Sydney’s parklands are public gems, not real estate to turn a dollar.
Opinion by Linda Bergin OAM, advocate for public parklands.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 May 2021
or the full transcript below:
Will the NSW government’s new Parklands for People White Paper for a proposed new Greater Sydney Parklands agency create a visionary new “sustainable” super-agency or a sprawling and ungovernable mess?
Almost a year ago, a new Greater Sydney Parklands was announced but not legislated. Instead, it was created administratively and by appointing the same eight trustees to all three independent parklands trusts, Centennial Parklands (Centennial, Moore and Queens parks), Parramatta Park and Western Sydney Parklands. Other significant parks, Callan Park and Fernhill Estate, were transferred into this new ad-hoc structure, unbeknown to the local communities.
This week Planning and Public Spaces Minister Rob Stokes quietly released the white paper, its purpose to formalise this year-old, department-cobbled structure by way of new legislation to be introduced into NSW Parliament later this year.
Contained in the vague paper is a “new idea” that: “Through the use of surplus government-owned land that is not suitable to be used as parkland, there is an opportunity for GSP to create ‘off- park’ business hubs. These lands can become the funding engine for all of the parklands, owned by GSP Trust and providing a source of long-term, sustainable funding for the Parklands Estate.”\According to the Herald, but not mentioned in the paper, “investigations were under way into whether land owned by the Office of Strategic Lands” could be “vested” in the new Greater Sydney Parklands to “generate up to $20 million a year”.
Herein lies the flaw in the minister’s vision. Not only would a new single Parklands Board look after five of Sydney’s most prized parklands, alone a monumental task, but it would be lumbered with the responsibility of managing a vast portfolio of commercial real estate assets to obtain its funding. Board members would have little time left to think about trees and grass. Almost inevitably, due to overload, the board’s powers and functions would be delegated to departmental staff, out of sight of the public scrutiny.
I would not want to be a trustee on such a board. It’s an impossible job.
To remedy this governance overload, the paper suggests the creation of “community trustee boards”. “Legislation will require the GSP Trust to develop a GSP Consultation, Engagement and Advocacy Framework to guide its approach to communications and engagement and advocacy for the long-term vision for parks in Greater Sydney.” The community boards would “provide advice from a local perspective on park stewardship, usage and activities plus environmental, heritage and cultural issues”. But the community boards would have no real seat at the table, no powers, and only an advisory role.Stokes’ aim for a “50-year vision” for a “city within a park” is laudable. It is a discussion worth having. However, Sydney’s five most significant parklands deserve their own dedicated governance and guaranteed government appropriations. Requiring these major parklands to self-fund and to be run as a business can’t be right.
They are rare gems, valued and precious to all. Let’s remove the commercial imperative and look after them with grass, trees and wildlife – not real estate – as the priority.
