Protecting our Heritage

The preservation and enhancement of our heritage is a central component of the Greens’ philosophy because the protection of our natural, cultural and built environments is a central tenet of ecological sustainability, a principle that underlines our approach to all policy.

The Greens have been involved in many campaigns to protect our heritage sites, from Callan Park to Currawong, the Yasmar Estate and Catherine Hill Bay. The Greens have been active at local and state level, both on the street and in the parliament, in campaigning to preserve and protect our significant sites.

Some people disagree with our approach. The history of Sydney is littered with examples of individuals, companies, groups and governments that have taken the view that progress trumps all and that heritage must give way when jobs are needed and profits are to be made.

That battle of ideas has played out throughout Sydney’s history and the battle has not always been restricted to ideas. From Juanita Nielson through to Jack Mundey and a myriad of local resident and environment groups, people have shown their willingness to put themselves on the line to defend our important sites in the face of unsympathetic development or wanton destruction.

Many of our current heritage buildings and areas have been threatened with destruction, from the colonial buildings of Macquarie Street to the houses of the Rocks and the riverfront setting of Kelly’s Bush. Yet their protection did not bring the economy to a grinding halt, despite the prophesies of those who believe that any restriction on development is an economic crime.

The Greens recognise that heritage protection is a balancing act. Human societies must not only respect and learn from their past, they must also continue to evolve to stay healthy and to thrive in both social and economic terms.

It is important therefore that heritage assessment is rigorous and that heritage sites meet that general broad definition of having a significant contribution to make to our understanding of ourselves and from where we have come. But, once a rigorous assessment has been made, the protection we give to our heritage sites must be strong, although tempered with a suitable degree of practical flexibility.

There is no point, for example, in keeping old buildings in a state of permanent vacancy and long-term neglect and decay. Adaptive re-use is an important part of any heritage system and we must be willing to consider how best to achieve a balance of maintaining heritage values while allowing heritage sites to continue to be a living part of the society.

We should also recognise that, far from being a financial negative, heritage listing and sympathetic treatment can significantly enhance the value of privately held assets.

The period from the late 1970s to the 1990s saw some significant steps forward in strengthening both planning and heritage protection in this state.

Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen heritage policy turn away from protection and back towards “streamlining” and “efficiency” and the elimination of “red tape”– sentiments most beloved by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Most of the recent changes in legislation and policy have been designed to make it harder to protect our heritage and easier to destroy it. To a large extent heritage protection is this state is now illusory.

What then are the Greens proposing for heritage policy?

Our heritage is about both where we have come from and where we want to go.

The Greens vision is to put in place a heritage system in this state whose prime objective is to accept and meet the responsibility that we have to future generations to protect and hand on to them the natural, built and cultural treasures that were left for us by our forebears.

First, in our view, the time has come to genuinely reform the planning system so that development decisions are made on the basis of the public interest, not who made the biggest payment to the ruling party.

Accordingly, the Greens continue to call for the banning of political parties or candidates accepting donations from the property development industry. The Greens have put our policy principles into practice for many years by refusing to accept donations from the property development or any other industry. But a voluntary policy is not good enough. Refusing to accept corporate donations should be mandatory and should apply to all parties and politicians at all levels of government.

Unfortunately, on each of the three occasions that the Greens have moved in parliament for such a ban, the Labor and Liberal parties have combined to defeat it, despite their stated commitments to banning donations.

We will, however, put the proposal up again and again until the Labor and Liberal parties vote in line with their rhetoric. Only then will we be able to remove the corrupting influence of political donations from the development process once and for all.

Second, we believe that it is time to recognise that the community values its heritage and its environment more than it values the profits to be made from unrestrained development.

Accordingly we will push for a clear and publicly supported set of heritage rules that are impartially and uniformly enforced, rather than the current mess of multi-layered rules that can be overridden at will by Ministers and bureaucrats and that are more often breached than they are observed.

To give effect to these rules we will continue to pursue the repeal of Part 3A of the EP&A Act and the limiting or removal of the powers of the state government to override environmental and heritage protections in order to approve large projects that breach the existing rules.

Third, we will pursue changes to the housing codes and the exempt and complying development codes to ensure that proper assessment is made of the heritage significance of a site before it can be destroyed.

Fourth, we are calling for the Heritage Office to again be made independent of the Department of Planning and in this context we support the proposal for a Minister for Heritage to be appointed and for that position to sit within the Environment portfolio. The Office must also be adequately funded and resourced if it is to fulfil its purpose.

For more detail read Sylvia’s speech to the National Trust Breakfast

Read the Hansard transcript of the debate on Sylvia's motion to protect Currawong

Currawong wharf

The Australian Pioneer Village

The Australian Pioneer Village at Wilberforce is a rare example of the worldwide interest in the 1960s and 70s in creating heritage places for educational purposes by transferring historic buildings from elsewhere to a single site.

The Village is sited on the curtilage of Rose Cottage, the oldest surviving timber cottage on the mainland. The eighteen individual buildings at the Village were re-located from the local area, and include a Macquarie-era slab barn.  It is almost certain these buildings would have been demolished and lost had they not been moved to the current site. Together they represent a great example of the diversity of domestic and rural life in the then colony of NSW.

The Village was listed on the NSW Heritage Register in 2004.  It was the idea of Dugald (Bill) McLachlan and his wife Marie. Bill, a veteran of the famous Redex car trials in the 1950s, wanted to preserve part of the Hawkesbury’s historical legacy, and with active support from many members of the Hawkesbury community, he assembled the collection of historic buildings on this property, which fronts the Hawkesbury River. Though Bill died in 1971, his vision was carried on, and Hawkesbury Council purchased the property on behalf of the community in 1985.

This great community asset is now under threat, as at a behind-closed-doors meeting on 12 May this year, Liberal Party and three independent Councillors on Hawkesbury City Council agreed to sell the Village without prior advice to residents. Although Greens Councillor Leigh Williams was successful in gaining permission for local residents, including members of the Friends of the Australiana Village Association, to speak on this matter at the Council meeting, they did not have access to the contents or recommendations of the Council’s report.

The failure of Council to make publicly available a report that apparently recommends the sale of 9.6 hectares, or 27 acres, of heritage-listed public property is extraordinary.

A key reason for the refusal of Council to publish the report appeared to be that the report assessed the business plan for the reopening and operation of the Village submitted by the Friends Association.

The Association is a community-based organisation formed in 1989 to support the Village. It has an active membership and significant local support.

The Association has spent thousands of dollars raised from community members to maintain the Village and ensure that it does not decline. The interest the Friends expressed in leasing the Village from Council at a nominal rent was one motivated by a care for the history and heritage of the Hawkesbury area, and with a view to engaging with local community members in its operation.

In 1987 27,572 people visited the Village, including students from 164 schools. As an educational facility that demonstrates the 19^th century way of life, the Village is unparalleled.

Residents of the Hawkesbury have every reason to be concerned, both at the lack of consultation by Council and by the failure to make publicly available the Council report.

By selling the property Council forever loses control over a significant slice of the history and heritage of the Hawkesbury and of NSW.

Changes by the State Labor Government to planning and heritage laws remove all effective public mechanisms to save the Village from destruction should a new owner choose to apply to the Planning Minister for the site to be removed from the Heritage Register.

Locals have also expressed concern at the relationship between local Liberal member Ray Williams and Mr James Kelly, who has previously sought to buy the Village. Mr Williams has stated that he believes the property should be sold.

The Liberal councillors who wanted it sold eventually bowed to public pressure, and have agreed not to sell the village following a significant community camapign. The Friends now have a 10 year peppercorn rent over the Village and the Council have given $100,00 towards the upgrade of the Village. Local tradies volunteering time and effort to do up the village. Eventually the Pioneer Village will hopefully open its doors to the public and give visitors a taste of the past.