had made of the Sydney Harbour foreshores, is beyond me. It is always frustrating when you get those sorts of attacks.

I can recall the press release that the Greens put out at the time saying that we were risking this fabulous piece of land that should be put in the Sydney Harbour National Park. It was actually a suburban street—Markham Close—that had a lot of Defence Force housing. It was never going to be put into a national park or anything else like that. All we did was single it out as the one part that could be sold off, with appropriate controls, to raise revenue for management of the park. I am pleased to say that it was sold off, netting an enormous financial windfall of $18 million or something. Certainly over $10 million was raised just from selling off 10 or 12 Defence Force houses that just happened to be in Mosman, where the land goes pretty well. As part of that, they were able to rearrange the title on a couple of blocks to improve the amenity of the open space right at the peak of the ridge. That really helped with the visual line across that area. Even that was a positive outcome for the trust in particular. They raised some revenue by selling off a bunch of houses that were of no practical relevance to the work of the trust and, in the process, were able to improve the use of the adjoining open space in that region.

This is a case study of how the Senate can work very effectively. It took a fair period of time. I think Senator Hill sat off on the side for six months or so before he eventually came back and we worked through the final agreement. As I said, there were still some gripes from others suggesting all sorts of terrible consequences, but the result has, I believe, been a real tribute.

I do not have to say that a lot of credit should go to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust management and staff, particularly Geoff Bailey, who has been the executive director from day one and has done a really good job involving the community and opening up these areas to the public. That is part of what it is about. Also, part of it is about preserving the heritage and the natural environmental values, and the extraordinary historic values of the region, having discovered some of the history that we were not sure about. He has opened that up to Australians and indeed to the global community. We have not always been terribly good at protecting our heritage in Australia and we have not been good at opening up to the wider community. I think the trust has done a magnificent job and they should get a lot of credit for it. It is a good opportunity to note that via debate in this chamber.

The fact that the legislation is not controversial is a sign of just how successful it has been. Extending the life of the trust for the purpose of overseeing the management of North Head does not raise a ripple, compared to the strident opposition five or six years ago to the original legislation from Labor and the Greens. Again, I do not think I can make the point strongly enough that this is an example of how, when the Senate is not controlled by anybody, the government can work constructively to the government’s benefit as well as to the community’s benefit. Of course, that happens only when parties other than governing parties in the Senate are interested in engaging constructively, as opposed to scoring political points. That is certainly where the Democrats’ record differs and stands out above all the others. More than that, the key part is delivering results for the community. This not overly well-known and well-recognised area—one can be pretty much unequivocal—has delivered a very positive outcome.