COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Official Committee Hansard
SENATE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE
Reference: Disposal of Defence properties
THURSDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2000
FREMANTLE
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE INTERNET
The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hearings, some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint com- mittee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representa- tives committees and some joint committees make available only Official Hansard transcripts.
The Internet address is: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard To search the parliamentary database, go to: http://search.aph.gov.au SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE Thursday, 19 October 2000
Members: Senator Hogg (Chair), Senator Sandy Macdonald (Deputy Chair), Senators Bourne, Hutchins, Lightfoot and West Participating members: Senators Abetz, Bolkus, Boswell, Brown, Calvert, Chapman, Cook, Coonan, Crane, Eggleston, Faulkner, Ferguson, Ferris, Forshaw, Gibbs, Gibson, Harradine, Harris, Knowles, Mason, McGauran, Murphy, Payne, Tchen, Tierney and Watson Senators in attendance: Senators Hogg, Hutchins, Lightfoot and West
Terms of reference for the inquiry: For inquiry into and report on: 1. The importance and value of the Western Australian Army Museum and the Fremantle Artillery Barracks. 2. Whether the Fremantle Artillery Barracks is the most appropriate and suitable location for the Museum. 3. The reason for the disposal of the Fremantle Artillery Barracks. 4. The disposal of the Fremantle Artillery Barracks and the probity of the disposal process. 5. How the Australian Defence Organisation (ADO) decides whether property is surplus to requirements and the management or disposal of surplus property. 6. Sale and lease-back of ADO property. 7. Any other matter related to the above-mentioned issues.
WITNESSES
ALEXANDER, Dr Ian Christopher (Private capacity)...... 154
ANSTEY, Mr Stephen William, Spokesperson, Residents Action Group and Precinct 3, City of Fremantle...... 121
BAMFORTH, Mr Peter Harvey, Secretary and Treasurer, Military Historical Society of Australia (WA Branch)...... 93
BLADEN, Mr Ken, State President, Returned and Services League of Australia, Western Australian Branch...... 83
BODYCOAT, Mr Ronald Barrie, Member of Council and Honorary Architect, Royal Western Australian Historical Society (Inc.) ...... 101
BRIDGES, Mr Paul, Deputy Curator, Army Museum of Western Australia...... 47
BRIDGES, Mr Paul (Private capacity) ...... 160
DALTON, Mr James Richard, Board Member, Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation...... 47
DEYKIN, Mr John Dewar, Board Chairman, Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation...... 47
DOBIE, Mr Peter David (Private capacity)...... 157
DOWSON, Mr John, President, Fremantle Society...... 137
GORDON, Mr John-Baron, Precinct Convenor, City Precinct of the City of Fremantle...... 108
GORDON, Mr John-Baron (Private capacity)...... 162 HALL, Mr Don, Member, State Executive, Returned and Services League of Australia, Western Australian Branch ...... 83
HANDCOCK, Mr Ian Gilbert (Private capacity)...... 150
HASKELL, Mr William James (Private capacity)...... 116
HIGHAM, Mr Malcolm Ian, Member, Military Historical Society of Australia (WA Branch)...... 93
HOURNE, Mr Geoff, Member, State Executive, Returned and Services League of Australia, Western Australian Branch...... 83
HOWARD, Mr Patrick John, Member, Residents Action Group and Precinct 3, City of Fremantle ...... 121
KERRIDGE, Mr Royce (Private capacity) ...... 146
KNOWLES, Mr Trevor John, Secretary, Fremantle Society...... 137
LLOYD, Mr Anthony Thomas (Private capacity)...... 156
LOCKWOOD, Mr Brian (Private capacity)...... 159
LOVE, Mrs Judith Anne, Vice President, Mundaring and Hills Historical Society ...... 132
McPHERSON, Mr Douglas James (Private capacity) ...... 106
OLSON, Mrs Dale Wendy, Secretary, Board of Management, Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation...... 47
SWEETMAN, Mr John Raymond, Board Member, Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation...... 47
SWEETMAN, Mr John Raymond, Member, Military Historical Society of Australia (WA Branch) ...... 93
TAYLOR, Major General Ken Joseph (Private capacity)...... 110
TAYLOR, Mr Allan Henry (Private capacity) ...... 148
WELLS, Mr Norman Tattershall (Private capacity) ...... 143 Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 47
Committee met at 9.05 a.m.
BRIDGES, Mr Paul, Deputy Curator, Army Museum of Western Australia
DALTON, Mr James Richard, Board Member, Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation
DEYKIN, Mr John Dewar, Board Chairman, Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation
OLSON, Mrs Dale Wendy, Secretary, Board of Management, Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation
SWEETMAN, Mr John Raymond, Board Member, Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation
CHAIR—I declare open this public hearing looking into the disposal of Defence properties. Before inviting the representatives of the Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation to present their evidence, I just want to make a brief statement. Arising out of evidence that was taken yesterday from the Fremantle City Council, their submission, No. 16, said:
More disturbing is the admission from Defence Estate Organisation representatives following the announcement of this Senate Inquiry, that the inquiry will have no impact on the sale of the Fremantle Artillery Barracks which will proceed regardless of the Inquiry outcomes (meeting at the City of Fremantle offices on 15/9/2000).
I was approached by Mr Bain from the Defence Estate office at the conclusion of yesterday’s meeting to say that that was not a true reflection of the way in which matters were conveyed to the Fremantle City Council. Mr Bain wanted to have the opportunity to refute that statement today and I am not denying natural justice, but I said we will take that in evidence when we have the Defence Estate Organisation before us on 10 November in Canberra. For the sake of the other witnesses who will appear today, and for the record at this early stage, I just advise that Defence Estate do have a different view of the events that did take place that day and what may have been said.
Having said that, I welcome to this hearing representatives of the Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation. The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public, but should you at any stage wish to give any part of your evidence in private you may ask to do so and the committee will consider your request. The committee has before it a written submission from the Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation. Are there any alterations or additions you would like to make to your submission at this stage?
Mr Deykin—There are none, Mr Chairman. We will be covering all the aspects in speaking to the submission.
CHAIR—I now invite you to make an opening statement and then we will proceed to questions.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 48 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Dalton—Mr Chairman, senators, I have drawn the marked bullet, so to speak, and I will be presenting the opening address for the museum. You have copies of our submission and we do not intend to rehash the material that is contained in that submission, but there are some issues that we would like to address. Yesterday you heard from the Fremantle City Council and from Notre Dame who gave different dimensions to the issue that you are here to inquire on. Our submission is from, if you like, the occupying tenant and we would consider ourselves to be an aggrieved party in the process. It is a story that necessarily contains a certain amount of emotion because it is a story that, in outcome, may affect people who have spent a significant portion of their lives dedicated to making this museum the showcase that it is, and we do not apologise for the nature of that emotion.
The history of the precinct and the barracks is comprehensively detailed not only in our submission but also in a number of the other ones. So unless there are any particular items in that historical chronology that you want us to address I will step past that to some extent. We are all grown-ups and we understand that public buildings get sold. Indeed, it is a daily occurrence. Dr Tannock, in his evidence yesterday, indicated that Notre Dame has purchased or leased 20-odd public buildings, and we do not walk away from that fact. But this is a singularly unique public building and we believe that there are very good reasons why it should remain in public hands.
The people of Western Australia, particularly Fremantle people, have a great emotional attachment to the precinct. We need to focus on the issues of what is up on the hill on the other side and this particular building. Each of them have a particular presence, each of them have an attachment to either the residents or the ex-service community of the state. The site itself is steeped in history. It is embedded in the culture and the memory of the citizens and soldiers of this state. The precinct itself dates back to 1833. It was one of the first parts of the town plan of Fremantle. It has always been designated as a site for a military presence. It is not a building that simply arose, it was put here for the distinct purpose to protect the citizens and ports of this state.
It has a long and proud military history. The planning of the site goes back to the 1890s with the coastal defence agreement to build forts and barracks to protect the major cities and ports. But as a military establishment it served in World War I as the point of departure for most of the young Western Australians who left here to go overseas, many of them not to return. It also served as a military hospital for when they returned. Many of the veterans who were gassed on the Western Front came here and recovered before they moved back into civilian life. The site is not one that was thrown up in the 1950s and has no real attachment and has no significance to the people of the city and the state. It has been here overlooking and protecting this town for a very long period of time.
What does the museum mean to the people, many of whom spend their daily lives involved with it? I think the easiest way to answer that—and as I said, there is some emotion attached to that—is to read a letter that was written by one of the volunteers, Bill Haskell, to Dr Tannock, when in March it first came to the public notice that there was an intention to actually dispose of it. I do not think the agreement had actually been signed at that stage but there was press speculation that it would be. Bill is here. Can you stand up, Bill? Bill is one of our living exhibits. Bill does the tours for schools and people in our POW gallery. He sits with children at his knee and tells them the story. I will just read you his letter. It was written on 15 March. I
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 49 have copies for the members of the committee. It is addressed to Dr Tannock of Notre Dame University. It commences:
Dear Dr Tannock
I write to express my views on the proposed purchase by the Notre Dame University of the Artillery Barracks site in Fremantle.
My name is Bill Haskell. I am 79 years of age and have been a lifelong resident of the Fremantle area. I joined the AIF in early 1940 and saw active service in the Middle East and Java, before being taken Prisoner of War (POW) by the Japanese. I worked on the Burma Siam Railway under Colonel Weary Dunlop and after the railway was completed I was shipped to Japan and spent a year working in coal mines under the Inland Sea. Six of my siblings also saw active service abroad and we lost our eldest brother on the Kokoda Track. You will appreciate that I am speaking from a proud and patriotic military background. I represent thousands of ex-service people who hold similar views to myself and have earned the right to question what is going on in the current negotiations.
In common with hundreds of other volunteers, whose efforts are largely responsible for the current healthy state of the Army Museum, I have been a guide at the museum since its relocation in the barracks and regularly give talks to schools and service groups in the POW gallery.
It is unnecessary to point out, that the artillery barracks constitute uniquely heritage material, nor the military significance of an establishment that has housed only army personnel since its construction ninety years ago. I well recall the pre- World War II period when the barracks housed the Coastal Artillery batteries and they served the gun emplacements at Fort Forrest by horse drawn limbers. The place just oozes military nostalgia, which must be preserved.
The ground floor galleries of the building are devoted entirely to each campaign in which Australian and particularly West Australian troops have been engaged. There is a wealth of memorabilia on display and they present a priceless living history to the men and women who have served this country so well. In fact they pay homage to that mighty host of Australians who lie in foreign fields and are no longer able to speak for themselves. These Australians gave their all to preserve our democracy and freedom of choice which oddly enough enables your University to seek to buy the very edifice which honours their deeds.
The barracks are irreplaceable from a military viewpoint. Nowhere else with so much storage space would be available to complement the galleries. There is a magnificent parade ground capable of housing field pieces and armoured vehicles as well as providing adequate off street parking. There is in addition its central location and accessibility to public transport.
These are the days when important decisions on defence and ex-service matters are made by people who in the main, have not experienced the heat of battle or embraced the companionship of men in arms. How anyone in their right state of mind could countenance selling this magnificent building is beyond belief. In another age, divorced from that cursed economic rationalism, such a proposal would have been rightly treated as a great big hoax. It is a sad reflection on today’s society and politics that our leaders continue to abandon all the institutions and way of life that made this country so desirable.
Please Dr Tannock consider your duty as a West Australian who has widely used the resources of this wonderful state and desist from you endeavours to wrench this magnificent piece of realty from its rightful owners the people of Australia.
That was written on 15 March and there has been no response, but in all fairness to Dr Tannock, how could you respond to it? I think that gives an indication of why we people as representatives of the board of the museum have fought so hard for this decision to be overturned. It is primarily because we owe that as a duty to Bill.
One of the terms of reference of this inquiry is whether this is the most appropriate place for the Artillery Barracks, for the museum. We say yes for some fairly obvious reasons. You have seen this site and you have seen the alternative site. I do not know what judgments you have made, but for we residents of the place it seems almost inconceivable that one could suggest relocating what we have here to Irwin Barracks. The museum actually started off in the Dilhorn Barracks in Perth in 1977 and was there until 1994. In the late 1980s there was consideration
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 50 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 given to moving the museum into the Swan Barracks, which are in the museum precinct in town. To be frank, it would be an absolutely ideal location, a wonderful place for it. It is in the centre of the city, it is in the museum precinct, and close to the Western Australia Museum. It would have been wonderful.
That did not come to fruition because the Department of Defence decided that they wanted to sell the Swan Barracks. So we stayed in Dilhorn Barracks until 1994 when the Department of Defence decided that Dilhorn Barracks was surplus to requirements and they wanted to sell that. So we moved to this location. Do not get us wrong, we were happy to come here, this was a good choice, and we have been here for five years. But the Department of Defence has decided that this is surplus to requirements and they are going to sell it and they are going to relocate us to Irwin. However, we understand that is on the list for disposal and I presume in five years that will become surplus to requirements and we will move yet again. We have given consideration to hiring some very large pantechs and putting the display in them so it will make it easier for us to move the next time it happens.
With respect to the location of the museum here in the tourist precinct, as everyone seems to accept and nobody denies, it is the ideal location. The only people who are keen to move us are the Department of Defence, and I think that is because of their contractual obligations to find us another home. The potential purchaser thinks it is the right place to be. The mayor spoke strongly yesterday about the importance of the museum being here as part of enhancing the tourist precinct. The building itself is an exhibit. The bricks and mortar of the Artillery Barracks are as much a part of the exhibition of this museum as the things in the glass cases on the first floor. There is a synergy that embraces the barracks and the collection and enhances both. To some extent we believe that we are the western equivalent of the Australian War Memorial. Many of the citizens of this state do not have the opportunity to go east 4,000 kilometres and view the awesome collection in the War Memorial. I was a long-term resident of Canberra and on many occasions visited the War Memorial, which is absolutely stunning. We do not have that facility. This is the best we can do to educate our children and our citizens about the things they need to know about our military history and the contribution that has made to our culture. And we do it well, I think. Everybody else suggests we do, and we think we do as well.
You have viewed the alternative site. It is certainly not our choice. Indeed, we have prepared a facilities brief, which we gave to the Defence Estate Organisation. I am not sure whether you have seen a copy of this. It does not surprise me that you shake your head. It is a consideration of the usefulness of the site.
CHAIR—Could you identify the document?
Mr Dalton—It is a functional planning brief called ‘The Army Museum of WA (Inc.) Facilities Requirements 2000 to 2005’. It is dated September 2000. It was presented to the representatives of the Defence Estate Organisation—
CHAIR—When?
Mr Dalton—In the meeting that we had with them on 14 September. It basically sets out our view of the appropriateness of the Irwin Barracks site. In regard to our consideration of the location and what it would cost to bring that site anywhere near being a replacement, we
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 51 understood that we would be located in a place that was equal to or better than our current establishment. To be frank, there was absolutely no way the Irwin Barracks site would ever be better than this. But even to be equal with this we believe would cost in the order of $3 million: for construction, for setting up displays and moving the exhibits. None of the board members here would ask our volunteers to pack up their stuff and transport it up there and unpack it, because we honestly believe we will not have any volunteers. If the museum moves from here, the energy that has been built up over the last five years will simply dissipate. There is nothing to attract that volunteer group to Irwin Barracks. So we would think that simply to prepare it, move the exhibits and set them up will cost around $3 million, and the figuring is in there. That does not take into account any of the ongoing costs that would be there. The Army History Unit would have to engage staff to run the museum; it would not be done on a volunteer basis. They would have ongoing maintenance. I could be cheeky and say that I think that is going to cost about $4 million, because that seems to be the figure everybody is talking about, but realistically over the next five years you would not get much change out of $4 million.
The other question we ask ourselves is: why would you move the museum from here in its absolutely prime site and take it to a place where tourism is at its best very iffy, and locate it between a cemetery, a sewerage works, a psychiatric institution and a stray pets home? That is not somewhere where you want to teach your children about the military heritage of this country.
You have been to Irwin barracks. Three or four years ago that site on the corner on the left as you look at it contained the old assets workshops and vacant land. You have seen it now. There is a rather nice residential development. On the right hand side as you look at it, there is a brand new school going up. Within a few years that will be a prime site for residential development. If you speak to serving soldiers who were stationed there, they readily acknowledge that they do not see a continuing presence for very long at Irwin. Whether that is in the Army’s planning, I don’t know, but the people on the ground do not see Irwin barracks as being a long-term proposition.
The other place that might be available is Leeuwin barracks. Of all the evils, that is most probably the least. When you have a look—as we have—at Leeuwin as a potential site, you will see that it would cost significant amounts of money to get the buildings to the grading that you would need to use them for a museum. As we understand it, that site is also on the list of assets that are being looked at for disposal. The only other places that are on the list that might be available for future relocation are Pearce Air Base up at Bullsbrook and Stirling Naval Base down at Rockingham, although I think there is still plenty of space at Northam. If they sell these places and then have to look for a home for us, do we move the Army Museum to Northam? Certainly, that is an absurd suggestion, but the way this issue has been conducted has been full of absurd suggestions. We simply do not think that moving us to Irwin is realistic or, in the circumstances, the appropriate place to put us. This is the best home for the Army Museum.
The committee is also looking to find the reasons for the disposal of this piece of property. To be frank, we would like to know as well. If you read the letters that have been written and even the defence submission itself, it always has that euphemistic ‘surplus to requirements’. That is a statement of outcome, not of reason. We have no idea why this piece of property is now surplus to requirements. That is a decision and not a matter of fact. It is a decision. Somebody has sat down and said, ‘We do not want to put any function into the Artillery Barracks and therefore it
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 52 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 is surplus to requirements.’ That decision can just as easily be reconsidered and somebody could say, ‘Yes, we can find a use for the Artillery Barracks and it is not surplus to requirements.’
The site is currently used for the museum and as a home for the University of Western Australia Regiment. There is potential to use it for a place for recruitment. The 1128 reserves have been negotiating with the university regiment for some time to put a rifle platoon in here. The Pilbara Regiment has a presence out at Irwin barracks. They could be moved here. There are a number of cadet units. There is an air training corps unit that runs out of Leeuwin barracks which would be happy to move here. There is a growing number of schools, not only in this area but in this state, which have military cadet units. It is an obvious place for education. In my former life with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, we started some years ago to hold a Remembrance Day school service out here on the parade ground. Regularly the Remembrance Day service got upwards of 1,000 people, including large numbers of schoolchildren. In 1998, we celebrated a particularly unique occasion there—we had three World War I veterans turn 100 on the same day. We had their birthday party out there. As a place for those sorts of events and commemorations it is absolutely ideal. It is ideal as a showcase for Army history and achievement. It is ideal as a showplace for community involvement. You cannot get a better site than this.
The reasons stated to us in letters and in meetings with the Defence Estate Organisation and the Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Abetz, for this being disposed of always started as, ‘We want to reduce the ongoing maintenance costs.’ We are grown-ups. We understand the economies of business and that this is not a cheap place to maintain. Our answer to that was, ‘Give it to us. Make a donation either to the state or the city and we will look after it. We will undertake to meet the maintenance costs and they will be off your hands. If the real reason is that it is costing too much for upkeep, let us take it over.’ After a bit of argy-bargy we got down to the fact that it was not really the maintenance cost. They want to get the bucks for the site— they want to get their $4 million. The real reason is they want to get rid of the property, capitalise the asset and also, in the same event, reduce their ongoing maintenance.
It was obvious in the questions you were asking witnesses yesterday that the committee was concerned about some of the probity issues in this. We, too, had some issues with the probity of the process—from inside that process. Let us make a point very clear at the start: the museum is not owned by the Army. Contrary to what Dr Tannock has written in his note to the Notre Dame community—and I do not know whether you have seen a copy of the letter, but I am happy to hand it up—
CHAIR—Can you identify it for the record?
Mr Dalton—It is a note on letterhead of the University of Notre Dame. It is addressed to the Notre Dame Community from Dr P.D. Tannock, Vice-Chancellor. The subject is the proposed sale of the Artillery Barracks in the east end of Fremantle to the University of Notre Dame Australia. The date is 4 October. I am referring to point 3 where it says:
This museum belongs to the Department of Defence.
The museum does not belong to the Department of Defence. In the department’s submission on page 264 of the bound collection under the heading of ‘Army Museum’, one could get the
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 53 impression that the Army History Unit has at least some responsibility, if not ownership, of the museum, which is obviously wrong. Paragraph 34 says:
The Army Museum of WA is one of the regional museums in the network and a sub-unit of the AHU. The AHU provide funding and paid Army Reserve staff who are responsible to the AHU Headquarters.
Certainly, every bit of that is true. But the impression it gives that they are the ones responsible for the museum is obviously wrong. They provide very small funding and a token presence in staffing. The bulk of it is the work of the foundation and the volunteers. The collection itself is owned by the people of Western Australia. They come by donation. Indeed, we have already had numerous calls from people saying that if the museum is sold they want their gear back. That will be a real issue for us to address.
There is very little support from the Department of Defence for the museum over and above the provision of the location, and yet this is a showcase for Army history and achievement and it is obviously the most appropriate site to commemorate the significant events that will occur next year with the Centenary of Federation and the Centenary of the Army. The behaviour of the Department of Defence through the Defence Estate Organisation and the defence portfolio ministers has been appalling, and a lot of that is detailed in our submission.
When you read the chronology attached to the department’s submission, what is missing? What is missing is any reference to any discussions, any negotiations, any consultation with the current occupant—us. It is as though we are phantoms. Yet I would have thought from the hue and cry that has been raised that one of the most important issues to address us on was the nature and role of the museum, but we were not. We became aware from the newspaper of the actual decision to sell. In fact, all of the information that we have had until very recently we have got from either newspapers or friends who have phoned us up. You would be surprised at the nature of the grapevine and the number of people who have provided us with information— we have many friends. So we obviously reacted—and Notre Dame were an obvious target—and I make no apologies for the process we had to undertake to get attention. With respect, you would not be sitting here if we had not kicked up a fuss. We had to get attention. The two obvious targets were Notre Dame and the decision making process. I do feel some sympathy for Dr Tannock because he and the university have been innocent victims; but, as he said yesterday, with hindsight, and on reflection, he should have insisted that there was some notice put in at the start that this was under way—and he is reaping the response to that error of judgment.
The only way we could address this was to raise public awareness of the nature of what was happening, because we were not in the loop of the discussions of what was going on. Right from the start, Notre Dame seemed to be presenting themselves as though they had a right to be here simply because they had asked about or expressed an interest in the property over time. It is a bit like your local real estate agent or property developer popping his card in your mailbox and saying, ‘If you want to sell, I am interested,’ and then, when you do want to sell, claiming some right to be involved in the negotiations. We do not believe the site should be sold out of public hands, and there are a number of mechanisms by which that might be achieved, either through the state government, through the local government with the city council or a combination thereof, or through Defence retaining the title to it and having an arrangement where they do not lose the asset value but it is managed by a consortium of us and other people. I do not see a place for Notre Dame in any of that. I believe it should be retained in public hands.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 54 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
If you accept that there is an opportunity for it to be disposed of and for a different sort of life to be brought to this environment, as Dr Tannock argued for yesterday, why should Notre Dame have priority over the other institutions? If the Department of Defence were keen to get the best price for the site and did not want the rapacious property developers to come into it, why didn’t they have a closed tendering system with the educational institutions? In our view, if any of those have a prior right or are first amongst those equals, it would be the University of Western Australia. They have had a university regiment here for many years. They did not get the opportunity to express an interest in it, nor did Curtin, Murdoch or any of the TAFEs or any of the other groups. Dr Tannock expressed a view that this would be a fine place to conduct educational activities. There are a whole raft of other people in this town who do that. Why should they be excluded from the process simply because Notre Dame put their card in the government’s letterbox some years ago? We do not think that is right. So we find it difficult, as taxpayers, that even the process that says that the Department of Defence should get the best price has not been addressed properly.
I think what irked us most all through this, made all of us angry and started us off on the path that we quite deliberately chose to take was that all the assurances of consultation, the process of time lines, evaporated. We had the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs opening our POW gallery downstairs and assuring everyone present that he would make sure that there was consultation before anything happened. The consultation that did happen—and only once—was a meeting held on 14 September, which was attended by Liz Clarke, the local representatives of DEO, a host of consultants from Knight Frank, Dr Roger Lee from the Army History Unit and ourselves from the museum.
CHAIR—In September of which year?
Mr Dalton—This year—just over a month ago. That was the first formal consultation with the board members and the consortium. There had been, I think, one previous discussion with the chair and one board member with one member of the DEO from here. This was the first time that anybody sat down and said, ‘This is what is going on.’ To be frank, it was a fairly standard bureaucratic process of, ‘We won’t discuss the issue; we’ll discuss the outcome.’ We have all had experience of these events where the decision has been made and we cannot overturn it: the minister has already made the decision so it is a case of saying, ‘Let’s talk about how we move you to Irwin barracks.’ Our view was that we were not prepared to talk about moving to Irwin barracks. We gave them a copy of the facility’s brief and said, ‘That is our view of Irwin barracks. We have already gone through that. Now we want to talk about the decision.’ To be frank, the meeting did not really go anywhere.
At that meeting—and I want to pick up a couple of things that you mentioned before, Mr Chairman—we pursued with some vigour the question of when all this was going to happen. We knew of the inquiry at the time: the inquiry had been announced. We spent some time saying, ‘When are all these things going to happen? We need to know because we have our own time line and agenda of things to do. We need to get into this.’ After, again, some reasonably robust discussion, we were left with the very clear impression—because we caucused afterwards to make sure that we had the same view—that nothing would happen before December, and it was put in the terms of, ‘It is highly unlikely that anything will happen before December’—
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 55
Senator LIGHTFOOT—That is this year?
Mr Dalton—This year, Senator—‘and, more likely than not, not before the end of the financial year.’ That was the time frame. We said, ‘You are obviously not going to report before the Senate inquiry hands down its report.’ We were, quite bluntly, looking to set our time frame for how we would generate opposition to the process. We needed to do that. That is the understanding that we walked away with. We also walked away with an understanding that there would be further consultations not only on the location at Irwin but also with the stakeholders. Again, we put it strongly to Liz Clarke and to the consultants that what they needed to do was to get all the people who were interested—the council, ourselves, the residents group, the ex-service community—around a table and not try and talk to us individually as they were doing then. They needed to talk to us around a table to get us into the loop if they wanted to do it. There was at least an acknowledgment that that seemed to be a reasonable thing to do, which surprised me—it came as a shock to them. There was an agreement that that was an approach to take. My colleagues and I thought that would happen but, of course, it never has.
When you read the things in the Defence brief about that process under ‘Consultations’ and so on, you find they are all things that will take place. We are up to the stage where, if you believe what you read in the press—and I normally have trouble with that—the Defence spokespeople have been saying, and said on 7 October in the Fremantle Herald, that the decision had been made and the Department of Defence would not be swayed. I thought that was good hairy-chested stuff.
The other thing that really intrigued me was the very last one. We have a copy of the cutting if you would like it. The last sentence was a quote from the spokesperson saying, ‘The sale will be completed within two months.’ Two months from 7 October is 7 December.
Senator HUTCHINS—I would not mind a copy.
Mr Dalton—I have a copy. I will get it to you afterwards. It was not ‘in about two months’, it was not ‘before the end of the year’; it was, ‘The sale will be completed within two months’— that is, on or before 7 December. That to me seemed as though they were thumbing their nose at this inquiry, saying that they understood you were not to report until early in the new year but that the sale would be completed before the end of the year. What do you do? You crank up the next round. That was, most probably, the thing that convinced us that we should commence the picket on Notre Dame.
The sadness in all of this is that, if that were to occur—let us say that the sale was to go through in the time lines that we have been given, before the end of December—it would happen merely days before the Centenary of Federation. So with this particular institution, at a point when we should be celebrating our history, there will be a great deal of sadness in this community. That is not the way to go into such an important commemoration. Even more importantly—and I do not think anybody has actually focused on this—next year is the International Year of the Volunteer. This is an organisation that could not run without volunteers. It just simply could not do it. So we say to all of these people who have devoted so much time and energy and such a part of their lives as volunteers, ‘Thank you. Well done. We had all the hype after the Olympics about how valuable volunteers were, but that is gone and now we will give you a kick in the teeth.’ To me, that is just outrageous.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 56 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
There is one of your terms of reference that says ‘any other points’. There were some things that were said yesterday that we would like to raise and just a couple of other short points. I know I have gone over time and I am sorry, but you have given me some latitude. The first thing that I am incredibly disappointed about—and that disappointment is shared by my colleagues—is that the Defence Estate Organisation, Department of Defence, are not required to give evidence here. We would like to hear what they say. We understand that, as a larger institution, it is most probably easier for them to give it back there. But this is a question about here. They are making decisions about here, and we believe they should be here giving their evidence.
CHAIR—Can I just stop you there? That was a decision of the committee; it was not a decision of the Defence Estate Organisation or the Department of Defence.
Mr Dalton—I am sorry.
CHAIR—I normally would not break in. It was done quite deliberately because of the amount of time that the committee had available to it to conduct the inquiry here and given that the inquiry is not solely restricted to this issue; rather it is looking at the broader issue.
Mr Dalton—I understand.
CHAIR—Nonetheless, the evidence that is given by the Defence Estate Organisation and the department will be available in Hansard and we will make it available to you.
Mr Dalton—We can pull it off the Net.
CHAIR—If there are issues there that are raised and that need to be addressed, then we will take the appropriate steps to ensure that is done.
Mr Dalton—It was a target that had to be shot at.
CHAIR—I understand but I wanted you to understand that that was our decision as a committee.
Mr Dalton—I would think that we would endeavour to make some arrangements to be there when the hearings are held in November. If we were cynical, and we are not, we might even subscribe to the theory that there was a conspiracy to prevent the people of Western Australia from trying to obtain the museum. That is the timing issue. This came to light in about January. It was surprising that it was so soon after the opportunity for us to make a claim on the Federation funds had—
Senator LIGHTFOOT—And who were the parties to that perceived conspiracy?
Mr Dalton—I said I am only cynical, Senator. I hadn’t actually got down to it. I do not necessarily subscribe to it. It was interesting that the timing was such as to prevent us from potentially making an application to the Centenary Fund for funding that we might have been able to do ourselves. That may have simply been the way the process had dragged on. But it
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 57 was, in the event, an opportunity that we missed—being able to go forward in a process that had been put up by the government for the very purpose of addressing issues like this. We had missed that opportunity. We did make some personal representations to people, and not in writing, to see whether the opportunity had evaporated. We are reasonably convinced that, even if we had made strong representations, the money had gone and the process had finished. One of our strong supporters was involved in the process of assisting with the claims. He advised us that there was no opportunity to do it. It was an opportunity that was missed and that we would have liked to have participated in.
These comments are somewhat random, and I apologise for that. Dr Tannock indicated yesterday—I cannot remember what his exact words were—in the last sentence of his submission along the lines that the university would withdraw its bid if there was significant public disquiet. I must admit that I had to smile. What does it take? We have already had a rally of thousands of people. We have had a petition that has something like 15,000 people’s names on it. We picketed his front door for a week—gently and with great humour but there was a sense that people were angry about this. What does he need? Does he want us to turn it on again? Does he want 10,000 people in the parade ground and 25,000 signatures? If that is what he wants we will do it. And we can. That is not bragging. The ex-service community and the people of this city simply do not want this to happen. Indeed, the Premier of the state, in a letter to Julie Bishop, the federal member for Curtin, said:
You will be aware that the proposed sale of the Barrack site by the Commonwealth has attracted much attention within the State, and there is considerable public concern that the Army Museum of Western Australia may have to be relocated as a consequence.
Everybody seems to accept that this is not a popular decision. What does Dr Tannock want us to do?
CHAIR—Can we have a copy of that letter, please?
Mr Dalton—Certainly. It should be the other way. If Dr Tannock really thinks he has a right to be here over and above that as a commercial proposition, then let him get 3,000 people in the parade ground. Let him get a petition that has 15,000 names on it. Let him come and picket our place. We are happy to do that and demonstrate that he has public support and that it is not simply a business enterprise. As I said, we do feel some sympathy for Dr Tannock. We have nothing against the university. It is a fine institution. But in this circumstance to some extent by the actions of the department they have been drawn into it, and I think they should extract themselves very quickly. That extraction may make the department go back and start this all again and do it properly, if they have a mind to do that. We understand that somewhere along the line consideration is going to have to be given to disposing of this.
The other thing that I suppose got the hairs on the back of my neck up a bit yesterday was Dr Tannock’s rather gratuitous remarks about the voluntary nature of this museum and our capacity to manage the precinct in a businesslike way. Not only is that wrong, I find it rather offensive, because it was coming from someone who acknowledged in his evidence to you that the university will run the precinct at a loss—apart from the student capacity, all the other things are going to run at a loss—and somebody who has not engaged anybody to undertake the evaluation or to prepare any sort of business plan for what they are going to do with this. He is suggesting that they are professional and we are not. He makes a fundamental mistake: this
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 58 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 museum is run by volunteers and has been for 25 years, but that does not mean that the volunteers are amateurs. There are some extraordinarily professional people involved in this. In this room today, there are members of the board and members of the museum who were formerly very senior military officers, business men and women and public servants, who in their time of earning a crust have exercised judgments, have exercised skills and have the experience at least equal to Dr Tannock. These people provide that skill and experience to this organisation for nothing, and that is because of what it is and what it does.
We have a business plan. It was given to you yesterday by the mayor, which was very nice of him, but I would formally like to acknowledge a copy of it myself. It is a document entitled ‘Master plan for the management of the Artillery Barracks precinct Cantonment Hill Fremantle’. There is the glossary at the front which you have seen, but there is also a substantial document about how we would run this and make money out of it.
CHAIR—In handing that up, can you clearly identify the difference between the document that the committee received yesterday from the Fremantle City Council and the document that you have tabled now? It is quite a substantial document.
Mr Dalton—I think it is the same document. We do not know what they gave you.
CHAIR—They gave us the glossy.
Mr Bridges—The glossy is the public face of this document. It is the executive summary.
Mr Dalton—If that is all you have got, behind that is the actual plans—the detail, the nature of the structural changes, the business plan, how we would market and obtain revenue from the site.
CHAIR—Who prepared that?
Mr Dalton—It was prepared by a wholly professional group. It was mainly people within the organisation. The carriage of it was by Colonel John Tick, who is a former chief engineer for the Army in this district and is a business consultant currently.
CHAIR—When was it finally signed off? Is there a date on it?
Mr Bridges—It is a document that has evolved over time. The formal finalisation of it was 6 September this year.
Mr Dalton—But it has had a gestation of a little time.
CHAIR—I just wanted to clearly differentiate between the document we had been presented with so that it is on the record that we have a more fulsome explanation of your business plan. Who has that business plan been provided to?
Mr Dalton—Fremantle City Council, the state government, the parliamentary secretary and this committee.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 59
CHAIR—Defence Estate?
Mr Dalton—We gave it to their boss. We gave it to Senator Abetz so we presume it has made its way to them. There was some discussion yesterday about how the $4 million, the price, came for it. Maybe we can provide you with an answer for that. We had a meeting—again, a not overly successful meeting—with the parliamentary secretary here on 25 September. He was accompanied by one of his advisers and by two people from the local Defence Estate. It was a meeting that they sought with us; it was not one we sought with them.
Senator HUTCHINS—Who represented the foundation at that meeting?
Mr Dalton—They were Mr Bridges, Colonel John Tick our chairman, our secretary Dale Olson, Major General Ken Taylor and me. Again, it was a bit like the other: ‘The decision has been made to sell; the decision is not open for review; and we will move you to Irwin barracks.’ We pursued—I think with some vigour—the nature of the decision. We said it was wrong. We said the sorts of things that we have been saying privately and publicly and that we have said here. One of the aspects we pursued was: ‘Look, we’ll buy it off you; how much do you want for it?’ To be honest and frank, we thought that we would muddy the waters by putting another bidder in the field. We said, ‘If Notre Dame can get priority status, what happens if you get another priority status bid?’ and they said, ‘This one has to stop and we would have to find some way to resolve two priority bids.’ If Notre Dame can get it, we can get it. There is nothing they do that we do not do. We get government funding. We might be small, but we satisfy the criteria—the public interest stuff. So we said, ‘How much do you want for it,’ and the parliamentary secretary said, ‘We don’t know; we’re going to get it valued.’ We said, ‘If you put your car out on the nature strip and you want to sell it, you have some idea what you want for it—give us an idea.’ I think the response was, ‘It is somewhere between $60,000 and $18 million,’ and I said, ‘Come on, give us a better shot.’
CHAIR—That was pretty good for Senator Abetz.
Mr Dalton—Senator Abetz is not one of my personal favourites at the moment—and I will come to that in a minute. Out of that argy-bargy, we said, ‘If we offered you $1 million would you take it?’ We then offered $2 million, $3 million and finally got to $4 million and stopped. The discussion then proceeded on the basis that it was worth $4 million. I would not suggest that we did not help fuel it, but when we started to then talk to people we said that they wanted $4 million for it. So I think that may well be how that figure got there.
CHAIR—Who stopped at $4 million—Senator Abetz or the adviser?
Mr Dalton—I subsequently said to him in trying to wind that discussion up: ‘So you’re really saying that the military heritage of this state is worth only $4 million. You wouldn’t take $3 million but you will take $4 million.’ In the end he said yes. That was part of the cut and thrust of what was going on. So that is where the $4 million came from. Even if it is $8 million, I do not care. The government spends an enormous amount of money on memorials and monuments not only here but overseas. A significant amount of money has been put into the museum at Hell Fire Pass, the monuments at Le Hamel and Villers-Bretonneux, the new commemoration point at Anzac Cove and the Korean War memorial and the nurses war memorial in Canberra. Do not get me wrong: they are marvellous things and they should
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 60 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 happen. The federal government seems to be prepared to put all that money in but it fails to realise the significance of educating Australians here about the meaning of these things, and it will not give us $4 million for this. That, to me, seems to be not only petty but short-sighted, and it is not the sort of leadership that we as Australians or as taxpayers expect from our government.
As I said, the meeting with Senator Abetz was not a good one. Not only did we have the bit about the $4 million and whether the heritage of this state was worth that; for a senior politician to tell a group of people like us that the government would be prepared to sell the Australian War Memorial was just outrageous. To a certain extent we got there by going through the process of asking, ‘How much is this one worth?’ and we got to the figure of $4 million. We put to him, ‘This is as significant to the people of Western Australia as the War Memorial in Canberra is to the nation, but you are still prepared to sell this,’ and he said yes. I then asked him whether the government would be prepared to sell the Australian War Memorial in Canberra and he said yes.
I have been around politics and politicians for a long time, and I just found it strange that a minister would say that. I thought he had obviously misunderstood what I’d said, so I asked: ‘What would you do? Where would you relocate it to? Would you take it to Queanbeyan?’ He said: ‘No. That is in another state.’ I said: ‘Okay. Would you take it out to Mitchell and put it with the Treloar Centre?’ He said: ‘That’s a possibility. But, no. We would have to find an appropriate site.’ So the notion of selling the Australian War Memorial did not faze him because he was prepared to discuss where he would relocate the collection to.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Just for the Hansard record, the government has no intention and never will have any intention of selling the Australian War Memorial. It is a ludicrous concurrence by Senator Abetz.
Mr Dalton—Senator Lightfoot, you and I well know that and well know what the reaction of the people of this nation would be. I am simply saying that we had one of the Defence portfolio ministers sit with a group of ex senior public servants and very senior military officers and he had no problem with saying that. That to me is absolutely outrageous.
CHAIR—Undoubtedly, the parliamentary secretary will read the Hansard, and we will get a response from him. Were the DEO people as enthusiastic as the parliamentary secretary about selling?
Mr Dalton—In fairness to the DEO people, the body language was such as to be looking for a place to hide.
Senator WEST—However, the AWM is not DEO’s to dispose of; it is DVA’s, isn’t it?
Mr Dalton—No, it comes within the portfolio of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs—
Senator WEST—Yes.
Mr Dalton—But I actually think the land itself is owned by one of the—
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 61
Senator WEST—The Commonwealth.
Mr Dalton—Yes, by one of the separate commissions. It is not Defence land, but the senator obviously was not aware of that. We were talking principle at that stage, not detail. In that long train, what I am trying to convey to you is that, through all this process of talking about the probity of it, it has been handled in one of the most inept ways you could imagine. When you have such a sensitive issue and you have managed in a very short space of time to get a significant proportion of the population of this state, including former senior servicemen, offside, you obviously have not handled it well. I would leave it at that. I thank you for your indulgence.
The last message we would like to leave with you before you start grilling us is: why are we doing this? You have heard from the Fremantle City Council about how important this precinct is. You have even heard from Dr Tannock how important this site is. We believe that it is important and should stay in public hands, as we said, either in the state’s or in the local authority’s. There are any number of combinations. We oppose it because it is fundamentally wrong to dispose of it in the way it has been. There is a spirit to this place, and it is a spirit that whispers to all of us—particularly to our young ones who come here—through the lips of people like Bill Haskell. It tells us of the deeds of other young Australians who gave their youth—and some, their lives—that we might enjoy the robust freedoms of this vibrant nation; the right to sit here and talk to you and tell you that this is wrong. This place tells their story and in the telling gives dimension to our lives and to our strength of character. What they did they did for us—for everybody, for all Australians. Those of us who have a true understanding of this place and what it means hear the whispers. We will continue this fight, as did the valiant comrades we revere in this place, because to do less would diminish their memory and tarnish their example. We thank you.
CHAIR—I want to clarify something for you before we proceed to questions from my colleagues: the statement I made at the outset of proceedings yesterday was that this is a committee of inquiry and, as such, has no role other than to report on a set of terms of reference agreed to by the Senate. As such, it has no capacity to directly intervene in the sale process.
Mr Dalton—We understand.
CHAIR—That is fine.
Mr Dalton—To be frank, out of courtesy to this committee, we wanted to tell the story, because you will tell your story.
CHAIR—We accept that you wanted to tell the story. I just do not want people to be under the misapprehension that there is some direct interventionist role that this committee can play.
Mr Dalton—We understand that. But we want you to go back to your party rooms and we want you to tell your colleagues that this is nonsense and, however you do that, to get the pressure applied to stop it from happening. We understand the nature of government, we understand the nature of politics and we will use any avenue we can—including your good selves—to get our message across. The other thing is that we have a videotape of the rally that was held here and the speeches that were made. We think you might enjoy it.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 62 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
CHAIR—What was the date?
Mr Dalton—It was 21 May. It was a rally to draw support. It might give you something to watch instead of some of those things we hear some senators watch at parliament.
CHAIR—I can assure you that none of the senators here do.
Senator WEST—Can I start by getting some background. The foundation administers the collection. It is run by volunteers. How many volunteers?
Mrs Olson—There are at present 124 voting members of the Army Museum foundation. That is made up of 107 individuals along with 18 corporate and unit association memberships. There are 70 active volunteers in a range of activities, including staff for public open days, guiding, the maintenance team, the vehicle restoration team and computing duties. Also, there are curatorial volunteers for work in the library, the document archives, medals and heraldry, conservation and storage of the collection and the photographic archives and as researchers.
Senator HUTCHINS—Are there any requirements for membership?
Mrs Olson—Yes. Membership, under our constitution, is at present set at a $40 fee for individuals and $100 as a corporate or unit association membership. That enables people to vote at meetings of the foundation.
Senator HUTCHINS—Can anybody join?
Mrs Olson—Anybody. You make an application to the board of management—
Senator HUTCHINS—So there are no requirements for membership?
Mrs Olson—No, not at all.
Senator WEST—Do you have volunteers who are not members of the foundation?
Mrs Olson—Yes, we do.
Senator WEST—How many of those?
Mrs Olson—It is very hard to gauge. We have over 350 people on our mailing list, of which 70 people are regular volunteers—what we consider to be active volunteers—who make a daily, weekly or monthly commitment to the museum in the range of duties that I have outlined.
Senator WEST—How many paid staff do you have?
Mr Deykin—The foundation as an entity does not have any.
Senator WEST—How many paid staff does the museum have?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 63
Mr Deykin—At this moment in time we have one.
Mr Bridges—We have one paid staff person—that comes through the Army History Unit— and that person is our curator, Captain Wayne Gardiner.
Mr Dalton—And he is not full time. He is 12 hours a week.
Mr Bridges—He is 100 days per year of reserve pay, which averages two days per week at six hours per day. Our normal complement is three but, just by circumstances, we are down to one. We get a replacement manager in December this year.
Mr Dalton—That staff funding and a small administrative allocation of about $7,000 is all the support we get from the Department of Defence—apart from the building.
Senator WEST—How much would that salary be worth?
Mr Dalton—It is $10,000 a year.
Senator WEST—In salary?
Mr Dalton—In salary.
Senator WEST—And $7,000—
Mr Dalton—And $7,500 in administrative funding.
Senator WEST—What is your revenue from other sources?
Mrs Olson—I do not have with me today the full financial statement and record of our income and expenditure, but I can provide that to the committee from our annual general meeting. The figures that I have prepared today are really a breakdown of visitor numbers through the door—so the cash that we would receive from public open days, functions and tours. It is what we would lose if we moved out of this site. I can give those sorts of figures.
Senator WEST—I want to know what you are getting now—open days, the numbers of visitors and that sort of thing. Could you provide that?
Mrs Olson—Yes, I have figures back to 1995. I will give you the figures for the last calendar year and for this year.
CHAIR—Are you able to table the document? It would be of great assistance to us if you could read from it now and give us a copy of it later.
Mr Dalton—We have copies for you.
CHAIR—That is good.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 64 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mrs Olson—In 1999 we had 5,295 visitors come through the door. We are open on Saturday and Sunday afternoons and on Wednesdays for the public. We also open on a range of other days for tour groups and functions. On the public open days during 1999 we received $10,418.40 from the museum being open to the public on Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday and a further sum of $7,768.70 through functions and tour groups. The functions that we provide are barbecue lunches with a tour of the museum and morning and afternoon tea with a tour of the Army Museum. Also, school groups, Probus groups and other community groups, units and associations come through and tour with volunteer guides. Up to 15 October 2000, we had 7,276 visitors through the museum. On our public open days we received $13,654.20, and through functions and tour groups we received $8,482.30. These figures present only a partial breakdown of visitor income generated by the Army Museum at Artillery Barracks. It is in no way complete, as I said, and does not represent our total income. I can provide our financial statement for this financial year.
Senator WEST—Yes, please.
Mrs Olson—This is a representation of what would be lost to our organisation if we were relocated away from our present major tourist and heritage location. Visitor numbers have steadily increased in the five years, as you can see, from 1995, when we received 3,040 people through the door, to the in excess of 7,000 that came up to 15 October this year. People come to the museum on weekends and Wednesdays as part of their leisure activities and tourist outings in Fremantle. They will not come to Karrakatta as part of a leisure activity or outing to the cemetery precinct, we fear.
Mr Dalton—There were some comments made yesterday by Dr Tannock about this being the dull end of town. One of the things for us at the moment is that we do not manage the site. We do not have the opportunity to attract other things in. In our management plan there is a quite well-targeted process to lift the whole picture of this as an attractive place to go. That income is simply the income that is generated from the current traffic through the museum. We believe that to make this more attractive, as we believe it can be done and done quite properly, that income will represent a mere portion of it. Dr Tannock said we would be likely to disagree with some of what he says—and we have—but I particularly disagree when he said that, if they were here and they had this with 800 students, it would be better for us. I suggest to you that, if there were 800 students here, the likelihood of people coming onto the campus to visit the museum would be diminished. It is fine to say we will have public access, but how many of us, if we walk down Mouat Street, feel welcome to pop into the students union and have a cup of coffee at the Dome restaurant that they have in there? Let me tell you: not many. It is not a naturally attractive environment to the sort of people who would be coming here as part of a tourist precinct. So, if Notre Dame actually took this over, even though they said, ‘You can stay,’ it would not help us.
Mr Bridges—To help answer your question, our last year’s budget was about $38,000, and we have about $16,000 in reserve. That is from my recollection. We do not have our Treasurer with us.
Senator WEST—That is okay. Mr Dalton, you said you do not have the opportunity to bring people in. Can you explain that, please?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 65
Mr Dalton—There are other things that could well be put here—and, as I said, they are in the management plan—which would attract tourists to this precinct. This is a defence establishment. We cannot, for example, have a nice little restaurant here. If you went out and tried to get lunch yesterday, you would have had to go halfway down the street. There is nothing really in this end of the town—apart from the pub over the other side—where you can sit and have a nice cup of coffee and a nice sandwich. You start to look at the other things that attract people. We have a military bookshop out the back. Have any of you popped in to have a look? That should be at the front. We have a number of people who specialise in military memorabilia. There are any number of processes whereby you could draw that to the front and generate activity for it. We cannot do that now.
We do not have control of the management of the site. We are focused on the barracks. But there is a whole stack of stuff that could be done up at the hill. You were up at the lookout yesterday, at the signal station. What a view! There are things that can be done there, tastefully, that would attract people to it as a site. People go up to Monument Hill, where the war memorial is, and there is a marvellous view of Fremantle. This is better; but you cannot really get to it. There is not an attraction to take you there. We believe the whole precinct would be a significant tourist site.
Mr Bridges—This site has been open to the public only since we have been here. It has been an operating Army base, and that is what has actually protected it and the bushland to the unique integrity that it maintains today. There are still people who come here and park their car out the front and walk in the gates, because they think it is an operating Army base—which it is—and they are intimidated. In our master plan, once we have a precinct manager on site, which is the crucial path, then we phase in—part time up to full time—a sales and marketing person to promote the whole site. We see that there is great potential here, particularly with the City of Fremantle operating a tourist facility up at the signal station. There would be two major tourist focuses on this site, and they would bounce off each other. Once the hill is opened up, the visitor numbers will increase and the CAT service of the city of Fremantle will be brought up to this site, rather than to the Fremantle History Museum, which is down the bottom of the hill.
CHAIR—Did you discuss with the parliamentary secretary at your meeting?
Mr Dalton—We really did not have the opportunity.
Mr Bridges—No, it was a closed shop.
Senator WEST—I presume your school visits are hidden functions and tour groups. How many schools and how many students do you get?
Mrs Olson—We have return visits from a range of school groups, unit associations, community groups and functions. It is only last financial year that we started to do any marketing of school tours. It has developed as the museum has developed over the last five years here. As we opened new galleries and people found out about us, we have increased the numbers. I have listed the 10 schools which regularly come. They bring groups through twice a year, but we have a lot of other groups. We have two to three tour groups a week, on average, throughout the year, from school groups, and they range from very small year 1 children, who
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 66 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 come along to count the wheels in the museum, right through to year 12 students who are studying society and the environment and Australian history, and they come for the very real Army history values of the museum.
Senator WEST—What do you charge the school groups?
Mrs Olson—We charge them $2.50 per student, including GST from 1 July.
Senator WEST—You are not GST exempt?
Mr Dalton—No, unfortunately.
Senator WEST—What was your reaction to the BSD report? Have you seen anything about it? Had you heard anything about it before yesterday?
Mr Dalton—Formally we have not seen it, but obviously the network has reported on it.
Mr Bridges—The first inkling we had that it existed came at about quarter to 12 last Tuesday.
Mr Dalton—A week ago.
Senator WEST—So no consultation had taken place?
Mr Dalton—No.
Senator WEST—What do you think of option 1?
Mr Bridges—Option 1 being the BSD report?
Senator WEST—Yes.
Mr Bridges—We are outraged. This is a rather crude analogy, but when we are told that we are going to be done over and that the choice is between Dr Tannock’s university or a rapacious private developer—not that we see a great deal of difference between the two—the choice for us is like being told, ‘You’ve got the choice of gonorrhoea or syphilis.’ Faced with those options, we say that we will just fight it.
Senator WEST—You mean that gonorrhoea does not kill you but syphilis does?
Mr Dalton—One might kill you, the other just sends you mad.
CHAIR—We look forward to the answers we get out of the heads of state organisation on that one!
Senator WEST—Do you want to rephrase that and go back to being more precise as to what you mean? I have a medical background, so I have some understanding of all of this.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 67
Mr Bridges—We have not had a copy of the plan in front of us to look at. From what was said yesterday, the oval was to be R40 and it would realise 18 home units. The naval store, the big entry statement to the town, was to be carved up into two-storey home units. The A-class reserve, one of the last two pieces of natural bushland left in the city of Fremantle and only here because this is an Army basin which has been fenced off, was to be the subject of a land swap for a bit of Defence land so that the residential component could be continued up the hill, across Cantonment Hill, and used for housing. They even squeezed a house down onto the corner of the parade ground because there is a little bit of lawn down there. About five allotments—I do not recall the figures—would be squeezed in between the rifle cottage and the officers mess. The entry statement to this town would be confined to a small piece of public open space about the signal station. There was a press report in the Herald—which we thought was wrong—that said that Cantonment Hill was under threat. We thought, ‘It is an A-class reserve; it is owned by the City of Fremantle.’ But, clearly, somebody else had been leaked better information than we had. It is outrageous. It is arrogant in the extreme to throw a plan like that on the table and say, ‘If you don’t go the way of Notre Dame university, this is what you as a community will wear.’
Mr Dalton—I would think that, while this has stirred up a mild public reaction, if that were to go forward as a development plan, it would be worse.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Whose ultimatum was that, Mr Dalton?
Mr Dalton—I was saying that, as the issue of the barracks has stirred up the sort of public disquiet that it has, if the option 1 proposal were to go forward, it would generate far more public disquiet than even this has done. It is an outrageous proposal.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—So there was not an ultimatum from the university over the development plan?
Mr Dalton—No. The development plan was the one that is being put forward by the consultants engaged by the Department of Defence; it is the one put forward to the city planners of the City of Fremantle as their vision for the precinct. It has nothing to do with us. It has nothing to do with the university. I think the university would have adopted some elements of the plan, but they can speak for themselves. This was about the development opportunities for the site, and it is just outrageous.
Senator WEST—If it were to be sold on the open market, have you any idea what the value is? Has anybody looked at it?
Mr Dalton—Up to $18 million. That is taking on prices around the place. Irrespective of what I said about Dr Tannock, we have not got ourselves a property developer and gone and done it as well.
Senator WEST—I do not quite comprehend your reaction to the Notre Dame proposal. Can you explain it for me in simple language, please?
Mr Dalton—Firstly, we have not seen it. All we know is that—
Senator HUTCHINS—You heard it yesterday.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 68 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Dalton—I suppose, in a sense, it is a philosophical one. We believe that this site should remain as the majority of the sites have remained since 1833—it should remain public. In that sense, Notre Dame do not have a role to play. The only reason they have become a stakeholder in this is that they managed to get the government to give them a tick on the forehead and say, ‘We will grant you a priority sale.’ If that had not happened—if this had progressed as it might have, and we believe should have, through discussions about either a gift from the federal government to the state government or through discussions between the state government and the Fremantle City Council—Notre Dame would not have a role to play. We do not believe they have any right to be sitting at the table talking about the future of this museum or this site. The only reason they are there, the only reason they have a ticket to get to the table, is that Defence have said, ‘We will exercise a discretion under the Lands Acquisition Act, or whatever the act is, to give you the right to a priority sale.’
With due respect to Dr Tannock, I do not think that this institution, the only museum, as it exists can coexist with a student institution. I have nothing against student institutions—my children are students—but it is not a natural combination. I do not think they could happily coexist.
Mr Bridges—The only contact that we have had with Dr Tannock is a meeting that Dale Olson and I had with him that was organised through Colin Barnett, the state Minister for Education. At Dr Tannock’s request, that was to be an informal meeting. Some of the things that Dr Tannock said yesterday about what transpired at that meeting just did not happen. He was suggesting that they had offered us a 20-year peppercorn lease on the site that we now occupy. That was not the way it was put to us. The way it was put to us was that he did not want to buy the site if he was going to be delivered a poisoned chalice. That was the destruction of our museum. What we have only heard is, ‘It will be sold to Notre Dame and you are moving.’ That is the clear message that we got everywhere down the line. It is pretty clear to us that part of the purchase deal includes vacant possession. Arrangements were discussed yesterday that the university regiment could stay on for three to five years. We had no knowledge of that and we just assumed that we would be in that time frame—or I would assume that from what was said yesterday. What was put to us was that we should stay—‘Please stay.’ The question was: under what terms would we stay? ‘You could occupy the buildings that you are in and you could stay for the term of your organisation.’ This transpired to be: ‘You’re not going to last very long without Army support if we own the land and a lot of your volunteers are old.’ The implication was that we would have about a five-year life span as a stand-alone organisation on Notre Dame owned land and that we would wither on the vine. What was clearly pointed out to him, and which he reiterated yesterday, was that we perceived ourselves as a permanent institution. That is what museums are. That is why people donate their treasured memorabilia to us. That is why we have three Victoria Crosses donated which are conservatively worth $150,000 for the metal group. People do not gift those things to organisations that are like gypsy caravans that can be moved from one place to another; they give them to permanent institutions.
Mrs Olson—They do not give them to the federal government, which would be the inference if we were actually an Army entity and part of the Department of Defence. People would never have given those treasured memorabilia and possessions to the federal government. They would keep them in their ownership. I cannot think of any situation in which people would have given their Victoria Cross or their grandfather’s medals to the federal government.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 69
Mr Bridges—It was pointed out to Dr Tannock that we were both growing institutions and at some point there would be conflict. The museum family, which is how we describe ourselves, has put five years effort, with a publicly donated collection, into building this museum. For us to go back to the volunteers and say, ‘We have a little more time to stay here, continue to put your effort in but note quite clearly that it is a doomed path’—to expect people to put more years of effort in and then have the rug pulled out from under them—is just untenable.
Senator HUTCHINS—How would it be doomed if he gave an undertaking here yesterday of 20 years—20 years is a long time?
Mr Dalton—With respect, what he actually said, if you read the transcript, was that he would give us an opportunity to have a presence. He also said we would be responsible for all the maintenance. They would have to look after themselves—
Mr Bridges—Unless the Commonwealth provide it.
Mr Dalton—Unless the Commonwealth provide it. So he was basically saying, ‘We will just give you the rooms. Your only income stream will be what comes through your doors, and we will expect you to pay your share of the maintenance of this.’
Senator HUTCHINS—I did not get that impression. I thought he said that they would undertake, as part of looking after the grounds, that—
Mr Dalton—No. He said they would pay their way.
Senator HUTCHINS—I suppose we will have to look at the transcript.
Mr Dalton—You need to.
Senator HUTCHINS—You may need to, too, Mr Dalton.
Mr Dalton—Absolutely. What I am saying is that that is the message we have had outside of that. Maybe my understanding of what I heard yesterday was coloured by what we knew from before. Certainly, the proposition that was put to us was: you can stay. I do not remember ever hearing ‘20 years’ discussed. It was basically five years.
Senator HUTCHINS—He said 20 years yesterday.
Mr Dalton—He said that yesterday but I am saying I have not heard that in our discussions.
Senator HUTCHINS—Colonel Deykin was furiously shaking his head about some of the things Dr Tannock was saying.
Mr Dalton—As Dr Tannock said, our recollections might be different—and they are. Also he made mention that he was a great supporter of the museum. He is not a member. The institution is not a member. We have never received any funding for it. I am not quite sure how he has been a strong supporter of the museum. Our view was: if this is to be a viable institution, we need to
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 70 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 have a process like the War Memorial in Canberra where they can manage their own affairs. We need to have the opportunity to run this as a business. If Dr Tannock would like to be part of this facility, we are happy to take him in as a tenant.
Senator HUTCHINS—I am sure we could be provided with a list of your corporate members. We could get that, I would imagine. How many do you have as corporate members?
Mrs Olson—Eighteen groups—units, associations and corporate members.
Senator HUTCHINS—So is the University of Western Australia a member?
Mrs Olson—No. We have not approached any of these people. Our largest corporate member is the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
Mr Bridges—As for Dr Tannock’s comment yesterday that they got the clear impression that we did not want to share the site with them, he did ask: if the site was retained in public ownership, would there be scope for them to use parts of the site? The answer to that was yes. Clearly their interest is in the student accommodation in the first instance. That is what they really want. We explained where we were at with our business plan. Whilst we all candidly agree that the oval was the economic key to the site—and we stand by the residents in retaining that—for us the key to the site in terms of generating income is the 10 married quarters. Under our plan we would be pouring $100,000 into upgrading those immediately because they would generate the main income stream. We said, ‘You would be welcome to lease those but consider that we would have to charge you near to commercial rent.’ Obviously, if they are taking on some of the costs as the lessee in looking after the day-to-day maintenance, we would deduct that from the return we were expecting. At no stage did we say that we would not share the site with them if it was in public ownership. If they were the owners of the site, it would be very difficult for us to be able to consider this as a permanent home.
Senator HUTCHINS—Mr Bridges, you heard the Chairman say that we are conducting an inquiry. We cannot change the government’s decision. They have made a decision which has been reiterated, I gather, on a few occasions. I pose a question to all of you: if the alternatives are either to stay here under some arrangement with Notre Dame or to have to move out to Hobbs barracks, have you had an opportunity to canvass that amongst your committee at this stage?
Mrs Olson—Yes.
Mr Bridges—If Notre Dame were to purchase the site, that would mean that the museum would be relocated to Hobbs Artillery Park. That would mean, in effect, that five years of work—and we have actually had that valued—
Senator HUTCHINS—Mr Bridges, yesterday Dr Tannock made a number of statements. If they said to you that you could stay here, even though you are not comfortable with it—
Mr Bridges—We would consider it, but we have no offer.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 71
Mrs Olson—Paul and I were at the meeting with Dr Tannock. He specifically asked us: what would the museum do, what would the foundation do, what would the membership do, if the barracks were owned by the Notre Dame University? At that meeting I made it quite clear to him from my personal representations to individual members about what they would want—our individual membership is made up in the main of people with a military background, with an understanding of Army, and their allegiances lie with Army. In that setting and that mindset of people, if we got down to a vote between staying here and going where our allegiances have been in the past and all the rest of it, our members—and I hope that I speak for people—would vote that the museum should relocate. We would not be happy about it. In fact, it would see a lot of our volunteers whither away. A lot of our volunteers are older people, people who make a monthly commitment to the museum. If we were to relocate to Hobbs Artillery Park, we have already been told by our curator that there would have to be a settling down time, a closed time. It would perhaps be up to 12 months before we could open again. So people who make a regular commitment as a volunteer guide or as a reception person or as a maintenance person would not be required in that time. They are older people and they would go away. Even though—and I go back to your question, Senator—we would have the opportunity to sit here as part of the university, with its security implications, which our members have brought up regularly about the collection with the different sort of flow through the place, and also the unknown quantity of being part of a private overseas university setting rather than an Army setting, our people would vote with their hearts and what they are familiar with and take the Army option as being the safer option for them.
Senator HUTCHINS—Mrs Olson, it is not unusual in Australia for historic buildings that may have been originally military barracks or naval institutions to be transformed. I think the New South Wales parliament was called the Rum Hospital at one stage. I do not know whether they are still convalescing. Some of the upper house members might be. That is the New South Wales upper house, not the federal one. It is not unusual in academic institutions to have museums. Sydney University houses the Charles Nicholson Museum. In light of particularly your points, Mr Dalton—you were talking about the historic value of the precinct—if you were offered accommodation and some sort of security of tenure here, isn’t that inconsistent with what you were saying about the precinct and going to Hobbs barracks, as Mrs Olson would prefer to do?
Mr Dalton—I do not think so. The real issue is that nobody wants the site to be changed. If at morning tea you ask some of the volunteers here what they feel about that, you will not get a unified view, you will get a whole range of views, and I think the same applies here. I have a view, but it is not necessarily the one that the secretary has just given you. I have a different emotional attachment to this. I am not a former serviceman so I do not have a connection with Irwin Barracks. I believe that this place should retain its historical imprint, that it should remain in public hands, and if that is what you are committed to ideologically then the concept of anybody coming in means that the life of this place will change. If you get 800 university students here then the life of this place will change. It will tend to have a detrimental impact on the life that we believe it should have.
Senator HUTCHINS—But you may get more volunteers.
Mr Dalton—You may, but the culture of the place will be inevitably changed. And to take your point about other historic buildings that have museums in them, and other—
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 72 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Senator HUTCHINS—Or have had them transferred I said.
Mr Dalton—Have transferred, yes.
Senator HUTCHINS—I said academic institutions have museums in them.
Mr Dalton—Academic institutions do not have a museum of something totally foreign to the nature of that institution, they have museums that are part of that institution’s culture.
Senator HUTCHINS—Aren’t we talking about the history of Western Australia here? Aren’t we talking about potentially 800 students from Western Australia?
Mr Dalton—As visitors here, certainly, but with institutions that have a museum in them the museum is something that is part of the culture of that institution. But the museum we have here is not part of the culture of an educational institution like Notre Dame, it is different.
CHAIR—It was raised yesterday by Dr Tannock that it may well be possible for Defence to cede the property to the state government and then the state government set up a joint management authority. That joint management authority, under Dr Tannock’s proposal, quite understandably, would include the museum foundation. I think he suggested the City of Fremantle, the foundation, and Notre Dame University. That would give this a multipurpose use under a state authority jointly managed by representatives from those three interest groups. Is that something that you have excluded from your thinking?
Mr Deykin—In our business plan we set out an idea for the management of the set-up. I do not have it in front of me and there is a lot in it, but I do not think Notre Dame is amongst those. It may well be, but I do not think so.
CHAIR—I understand the position you are coming from and I am not trying to diminish you position in any way, but the committee must also consider the alternatives that are put before it. Whilst you say it is completely anathema to your organisation to have Notre Dame as the holder of the property, the other idea that was floated by them was that there would be this joint management authority, of which there would be, I presume, an equal partnership. Under those circumstances—if I interpreted what was said correctly—they see the council taking the signal tower and that area up the top, the museum having its clearly defined areas here, and the university having its defined areas, and none of them would be a tenant of any one of those organisations. They would be in partnership. Is that—
Mr Dalton—We understand the proposal. Our prime driver in this is to have it in public hands. That scenario presumes that Notre Dame has some right to sit at the table. Why Notre Dame and why not UWA?
CHAIR—I am not pushing Notre Dame’s barrow, and I think I asked that question.
Mr Dalton—You did. I am saying that if you are setting up something that is based on the concept that this is public and it is managed in a particular way, then the precinct should be managed by the people who have the interest in it. That would have been Fremantle City Council and, I believe, the museum as the operators of the barracks. It may well be that not even
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 73 the museum has a right to be at that table and that it should be the government in some form. We do not believe that. But in all of that, I do not believe that a single, private company like the university has any more right to be involved in that process than anybody else. They are late- comers to the process. They would only be sitting at that table because the decision was made to grant them priority sale. If the DEO had done their job properly and the property had been disposed of in some more equitable way to give everybody a shot, then Notre Dame would not even be talked about as a party in the process. They are not logically involved in the management of this precinct. They are only here because somebody gave them a tick before, and that is my objection.
CHAIR—What if DEO, the government, took the decision that they had had enough and they were withdrawing the priority sale right of Notre Dame, and, as far as they were concerned, it would be treated the same as every other defence property that is surplus to the needs of defence—or has been identified—and just put it up for public tender?
Mr Dalton—We will be back on the streets, as everybody else will. That is not the answer. We understand that the state government is forming views, that the state government and the Commonwealth government will talk, as they should have done a long time ago, and that there will be a resolution to this. The community is not simply opposed to it being sold to Notre Dame. If it had been up for public tender and any developer could take it over, the emotion and the opposition would be at least the same if not more intense.
Mr Sweetman—I would like to raise two issues in regard to questions Senator Hutchins raised. In regard to the number of students, there are probably 800 students, but a quite high proportion of those would be overseas students who would have no interest in the history of Western Australia. In a newspaper article attributed to Dr Tannock, he said that Notre Dame would only be interested in the barracks site in the short to medium term, which could be 20 years. In 20 years time, there could be another ‘For sale’ sign put on the gate.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Mr Dalton, you said that you would be back on the streets. I understand what that means.
Mr Dalton—And you were there with us.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Yes, I was there with you. Perhaps I had better declare myself again.
Mr Sweetman—We know who our friends are.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I am a former national serviceman, I do belong to the RSL, and I was down here for that parade. Thank you for reminding me about that, and I am recording it again for Hansard.
CHAIR—When are the Western Australian preselections on?
Senator LIGHTFOOT—They are of no interest to me.
CHAIR—That is another interest declared.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 74 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Senator LIGHTFOOT—It is quite possible that you would draw in other groups, and it certainly has had widespread publicity. What other groups do you anticipate would join that proposal? What is the potential for other groups to join?
Mr Dalton—Enormous.
Senator HUTCHINS—Someone like the MUA?
Mr Dalton—Senator Lightfoot might be able to share with your colleagues—
Senator HUTCHINS—It would be good to see the MUA and Ross side by side.
Mr Dalton—Absolutely. There are some issues that join people from very varied backgrounds. I am sure that, on your flight back, the senator will fill you in on some of the other issues, like the Leighton Beach stuff and the silos. The community in this particular area of the state is very conscious of and very attached to heritage issues. As Mr Bridges said, there is only one other piece of vacant ground left in the precinct and that is the Esplanade. This has generated—and most of it at very short notice—substantial responses. If it were to go to that broader open tender, you would have not only the same groups who participated in this—the ex- service community, the volunteers, the members of historical societies and the local community residents—but also other community groups. We have had some assistance from some of the other community groups who have been fighting things like the Leighton Beach issue. You would have all of those. Everybody who has an interest in keeping some quality in life at this end of the peninsula would be there, and you know them as well as I do.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—The resolution requires a political solution; is that right?
Mr Dalton—Absolutely, there is no question of that.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Could that political solution come about with dialogue between the state governments and the federal government?
Mr Dalton—Absolutely.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Notwithstanding the proximity of the state government, would it be better for you to deal with that particular body rather than the federal body?
Mr Dalton—We would be happy to do that. Indeed, we have spoken to state government ministers and state government representatives. We do not leave those stones unturned. We have sorted their support out. To be frank, the politics of it are that they do not particularly want to get enmeshed in what is seen to be an unpopular and dirty business just now. They would be happy to see the federal government back away, ditch this part of the process, write it off as a mistake and get it out of the headlines as quick as they can, and then come to the table with the state government. I would hope that, early in the new year, at the time of the federation celebrations, there would be an opportunity for the state government and federal government to come together and make some appropriate gesture about the site of this and get away from the other stuff.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 75
This is the bottom line: at maximum we are talking about, probably, $15 million—in a time when we have, supposedly, a surplus of $13 billion. We seem to be able to crank up $700 million for salinity at the drop of a hat and there has been some other stuff around but, for the things that really mark us and give us a tick for our identity, $10 million is too much. People do not like that. You have heard them, I have heard them; they do not like that.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Evidence was given this morning that the building itself is as much a museum as the contents. What buildings would you preclude, if any, that we have seen? The Gate Houses are an integral part of it; Gun House appears to be part of it; Rifle House is a part; both of the messes here seem to be a part of it. What about, say, the terrace houses on Queen Victoria?
Mr Bridges—The majority of the site was constructed between 1910 and 1914; the building we are in was constructed in 1910. There was some pre-World War II construction and the Link House was built in 1937. So the integrity of the site is relatively intact.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Does that include the Link House? That adds to the integrity of the site.
Mr Bridges—It certainly does, it is certainly part of its history. The only building on the site which is a non-military building is the signal station on the hill which was built in 1956. That is why, in our master plan, we are more than happy for that to go over to the City of Fremantle.
There are a number of buildings on the site that in the Considine and Griffiths report were identified as surplus, that were not required to be held. Some of those they did not get the history right on, and one is the little weatherboard building in the corner of the parade ground. There are a couple of the smaller sites that they reckon can go, but the rest of it is one site: the naval store, gun house—all the way through it is one heritage precinct. That is what we are fighting to retain, in conjunction with the residents, the precinct group, the council, the history bodies, the heritage organisations, the lot—it is all one site.
Mr Dalton—And once you say let the cottages go, it asks the question then: why not the gun house, why not the link building, why not others? The integrity is the whole, not the separate bits.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Has it been written off as a functioning barracks? Have you written off the possibility of its being retained as a barracks that functions? That includes, of course, with cadets—a very important part of our Defence establishment over the century.
Mr Bridges—Our primary aim has been to keep this in Defence hands as operating barracks. We like the guys in the spotty suits and the women who come in here, the university regiment back from a weekend bivouac, hosing the vehicles down. It brings Army as part of the community. We actually believe that that is an important thing to do. It is no good having Army as Tindal or Darwin or locked away. People need to learn the lessons of history. We as a nation have always had a small standing army and a reserve force, and in times of conflict people just queue up as volunteers. The permanent force trains them up and we have the Ready Reserve that goes away quickly. That is the capacity of this nation to defend itself. We think that our role is very important in this esprit de corps. Not only is it school groups that come through here but
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 76 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Army units come through to see their own history. We think that is a really important function of Army, and we are just astounded at the treatment that we have had from Army.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I add by way of consolidating my interest that my brother completed his basic training at Northam but did his specialist training down here back in the 1950s. I did mine at another place, but I certainly did it. But there is a conflict there with, say, retaining the barracks if it were passed to the states and yet having the concept that we could still operate a reserve force here, which is the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has clearly indicated that it wants to rid itself of these encumbrances, if I could put it in that way. I must say that the Commonwealth, in my discussions with them, particularly at the level of Minister John Moore and others, does have considerable sympathy with retaining the barracks as a functioning museum and as something to which the people could have access. But the conflict, as I said, is that either it has to be retained by the Commonwealth or it needs to be passed to the state in its entirety, which means that the possibility of retaining it as a functioning barracks, which is a Commonwealth responsibility, has gone or is considerably diminished. But what of the appeal of having this as the headquarters of the cadet movement in Western Australia? Do you see that as being deleterious to the culture of the barracks itself?
Mr Dalton—In our submission, Senator, we had indicated that there are any number of functions. The decision that it was surplus to requirements was taken by Defence because they could not find something to do here. There are any number of things you can do here, and we have mentioned quite specifically cadets. I said we have even been trying to fill up the place with some other residents, and I had spoken to the Air Training Corps people about moving Flight 3 from Leeuwin up here. We have also some discussions with the 11/28th to see if we could put a rifle company here. It is certainly one of the things that is available there to do, and indeed we think it would be a good use for it.
It has been clearly stated to us, though, that it will be sold. So we have had to amend our original aim, and this is a discussion paper of the options we put to the City of Fremantle, which you are welcome to have. We have had to modify that, because the Defence attitude has been intransigent, in that it will be sold. That has come through clear as a bell. Then we looked for the next best alternative, and the next best alternative is for it to be transferred to the state, to retain the integrity and the site in public ownership.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Would you consider that to be your second option?
Mr Bridges—Yes.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Do you have a third option? I do not want to sound like Prime Minister Tony Blair, but there might be a third way. Is there a third way?
Mr Bridges—We are all dispensable in the fight to have it retained in public ownership. We will hold and fight.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I will put one other concept to you, and you may have a collective view on this. UWA was mentioned as an alternative participant or purchaser. There is no defence curricula, that I am aware of, at tertiary level in Western Australia. Given that we are one-third of the nation—and I am going to put this to Colonel Ken Bladen; I saw him come in a
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 77 moment ago—is it a practical concept that UWA or even Duntroon should have a campus here to teach defence theory and these barracks could form part of that proposal?
This is a different part to the east, as my colleagues here understand full well now, and perhaps we need something like this, to have a comprehensive view of Australia and to have special adaptations to the terrain of Australia. Do you think that that is some augmentation to what you have suggested? Perhaps Duntroon should have some tertiary classes here and this could form part of the maintenance, given the culture of this place.
Mr Bridges—You are actually sitting in an officer training school, and this is the West Australian University Regiment, so that activity already happens here. That is the function of this lot of buildings, as well as the museum. We have a very close relationship with the WA University Regiment. We would like the whole site to remain. There is scope for other units, like cadets, to come in here, and we would welcome that, because then we are part of a working Army base, and we are living heritage, and we can assist defence in that line in learning lessons from the past. We agree with what you are saying. By upping it to a Duntroon status, that is terrific, but the line that we have been given is that it will be sold, it will be sold to Notre Dame, and we are out.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Do you think that if the UWA were to remain here or expand its curriculum here—I do not know whether the university regiment actually forms an official part of the curriculum at UWA—the likelihood of the disposal would be less?
Mr Bridges—As Senator Hutchins said before, there are museums associated with universities. At Edith Cowan University, there is the Museum of Childhood; at Curtin there is the John Curtin Centre. They are publicly owned universities, and we are a secular body. We cover all sorts of religions and the service and sacrifice of Western Australians and Australians in general. They are from all sorts of different religions. If this place were to be bought privately by an Islamic, a Buddhist, or any other particular religious group, we would feel compromised. We think that the services—
Senator HUTCHINS—Would you feel compromised by a Catholic university?
Mr Bridges—We are a secular body. That is how we operate.
Senator HUTCHINS—Do you have to be a Catholic to go to Notre Dame?
Mr Bridges—No, that is very true. You do not, and there are lot of people who do theology there who are not. I welcome their courses.
Senator HUTCHINS—I did not know they did theology there.
Mr Bridges—They do. It is an international university set-up, and that is one of the main units.
Mr Dalton—I think the issue is, as Paul said, that behind your shoulders you have the badges of the Western Australia regiment. This is used as a training facility now. If it were possible to establish an annexe of a university—in the way that Duntroon used to be an annexe of the
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 78 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
University of New South Wales—we would be more than happy to accommodate that process. It would be wonderful, but it is one of an inventory of options that is available for the place that people have not sat down and looked at. It has not happened.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—The reason I am trying to explore it is the ongoing maintenance. If the federal government want to flick the wonderful establishment here as part of its selling- down process of underutilised or non-utilised assets then the state government would be most unlikely to pick it up if there were not some plan. I have read your business plan and I understand it but, notwithstanding that, during the interregnum there is going to be some expense—maybe considerable expense—involved.
Mr Dalton—With respect, if the Army are going to walk away from this, they cannot simply cut and run. Already in the planning there is a need to provide for contingencies for at least the relocation of the museum from here to Hoggs barracks. There is a whole range of those things that becomes part of it. They would need to provide funding for the dislocation process. Even if that dislocation did not occur geographically then there would be some funding required until we got that up and going. To be frank, I do not think it is going to take us all that long to put that management plan on the ground. There are people available who could do that reasonably quickly. I would think that within 12 months, or two years at the outside, we could have this place functioning with no ongoing commitment to maintenance on the buildings, and it would be self-funding, providing that start-up capital for us but withdrawal funding for the government was paid. We are confident of that.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Given that we are over time now, although I do have plenty of other questions, I will truncate that urge in the interests of morning tea.
Mr Dalton—I do not know whether it is appropriate, but we would like to record the assistance that Senator Lightfoot has been to us in these things. He has been a friend of the museum.
CHAIR—Sometimes that can be a problem; at other times it can be a—
Mr Dalton—I understand that it might be the kiss of death!
CHAIR—I will let you draw your own conclusions on which it might be. Senator West has some questions and then I have a set of questions which you might need to take on notice.
Senator WEST—The same might happen here. On page 4 of your submission, in point 4, you are talking about the disposal. In your second paragraph you say that your initial approach for further information was to Army in WA, who reassured you they had no knowledge of any move to sell the barracks. It says you were not reassured and you sought further information. Can you do me a time line as to when these initial approaches were made. You might want to take this on notice, given the time constraints. When were the approaches made? Who were they made to? What was the response? Was it in writing or was it not in writing?
Mr Dalton—We have prepared one, but I do not know that it contains the particular items that you are asking for. We can certainly do that.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 79
Senator WEST—I am trying to get some idea in my head of what you had to do to actually get information about the proposed sale. It goes to the probity issue of everything.
CHAIR—And we will take that to be deficient, based on the question that Senator West has asked. My question goes to a not dissimilar line. I would like some sort of time line as to meetings with DEO or the Department of Defence on the matter. We want to get a feel for the sequence, so that we can make some assessment of the process pursued by DEO. The time line should show who those meetings were with, any correspondence associated with those meetings and the outcomes of those meetings. The time line should include meetings with the parliamentary secretary or nominees of the parliamentary secretary—that is Senator Abetz— who was there, the outcomes, any correspondence with the parliamentary secretary and any meetings with government ministers who might not be directly involved.
Mrs Olson—We can provide you with that. I have got all of the correspondence. I have got details of all the meetings that we have had with a range of politicians of all varieties. I will provide that all to you.
CHAIR—All right. Also, could we have details of your meetings with Dr Tannock and/or nominees of Dr Tannock or Notre Dame University and the copies of the correspondence associated with that.
Mrs Olson—Certainly.
CHAIR—There are a couple of other things that I want to raise. Apart from chaining yourself to the door of Dr Tannock’s office or something such as that, what genuine publicity do you people participate in? I am trying to separate it completely from this exercise that has taken place. Are you out there advertising yourselves with tourist operators, hotels and motels?
Mrs Olson—Yes. We have been, for the last four years, a member of the Fremantle Tourism Association and the Fremantle Tourist Bureau and we participate in the involvement in the local tourist trap arrangement. We have a brochure that is distributed to local authorities and also to other tourism places—hotels and things—on their proviso. We have had ads in the local newspapers and the state newspaper on occasion. It is only in the last two financial year budgets that we have actually set aside money—only since, in fact, the beginning of the foundation as it were at the end of 1998. We at that stage, when we budgeted, set aside money for advertising and marketing. Until that stage, it was actually the opinion of the committee that the work, the consolidation and the money needed to go into building the galleries. By 1998, we had got to a point where consideration was given for an active marketing and advertising campaign, which we have been pursuing in an ever growing arrangement since then. Unfortunately, over this last 10 months, most of our advertising and marketing has gone the way of this specific matter and one of the offshoots of that has been a certain amount of advertising in the media.
Mr Dalton—Our curator has, fortnightly I think, a radio program on the most popular of the night time radio stations where he does valuations and stuff but where there is always mention of the Army Museum.
CHAIR—Not that this is the most conclusive poll ever conducted by anyone, but would it surprise you that since we have been here we have been conducting our own straw poll—
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 80 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Dalton—That does not surprise me.
CHAIR—as to who has visited the museum. In our straw poll—I cannot say how many people are involved in that at this stage, because we do not keep a tally sheet—we found one. Another question was to see how many people know of the existence of the museum. We have had varying reactions, from, ‘Yes, I know where it is,’ to, ‘No, I never knew it existed.’ We have also canvassed the issue of what would happen if it went to Irwin and those who knew anything about the site here have said that it would be the death knell of it. I am just putting that on the record, for what it is worth. It really holds no weight but it might give you—
Mrs Olson—We are certainly very aware of those sort of comments. When people have come to us in the two years since I have been actively involved in community liaison, they have said, ‘We didn’t know you were here.’ It was really that signal that moved us from an enthusiastic museum building group to, over the last two years, ‘Now we have got something to show people—let us move into the next sphere of getting out there and marketing ourselves.’ Unfortunately, newspaper articles that came to light earlier in the year stopped us in our tracks and made us actually start trying to save ourselves more than market ourselves.
Mr Dalton—A lot of the energy that we might have directed to those sorts of things has been directed to this.
CHAIR—Another issue is: what would be the reaction of your organisation if the Defence Estate Organisation decided to excise the oval—as it is referred to—and sell it off but maintain ownership of and maintain the rest of the site and use that as a means of covering the recurrent costs here by investing the money in some form of trust?
Mr Bridges—We would be bitterly disappointed. I say that because our flanks, or our allies, in this have been the residents group, the precinct group and the City of Fremantle in maintaining the integrity of the whole site. What seems to have been overlooked with the oval is that, as it was an artillery base—and we are looking pre First World War—horses were a large component of the soldiers here getting the ammunition and themselves down to Fort Forrest and Fort Arthur. That is where the horses were kept. When in World War I the horses were going overseas with the light-horse, with the artillery and with the service corp and the like, that was a transitional spot. Locals tell us that there was a spring on that site and that also at times camels were kept down there. That sort of history tends to disappear very quickly if it is not recorded. There needs to be a more thorough investigation of what is being done. If you cut the oval off, then you have automatically isolated the naval store. That would be the next to go, then the gun house. If you cut one bit off, it is the beginning of the end. At this stage we say: maintain the integrity of the whole site.
CHAIR—In your submission you wrote, in response to whether the Fremantle Artillery Barracks was the most appropriate and suitable museum:
YES—Suggestions that the Army Museum of WA would need to move from Artillery Barracks have always prompted the promise from Army History Unit that any move would be to premises “equal or better” than our present accommodation.
Where was that undertaking given and when?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 81
Mr Bridges—I do not know.
CHAIR—Is it in writing?
Mr Bridges—It is in writing.
Mrs Olson—There is a notation to our previous museum manager, Captain Mick Malone, from the Army History Unit officer, Dennis Cameron. I think it is dated at some stage in 1998. I can retrieve it for you.
CHAIR—If you could retrieve that and provide that to the committee, I would be interested.
Mrs Olson—Since this actual process early this year, the Army History Unit have backed away from that individual statement because they know, as do we, that there is no equal or better accommodation in Western Australia. So they have had to withdraw from those previous assertions.
CHAIR—Could Irwin barracks’ collections be moved here?
Mrs Olson—Yes.
CHAIR—Could a structure be constructed here to house the vehicles and the large guns, et cetera, from Irwin?
Mr Dalton—Yes.
Mr Deykin—We already put in a plan for that some two years ago.
CHAIR—Last but not least there is a story in the Fremantle Gazette dated 17-23 October 2000, saying:
The Defence Estate Organisation’s plan to wrap up the Fremantle Artillery Barracks sale before the end of the financial year has been thwarted by a WA Army Museum Foundation caveat on the title.
Is that correct?
Mr Bridges—That is true.
CHAIR—In what form is that caveat? I have not read the article, I just noticed the headline.
Mr Bridges—There is an absolute caveat on the whole site. On the basis of the caveat, we are equitable lessees based on a memorandum of agreement between ourselves and the Western Australia University Regiment. We have a signed copy.
CHAIR—What is the effect of that caveat?
Mr Dalton—The effect is that they cannot dispose of title to the property until they have disposed of the caveat. They have had their top of the town lawyers send us nice notes.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 82 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Bridges—The effect of that is that we can go to bed at night without the fear of opening the West in the morning to a banner headline that says that the site is sold.
Mr Dalton—There is some process that needs to be undertaken. We firmly believe that we have a right that we can protect by caveat. They seem to suggest that we do not, but that is an argument that needs to be held in another place.
CHAIR—Are there proceedings taking place now?
Mr Dalton—They have threatened them. At the moment they have not actually issued the bit of paper.
Mrs Olson—We have one letter from the legal firm that has been taken on by the Defence Estate Organisation stating that, basically, we might wish to reconsider our options for a variety of reasons and suggesting to us that we back off. At this stage—
CHAIR—Could we have a copy of that letter, please. When did that happen?
Mr Deykin—About three weeks ago. Could I just throw in one quick one before we finish, Mr Chairman? Yesterday evening, Mr Terry Craig said that contact was made between him and me concerning a meeting with Dr Tannock. Mr Terry Craig and I attend the same church and he threw this out to me one Sunday morning after the church service: ‘Here is the business card of Dr Tannock’s secretary. Give her a ring and tee up a time. He would like to see you.’ I took it to mean that he wanted to come and see me, so immediately on Monday 1 May—I got that information on 30 April—I rang Dr Tannock’s secretary and said, ‘I have all day Thursday, 4 May available—any time then. My office is on the first floor of 11 Ventnor Avenue, West Perth. I would be delighted to see Dr Tannock and I might even buy him a cup of coffee.’ So that was the feeler that came out. I felt that it was a little bit odd coming through what appeared to be a non-official channel but, nevertheless, I took that up. A message came back to me later in the day: ‘No, no, no. That’s not what we want!’ And I said, ‘Well, isn’t he available on that day?’ And they said, ‘No.’ So I just let it ride at that. Then about four weeks later I got another message that Dr Tannock would like to see me. I thought, ‘Well, I’m available; he knows I’ve got time,’ so I just left it at that—but I think it is important that I should refute the suggestion that I did nothing.
CHAIR—All right, I am glad that you cleared that up. Thank you very much for your appearance. We have gone over time; we have gone nearly 2½ hours, so I think you have been given a reasonable opportunity to put your case. We will try not to cut into the time of the witnesses following, but we are going to be running about 20 minutes late. If they talk very fast, that might help us.
Proceedings suspended from 11.27 a.m. to 11.49 a.m.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 83
BLADEN, Mr Ken, State President, Returned and Services League of Australia, Western Australian Branch
HALL, Mr Don, Member, State Executive, Returned and Services League of Australia, Western Australian Branch
HOURNE, Mr Geoff, Member, State Executive, Returned and Services League of Australia, Western Australian Branch
CHAIR—Welcome. I offer my apologies: we did go over time with our earlier witnesses. The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public, but should you at any stage wish to give any part of your evidence in private, you may ask to do so and the committee will consider your request. The committee has before it a written submission from the Returned and Services League Western Australian Branch. Are there any alterations or additions you would like to make to the submission at this stage?
Mr Hall—No.
CHAIR—I will now invite you to make an opening statement and then we will proceed to questions.
Mr Hall—Thank you for the opportunity you have given to the league to give a further oral submission today. We are pleased to do so. In the written submission, we outlined the fact that we believe we are competent to comment on some of the terms of reference and not competent to comment on others, particularly these: the reason for the disposal of Fremantle Artillery Barracks, the probity of the disposal process, how the Australian Defence Organisation decides whether property is surplus to requirements, the management or disposal of surplus property and the sale and lease back of ADO property. But the league feels it is very competent to comment on other areas, particularly the importance and value of the Fremantle Artillery Barracks and the Army Museum in Western Australia, and whether the Fremantle Artillery Barracks is the most appropriate location for the Army Museum. The RSL has no axe to grind with Notre Dame University or any other bidder. The league, in fact, wishes the university well in its endeavours to find locations, but we do object greatly to the sale of the Artillery Barracks, the disposal of the Artillery Barracks and the potential movement of the Army Museum from the barracks.
I begin by addressing the value of defence heritage to the Australian Defence Force in general. The league realises the need for Defence to plan for the future and not to live in the past. However, military history shows that successful defence forces are built on tradition and on heritage. It would be a major change for the Australian Defence Force to base itself otherwise. Heritage and tradition are inherent in the Australian Defence Force. We name our Royal Australian Navy ships after previous ships and previous battles. There is a strong link with army colours to tradition and discipline in the Army. Royal Australian Air Force battle honours are emblazoned on pendants and there are great squadron traditions. In fact, the discipline of the Australian Defence Force is based on heritage and tradition.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 84 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
That is the experience in other countries, particularly the United States, Britain and New Zealand, as well as in Australia. There are contrary experiences, however, where tradition has been dispensed with, and I refer to the Dutch experience and also the Canadian experience. In the last 20 years, the Canadian defence forces have gone from having three separate services— army, navy and air force—to a more or less combined service. Through experience they are now returning to the traditional three services. The experience is that combining the royal navy uniform of the navy and the air force blue and the khaki into a purple uniform has not worked. Military history shows that successful defence structures are built on tradition, as I have said. Military tradition, of course, goes beyond the Australian Defence Force to the wider community, and it transcends the boundaries of barracks. You can tell that by looking at the increased numbers attending Anzac Day commemorations and the pilgrimages to Gallipoli, Hell Fire Pass and Kokoda that young Australians take part in every year.
Unfortunately, the Australian Defence Force is becoming no longer a part of the wider community. In Western Australia we have lost our army bands, local drill halls have been sold in regional areas, Swan Barracks in the centre of the city has been disposed of and the Royal Australian Air Force depot at Leederville and a depot at Claremont have been disposed of in recent years. The army depot at Shenton Park and the Midland ordnance depot have been disposed of. In other states a similar pattern has occurred. Only in the last 10 years there has been a plan to dispose of Victoria Barracks in Melbourne and, of course, Victoria Barracks in Sydney is under threat. Garden Island Dockyard in Sydney is being wound down and the Navy presence there is now minimal. Only last year the Army Command and Staff College at Fort Queenscliff in regional Victoria was closed down and centralised in Canberra.
There is also a commercial support program undergoing in the defence forces—in other words, there is civil takeover in general of the Defence Force system. If you go into a recruiting depot now, even defence recruiters are civilians, because that has also been outsourced, and no longer do you see military people in uniform recruiting the youth to our Defence Force. No longer is there a defence role model seen by our youth in the community. It affects recruiting and, of course, we must emphasise that recruiting in recent times—with Timor being high level—has probably been boosted somewhat, but recruiting must be sustained in peacetime by a military presence in the wider community. Rather than spending millions of dollars on media advertising for recruitment, it is logical that such expenditure might partially be better spent on maintaining high profile defence facilities within the metropolitan area, such as here in Artillery Barracks. Not only does it affect recruiting but it also affects retention in our defence forces. Young people, particularly highly skilled young people, want to have posting options other than Tindal, Darwin and Townsville. Nice places that they are, there is also a need to have posting options in capital cities in Australia.
I turn now to the importance and value of the Artillery Barracks here in Fremantle. The barracks, of course, is a rare example of built defence heritage and it is probably superfluous for me to expand on what has been given to you this morning by the museum organisation. It is a unique piece of defence heritage dating back to World War I. The Artillery Barracks is the most appropriate location for the Army Museum of Western Australia. The museum is unique. It is unique in Western Australia. The nearest example is 3,500 kilometres away at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. It also forms part of the Fremantle tourist precinct—the RSL might not be the appropriate body to comment on that; it might be more for the Fremantle council and others to comment on that—and it is a wonderful facility for Fremantle to have the Army
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 85
Museum in its present location. It has been said before that the Artillery Barracks is a museum in its own right because of its heritage value, and what better place to have an Army museum than in the museum—that is, the Artillery Barracks?
The Returned and Services League Western Australian Branch strongly contends that Fremantle Artillery Barracks should be retained for military use by the Army and, of course, that the Western Australian Army Museum should also continue to be located within Artillery Barracks. The retention of Defence property in metropolitan and regional centres is crucial to maintaining the ADF presence in the wider community. As I said before, it is particularly important for recruitment and retention of personnel. The preferred option, therefore, of the Returned and Services League in Western Australia is for the Artillery Barracks to be retained by the military and to have continued military use, with the museum a part of that use. If that is not to occur, the second preferred option is for the Artillery Barracks to be gifted to, or purchased by, the state government and leased to the Army Museum.
The business plan put by the museum would make this a viable, economically self-sufficient enterprise. There is also a wide use of the barracks for other purposes. It could be a wonderful headquarters for the cadet movement in Western Australia and it could be used for other quasi- military related uses if it were to be given to, or purchased by, the state government. That concludes the formal presentation we want to make but we would be pleased to make other comments. The state president, Colonel Ken Bladen, wishes to make some points, and I think Colonel Hall also wishes to make some points.
Mr Bladen—No price can be put on a country’s heritage and its history. We believe that a country that is not prepared to acknowledge and preserve its history and its heritage will not have much of a future. The Commonwealth government is prepared, we understand—and the process is under way, I understand—for something like $11.9 million to be spent on a new display at the national War Memorial.
As has been pointed out, the Artillery Barracks is the only museum that we have on this side of the continent, and therefore it is the only opportunity we have. We find it strange that the government is going to spend $11.9 million but appears to be unwilling to save these barracks, which it intends to sell for $4 million. A government which can spend in excess of $400 million advertising a new tax system or the GST at the same time that it seeks to sell its heritage to raise $4 million—and that is what we are talking about—in our view ought not to be in power. It has lost the plot.
You have to ask yourself why the government finds itself in the situation of having to sell these Defence assets. I would liken it to the family who cannot feed itself and, therefore, it has to sell the family silver. Then we in the RSL ask: who is running the country exactly? Is it the politicians and the professional advisers, or is it the public service bureaucrats—the latter being hell-bent on economic rationalism and policies which are going to involve selling, without any thought to the future, our heritage? We find this incongruous. Let the Minister for Defence have the guts—if I may say so—to act for the good of the community and, in this case, for Western Australia in particular. They are the only general points I want to make. If my other colleague wishes to do so, maybe that is the right course of action at this time.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 86 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Hall—There is only one aspect which I would like to emphasise, and that is the one of the educational value of the museum here. It is not by chance that the University of Notre Dame would be interested in it, because it has obvious educational connotations. But it seems to me that the place is ideally suited to house the University Regiment, the Army Museum and a headquarters for cadets, and those three bodies would happily fill this building. We have here the facilities for people to do research, we have here the facilities for school children to visit en masse and—the building itself being a living memory of the veterans—it seems to me, and to the league, that this is the obvious place for that sort of conduct to be undertaken. That is the only additional piece that I would wish to emphasise—the educational potential of this precinct.
Mr Bladen—These precincts have the potential to become a marvellous shop window for recruiting the three services. This should be a place where we could have PR, our recruiting and our cadets. It is the shop window; we get a lot of visitors through here. If cadets cannot see their heritage, if they cannot feel their heritage and if they are dissipated out at Pearce—that is where our Air Force cadets have to go—the people cannot see them, the local lads cannot see their colleagues in uniform and, in our view, it defeats the whole purpose. The Western Australian University Regiment do the training for our officers. That is a good thing and this is a marvellous place for it. There are probably elements of 5 Training Group that could come here, because they do mainly training for senior NCOs and warrant officers. Some of it could be done here as well. We believe that this should be the site for Army ceremonial. You have a marvellous place where the public can come and watch. It is already used here extensively on 11 November, when various schools do all sorts of things. They put on all sorts of plays. This is the showcase—there is no question about that—and, therefore, any move to remove this from its current use, in our view, would be absolute sacrilege.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Is there total compatibility with an Army museum and an operating barracks? Is there some evidence of that?
Mr Hourn—The short answer is yes. The museum currently located here attracts a fairly large number of tourists and that is expanding. There is nothing better for the tourists than to see the Army in operation while they are visiting the museum. At present, a lot of those tourists come on weekends, when the University Regiment has its parades, and they are busy out there doing their military activities while people are visiting. It is perfectly compatible.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—What conflicts did the men and women of the barracks contribute to?
Mr Hourn—They began in World War I. The barracks began being built in 1908 and were completed by 1910. The barracks were used by World War I people and, of course, people in every conflict that Australia has been involved in since.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—What about the meetings that you have had with varying people? When did you have the meetings with, say, Dr Tannock—if any, of course? What was the frequency of those meetings and at what times were they?
Mr Hourn—To my knowledge the league has not met with Dr Tannock. We have had no official involvement in any of the process. We have not been consulted apart from the opportunity to come here before the Senate defence committee.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 87
Mr Bladen—We have a number of people on the state executive who are members of the museum. I believe that we are reasonably up to date as far as we need to be. We certainly support the marches and that sort of thing. We are certainly behind, and have been all the time, the retention of the museum.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—But you have had no meetings with Dr Tannock. Have there been any meetings with Defence?
Mr Hourn—There have been some telephone inquiries with Defence but no official meetings. Matters have been raised through the state president with the local army, navy and air force commander at various times and in an informal capacity, but there has been no formal connection with the Defence Force whatsoever.
Mr Bladen—We have our own defence committee in the RSL. We have a lot of senior people who are coopted on to it. They do a very good job and we liaise as much as we can with people that matter. We put our submissions to government through the national headquarters of the RSL.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Those submissions related to the disposal of the Artillery Barracks?
Mr Bladen—No, not through the defence committee. We put in this separate submission which is in front of you now. We did that on invitation and because the Senate inquiry was occurring. I have seen briefly the submission that was put in by the national headquarters of the RSL.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—What is the aggregated number of returned servicemen and women in Western Australia?
Mr Bladen—The number of financial members we have is 12,500. That varies slightly by a few hundred each side. That figure has been pretty steady over the last three years. When you take into account the fact that recruiting balances natural wastage, you have to say that recruiting is quite good. However, we expect that that figure is going to drop on the basis that natural wastage is growing very quickly. The 12,500 people who are financial in Western Australia come from sub-branches, which are as far north as Kununurra, as far east as Kalgoorlie, and as far south as Albany through to Esperance. We have 128 sub-branches, but recently there has been an increase in three sub-branches and they are starting to move now. We like to think that that forms a lobby group of approximately 40,000 people when you take into account the average size of each family.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—What about the addition of those people who are not financial but are entitled to be? How big a group is that?
Mr Bladen—You would be looking at a pool of about 2,500 to 3,000 people who may or may not come on board. It is probably bigger than that because we have quite a large unit and kindred organisation, consisting of 100-plus unit and kindred people. Not all of them realise that politicians take notice of numbers and, because of the welfare side, some of them are not exactly flush with money so they choose to join only one or two organisations. Unfortunately
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 88 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 for the RSL, they do not always choose the RSL as their second organisation, but they take a very active interest in what we do. Their main loyalty is to the unit with which they served. Probably the biggest and most important factor in the RSL is to keep a very close liaison by having a feeler, if you like, with the unit and kindred organisations and we meet with them on a regular basis.
Mr Hourn—Can I expand on that slightly? There is a wider veteran community in Western Australia and, although some of those people are not members of the RSL, the RSL still represents them. We are talking about several hundred thousand in that category of returned service people in Western Australia.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Several hundred thousand?
Mr Hourn—There would be at least 100,000, and when you go right back to World War I veterans through to Timor veterans you are probably looking at several hundred thousand.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—In Western Australia?
Mr Hourn—Yes, in Western Australia. As well as that, the RSL is currently looking at expanding membership. We are looking at allowing cadets to join the RSL—attracting the youth in the cadet movement to the RSL. The RSL is also exploring other avenues of membership such as corporate membership, which is yet to be progressed. The RSL is a viable and large organisation which represents many in the community who are not actual badge carrying members of the RSL.
Mr Bladen—Western Australia, as probably everybody knows, is the leading state in terms of cadets—Cadets WA was an initiative of the current government. There are RSL Cadet of the Year awards which we initiated last year with the traditional cadets of Army, Navy and Air Force. We have now joined with the Office of Youth Affairs, but we are still calling them the RSL Cadet of the Year awards—there will be four this year. Instead of just going to Canberra, as they did last year, with a combined effort we are sending them to Gallipoli and France. The thing is growing and the point I want to make is that other states are following us. We are the only state, as has been mentioned, which is developing cadet membership of the RSL. The other states and the RSL will do this, but we put it up and they agreed with it. We have to develop this membership very quickly because we believe that is where the future of the service lies. If you are going to have a future with cadets you have to be able to see them. If this is going to be the showcase for Western Australia, cadets, PR and recruiting, the people have to come here and look through the window and see things. At the moment the cadets are dissipated all over the place.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—When did the RSL become aware that Defence was going to dispose of the barracks as surplus to its requirements?
Mr Hourn—About 18 months ago.
Mr Bladen—Yes, about then.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 89
Mr Hourn—I know that because I work here as a volunteer and I take the information back to RSL headquarters.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Have you had any contact with the Department of Defence, and with whom?
Mr Bladen—I have had contact with the Prime Minister and I have occasionally had an answer to my letters to the Department of Defence. As you can appreciate, I put most of them directly through the RSL headquarters and General Phillips. Of late, particularly on the welfare side, I have been putting them directly to the Prime Minister, mainly because of the lack of action that I perceived. This would have been in the last eight to nine months.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Does the national RSL headquarters share your concern with respect to the disposal of the Artillery Barracks?
Mr Hourn—Yes, they do.
Mr Bladen—Yes, most certainly. The best way to answer that question is to say that this state hosted the RSL national congress only a few weeks ago—late August. The retention of the barracks is one of the resolutions that the national RSL supports in this state. The retention of the barracks was passed unanimously by all states. That, therefore, has become a priority of the RSL at the national level.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Were you aware that the sale of the barracks would necessitate the removal of the museum from these historic buildings? At what level of concern was that to you? Was that or the retention of the barracks itself of primary concern?
Mr Bladen—A bit of both really. The sale of the barracks meant that the museum would have to go elsewhere and, I suppose, the reaction, initially, was fairly emotive on the basis that five years ago Dilhorn, where the museum was situated, was sold and the museum had to move to this location. In doing so, my understanding is—and it is second-hand—that something like 80 to 90 volunteers, mainly the women behind the museum, decided that enough was enough and they left. Therefore, the thought of this museum having to move again was absolutely mind- boggling and devastating because we could see that, after all the many man-hours which had over a long period gone into this voluntarily, our museum would in fact end up in suitcases and boxes on the floor, and we would lose a lot of volunteers. That was the first thought. The second thought was that the barracks were the thing because the barracks in themselves are a museum, and within the barracks we have got a museum. Each of them is very important.
We believe that the only way to maintain these barracks is to have military or paramilitary forces in them. It is no use selling them to anyone else. I know that they are on the heritage list, but that is not the point. We have heritage here. We know that World War I soldiers spent the night or probably several nights here before they went off to the First World War. This is a wonderful place. Before a particular World War I chap died a couple of years ago, he pointed out to us—I think it was on 11 November—where the horses were tied up and where the soldiers played basketball. All these things are very important. With the cadets, this rubs off onto them. You can see their chests visibly swell. It is one of a few—I do not know of any other—World War I buildings, and we have to retain it for those reasons.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 90 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
One other point is that, on a Wednesday, it would not be wrong to say that well over 100 veterans come here—until recently from World War I, but I have to say that, unfortunately, now they are mainly World War II veterans and veterans from other wars since. They come here every Wednesday. This is their focal point. This is the place where esprit de corps is made. This is the place where welfare occurs. They work voluntarily. It is a very intangible thing, and for those reasons it is very important. Let us reward success with success; let us not tear it all down for the want of $4 million. It does not make any sense at all—absolutely none.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Gentlemen, I have a meeting in the CBD—I cannot get out of it; I have to go—but on a positive note can I say that I have had several meetings with Minister John Moore at which I have put personal submissions. Whilst he gave me no promises at all, he was empathetic to those submissions that I made. I thank you for your contribution to the Senate committee this morning.
CHAIR—I have a more general question that I want to raise on the issue of the attachment of people to sites such as this. In 1997 the government, as part of the budget process, announced the Defence Efficiency Review, which then led to the Defence Reform Program. I always call them the ‘thin purple book’ and the ‘thick purple book’. Do not ask me what their exact titles are; I get into trouble with Defence on that. In the preliminary material that we received on the Defence Efficiency Review, paper 9, which is annex C, out of the thick purple book, under ‘Ongoing defence property disposal plan’ it was flagged that between 1996-97 and 2002-03 some 104 potential sites might be sold as being surplus to the needs of Defence.
This property, of course, does not seem to have been mentioned in that list, but I do not think that is necessarily particularly relevant. But it could well be said that there are a number of sites that people would place some historical, emotional or other value upon, for whatever reasons, and that that then becomes an obstacle to Defence achieving its aim of selling the property. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no consultation with those that might have an interest in whether any of these sites hold significance, but what process do you think should take place to decide whether there is some historical, military, emotional or other attachment to a site that warrants properties receiving a priority consideration for retention by Defence rather than considered surplus to its needs.
Mr Hourn—There are two elements of the Defence bureaucracy: the civilian side and the military. Most of these decisions are being made by Defence bureaucrats who are not uniform people. So, firstly, there should be a consultation process with the military—the uniform people. Secondly, there should be wider community consultation with organisations such as the RSL to give them the opportunity to comment on that list. That list is something that I have certainly not seen, and I would be surprised if any other members of the RSL have seen such a list. Somebody like General Phillips, the National President of the RSL, would be interested in having a look at that and being given the opportunity to make comment.
CHAIR—It is a public document. It was tendered as integral to the budget for that year.
Mr Bladen—What year was that tendered, please?
CHAIR—The 1997-98 budget.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 91
Mr Bladen—I must say that it probably was tabled just after or just before General Phillips took the chair as the national president. It was certainly before my time. I know—because I have had discussions with General Phillips—that he is quite concerned about this trend. We have gone further than that and we have discussed the reasons for it. We do not like the reasons. The reasons are political, of course. I say this again: if the defence budget had been what it should have been over the last 20 years, we believe this situation would not have arisen in that we would have enough money to spend on defence in the right areas.
I say this with the greatest respect, because it does involve the two major political parties, who have formulated this budget on the basis of no threat for 15 years. Then we find ourselves in East Timor. We were lucky we did not get any casualties. We were flat out to have the soldiers there. We were very lucky that there was no invasion on the north coast at the time. But we find ourselves in a very unfortunate situation in this country and the defence review is going to find that it is very difficult to decide. Without money and a good defence budget, it is hard to work it out.
CHAIR—Do you see a set of criteria that needs to be used by Defence Estate Organisation in determining the sale or the disposal of surplus property or surplus land?
Mr Bladen—I would suggest that the national RSL headquarters would be the best place to start, because it does involve a regular meeting with all the states and we are increasingly concerned about the future of this country. In the event that a major catastrophe occurs—they normally occur without warning—we will be flat out recruiting people. No-one will want to join. We will be flat out defending the country and then we will end up down the showgrounds as we were before World War II.
CHAIR—Can I just bring this to the local situation. Whilst it is not on this list which was part of the Defence Efficiency Review—and not that this was ever an absolute list, and I think you should understand that; I think it was a moveable feast—what would be the reaction of your organisation to the possible sale, in whole or part, of the Irwin barracks, given that it is suggested that if this property here is disposed of as surplus to needs of Defence and the museum moves to Irwin barracks even then there is no guarantee that the whole or part of Irwin would not be disposed of in the future as being surplus to its needs?
Mr Hourn—We have addressed that to a large extent in our submission. It is the wider Defence policy of selling Defence properties that we object to. This is the jewel in the crown— Artillery Barracks—but Irwin barracks is under threat. Campbell barracks of Swanbourne is under threat and even Leeuwin barracks, just around the corner here, is probably under threat. I have listed the barracks that have been sold in the last 20 years. Shortly, there will be no Army properties. There certainly are no Air Force properties here, and the only Navy presence is well out of the metropolitan area down at Rockingham. Very shortly, there will be no Army properties in the metropolitan area. That is the major argument we are putting—that the Defence policy in general of flogging off these Defence properties is wrong. In the longer term, it will be more cost effective to retain them. The economy is false. Selling Artillery Barracks for $4 million would not even keep a Collins class submarine on a decent cruise for a month. The maintenance cost of keeping these barracks going must be pretty minimal in a Defence budget of several hundred billion dollars.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 92 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Bladen—You cannot put a price tag on heritage. We must emphasis that.
CHAIR—In your submission to us, you are nearly as harsh as some of the other submissions that we have had. You describe the sale of the Artillery Barracks of Fremantle as being ‘bureaucratic vandalism’.
Mr Hourn—Exactly that.
CHAIR—You will stick to that?
Mr Hourn—We certainly will not retreat from that one.
Mr Hall—We will not budge.
Mr Hourn—It is bureaucratic and it is short-sighted.
CHAIR—Thank you very much for your appearance and we will take your evidence into consideration when we are drafting our report.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 93
[12.29 p.m.]
BAMFORTH, Mr Peter Harvey, Secretary and Treasurer, Military Historical Society of Australia (WA Branch)
HIGHAM, Mr Malcolm Ian, Member, Military Historical Society of Australia (WA Branch)
SWEETMAN, Mr John Raymond, Member, Military Historical Society of Australia (WA Branch)
CHAIR—Welcome. The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public but should you at any stage wish to give any or part of your evidence in private, you may ask to do so and the committee will consider your request. The committee has before it a written submission from the Military Historical Society of Australia, Western Australia Branch. Are there any alterations or additions you would like to make to your submission at this stage?
Mr Bamforth—No, the submission stands.
CHAIR—I now invite you to make an opening statement and then we will proceed to questions.
Mr Bamforth—I will start with a Tommy Atkins like quotation from Edwin Blunden in 1623. I think it is relevant.
Our God and the Soldier we alike adore
When danger’s near, not before
But when danger’s oe’er both alike requited
Our God’s forgotten the Soldier slighted
This will be a classic example. Having read the submission by Mr Dale Olson—secretary of the museum’s board of management—and reread my own offerings, I think that most of the ground, as far as my own thoughts are concerned, has been covered. However, there is an emotive side to all this which can be discussed. The museum is a part of our heritage. No museum could have a more suitable building complex, bearing in mind its close connection to people who served throughout two world wars. It was a stepping stone to battle. It is annoying to have to submit to a government that thought that they could just ride roughshod over the people of Western Australia. The protest marches represented people from all walks of life. Very few would have ever in their lives carried a placard indicating dissatisfaction with a government’s decision. There was no consultation, and that was insulting.
The museum is an emotional home for those who carried the banner in two world wars and other conflicts. It serves to remind us of the sacrifices made by many thousands of men and women in terrible times. It is a memorial to all those who served—not necessarily only to those who were killed, because some, when they came out of the services, were halfway killed. Whilst not having served in the armed forces myself, I do however come from a family with a
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 94 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 long military background and have an understanding of the emotions involved. We make much of the fact that we look after our diggers. Is that true? I am not sure at all. There is always denial. In recent times, there has been shoddy treatment—to wit, effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Gulf War syndrome, compensation to survivors of the HMAS Tobruk disaster and the treatment of the Vietnam veterans. This matter of the museum and the barracks is symptomatic of this kind of thinking.
If the museum is moved elsewhere, it will lose a historical edge. It is not just purpose built as a museum; it has just naturally evolved. It is living history without any histrionics. It is also an antiwar museum and tries to tell the truth. Since it was indicated that the building complex could be sold, there has been a huge surge of interest in the museum side of things which rides on a wave of anger not usual in sleepy Perth.
What is the cost of relocation? The alternative sites would attract very few visitors. For tourists, it is off the beaten track. My first contact with the museum was when I sought assistance for a thesis I was writing on a World War I soldier. Their help was unstinting and it set me off on a track such that the thesis was completed and later published for public consumption.
There is a very large expanding section of the population who now take an interest in military history. In the past 12 months, there have been many books published—mainly as unit histories—to satisfy that need, and these writers are filling the gaps in our knowledge. These works, of course, record for all time the events that took place. As an example, I will table this document.
CHAIR—Could you identify the document for Hansard?
Mr Bamforth—It is a flyer called Fix Bayonets and it is the unit history of the 51st Battalion written by Neville Browning.
CHAIR—Is that the flyer that was reported on in the paper on Monday?
Mr Bamforth—No. Neville is a young man. He published at his own cost 500 copies and, believe it or not, he sold 250 in the first week. So that shows you the kind of interest there is in real history—in the past 12 months, there have been many books published, mainly unit histories; I think I have covered that—one only has to look at the increasing number of people who attend the dawn service on Anzac Day and who line the streets to pay homage to those who were there. We have little enough history as it is—why take it from us? There would appear to be an attitude by government that, right or wrong, we are going to be denied. It is a political decision, in other words. To use a phrase, the money involved is only a piddling amount—and I use that word advisedly; I heard it used on television and I thought it described this very well— when looked at in the whole context of military spending. Without going into detail, it would appear that there has been a massive waste in defence spending running into billions of dollars that perhaps has been looked at in the context of the rapidly changing face of warfare.
The difficulties are acknowledged. However, I feel the government is ill advised. But this is only a personal opinion. I do know—having had discussions with current members of the armed forces—that morale is very low and many senior people are getting out, and I do not think many
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 95 people really understand how these people feel. I know some senior people whose services will be lost shortly and they are fed up. They feel there is nothing there and why the hell bother? It is all very well to wave a flag but you have to have some base from which to wave it. There is also a concern that parts of Fremantle will become a little America with no-go zones in Fremantle. That is disturbing. They have a Dome cafe down there for students only. You cannot walk into this Dome cafe. It is a commercial organisation and you cannot walk in there. A talk was given to the Military Historical Society by Major General Michael Jeffrey, the former Governor. He gave a talk in the Syd Jenkins room. He described the society and the museum as keepers of history. I thought that was one hell of a compliment and the guys felt pretty proud of that. Thank you for inviting me to appear before this inquiry. I came to this country nearly 40 years ago under my own steam and I am passionately proud to be an Australian. Please do not put that feeling in jeopardy.
CHAIR—Are there any other comments?
Mr Higham—I did notice Senator West’s question earlier about values of this property. I do not know whether I am out of order saying this or not.
CHAIR—No. Go right ahead.
Mr Higham—I did make private inquiries on this subject. I have an old friend who is now retired and who is no longer a valuer. He was a valuer for some 40-odd years in a real estate capacity. He leased his business interest to a fairly big company recently and I asked him to make inquiries for me. His first estimation was that this property was worth $12 million to $13 million while it still has a heritage value over the top of it. The second valuation was a freehold valuation, which a developer would be interested in, and that was from $18 million to $19 million in round figures. Any sale that has been contemplated at $4 million to me is almost obscene. That is the only thing I would like to really emphasise.
Mr Sweetman—I would like to make mention of the close working relationship that the Military Historical Society has with the Army Museum. A lot of our members are guides and hold senior positions within the museum organisation. On your tour of the museum, I am sure you went down to the World War I trench scene. That was a donation by the Western Australian Military Historical Society to the Army Museum on their moving here. That shows that we are committed to the Army Museum in all aspects of its location and benefit to the population of Western Australia. I would also like to mention that I recently returned from South Africa where, on 9 February 2000 and on behalf of the Army Museum and the Military Historical Society—and along with Malcolm Higham—we provided and had dedicated a memorial to the West Australians who fell in the first action of the Boer War.
We also paid for a memorial plaque to be put at Elan’s River, where Western Australians also fought. We came back feeling that we had done our state proud, and we were hit in the face with the news that the Army Museum was likely to be sold from under us, and we felt a great sense of betrayal.
Senator WEST—What sort of relationship does your organisation have to the official military organisations?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 96 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Bamforth—Many of the members are published authors and researchers. Quite a few books have come out, and that would be a professional connection. This museum has good archives, and if we cannot get something from there I guess we can get it from Canberra, but there are a lot of things here. For example, we had a guy whose father had been a prisoner of war in the hands of the Japanese for four years. His father had written on a parchment type paper a list and illustrations of all the units’ patches and badges he could think of, but there were very cryptic descriptions—just initials—and he could not find the source of this. So he came to us and we said, ‘Okay, come into the archives.’ He came into the archives and Wayne Gardiner came along and provided a book. We went through the book and then three more guys came. This guy was so overcome that he burst into tears, because he had never got anywhere before. The guides just rallied around.
I am a guide at the museum, too; I am very proud to be a guide. I have met some extraordinary people. They have a tale to tell. Unless you have been there, you would not have any idea. Most of them are pretty quiet; some are quite funny. This is a valuable part of the country. Since all this publicity surrounding the museum—and we have gone around getting signatures and things like that—the number of people coming to see the museum has increased enormously. There is better awareness. Publications like Fix Bayonets give a greater awareness of current thinking on matters. I think it is one hell of a museum. I have been to the British regimental museums. I went to Warwick Castle and it is a vast place. It is terrible. I was in and out in three hours. I went to the Warwickshire Regimental Museum and stayed there all day. It had the kind of feel that this place has. You cannot buy that, you cannot create it; it happens by itself.
Senator HUTCHINS—I have just one question. Are there any sites of similar significance to the military history of Western Australia?
Mr Bamforth—Do you mean working sites with buildings and so on? Gun Hill and places like that—
Mr Sweetman—There are other sites: Northam Army Camp, which is practically non- existent now. Most defence sites here are modern ones. This is the only one left in public ownership that has any real heritage value. Everything else is modern architecture with no character, no heritage, no history.
Senator HUTCHINS—So there are no other former military sites or barracks that are now gallerias, shopping malls or something like that?
Mr Higham—There is Rottnest Barracks out there at Kingston Barracks, and the fort out there. Then we have the other fort down here at Mosman, which is Leighton Battery, which served here during the war with, first of all, two six-inch guns and later with three 5.25-inch guns.
Senator HUTCHINS—What is there now, Mr Higham?
Mr Higham—There are approximately 350 metres of tunnels. We do have a six-inch gun which was recovered from Rottnest after having been buried for 30-odd years, and a 3.7 anti-
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 97 aircraft gun. I am talking about the Artillery Association, because I am very familiar with it. We do have the Artillery Association collection, which is down at Hobbs Artillery Park—
Senator HUTCHINS—What I was getting at is: are there any former military sites that are still here in Western Australia that have been—
Mr Sweetman—Yes, there is the Princess Royal Battery in Albany—
Senator HUTCHINS—What is that now?
Mr Sweetman—That was given to the town of Albany. All of the buildings were in derelict condition. They were all knocked down and rebuilt with the original material, using the original blueprints. It was then handed over to the city of Albany during an official ceremony in, I think, the Bicentennial year. It is a tourist venue. You can actually visit the gun emplacements and everything else, and it is a great tourist attraction for the city of Albany, which we feel we could duplicate here.
Senator HUTCHINS—Is that the only site that comes to mind?
Mr Sweetman—Nearly everything else has been sold.
Senator HUTCHINS—What has been sold? That is what I was getting at. Is there some sort of barracks that is an office complex now or something like that?
Mr Sweetman—Nothing of a heritage nature.
Senator HUTCHINS—So essentially this one and Albany are the only two military sites in Western Australia worth preserving.
Mr Sweetman—There was Swan Barracks but that has been sold. The building is still there. That is now an overseas English college, I believe, with a cafe—
Mr Higham—So there are three military establishments of significance, and that is it.
Mr Sweetman—Yes, to my knowledge—and the Barracks Arch. When you look at it, that is a farce to what it could have been.
CHAIR—I do not know whether you are the right people to pursue this with as you have an attachment to this museum, but how does one put a value, not a monetary value, on the quality of the collection that is here? Do not take this the wrong way, but can it be described as just another collection of memorabilia which people could access—
Mr Bamforth—No.
CHAIR—Just let me finish and then I want your full answer because I want some sort of an assessment. It would be handy if we could have an independent assessment of the value of the collection by someone like the Western Australian Museum so that we can get an appreciation.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 98 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
We can look at the exhibits—and I think it is a fine display—but with the exceptions of the VCs and a couple of military crosses that are here and so on, and I am not trying to downplay those, but do you know of an independent assessment and valuation that has been made of the historical value of the displays that are here that make it worth while retaining and keeping for the future, not a judgment made by those who are close to the display itself?
Mr Bamforth—Yes, I think that is a valid point and certainly is not unfair. The displays are changed quite frequently. The Victoria Crosses, by the way, are not the real ones or you would have a quarter of a million dollars hanging on the wall.
CHAIR—No, I understand that. I am putting that to one side. I am not trying to downgrade or denigrate the quality here. I am asking whether you know of an independent assessment that says that this collection—
Mr Sweetman—The only assessment that I know of would be one that was carried out by the curator. I think that was basically more of an asset statement for the Army history unit and possibly for insurance valuation. I believe there are only two licensed military valuers in WA, with the curator, Captain Wayne Gardiner, being one of those. I do not know who the other one is.
CHAIR—It would be hard to ask him for a fair assessment.
Mr Sweetman—That is why I raised that. I do not know who the other valuer is.
CHAIR—I hear voices—I do not know if that is right for politicians to hear voices, but anyway I do—saying that the other one is a member of the foundation.
Mr Higham—I was the curator of the photographs here for nine years until I gave it up last year to reserve my efforts for guiding. I was led to believe that this is the most valuable military collection of photographs in this state. Even the Battye Library chose me and one or two other chaps who have some experience with photographs to go through their collection 18 months ago, which involved some 3,000 or 4,000 photographs.
Senator HUTCHINS—Which library was that again?
Mr Higham—It was the Battye Library, which is the Western Australian state library. The historical section has a very big photographic collection, but the military photographs are not particularly significant except for these few. Julie Martin, who is the curator of the photographs there, said that this Western Australian collection must be the major collection in Western Australia. I cannot put a value on it but I do know that the Battye Library charges something like $15 a photograph. If you would like to do that over about 12,000 to 15,000 photographs in this collection here, that is the nearest I can get to it.
Mr Bamforth—It would be of emotional value. The only person who could judge it would be someone who was familiar with these things.
CHAIR—I understand the emotional value.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 99
Mr Bamforth—You could not have an outsider with no experience coming in and putting a value on it because the building and its contents are together. You take the contents out and it loses something. If you take the building away, it loses something. But together it is a big solid lump of history.
CHAIR—Based on that argument, as I understand it, the collection has only been here for a number of years—I think for the last five years.
Mr Higham—It is five years.
CHAIR—When it was at Dilhorn—as I understand it, that is where its previous position was—was the collection worth any less?
Mr Bamforth—I was not there.
Mr Sweetman—I was.
CHAIR—Again, I am not trying to denigrate that site; I am just trying to get a feel for the historical value.
Mr Sweetman—I would say that the value of the collection now has greatly increased because we were very limited in space at Dilhorn. A very small portion of the actual collection was on display at any one time. Moving down here has given us a lot more display space, better conservation areas and preservation workshops. With that have come more donations to the museum. I could not put a percentage on it, but our display here is of greater value now than it was at Dilhorn because more of it is being shown. Even what you have seen on your visit here is only a small part of what we actually have. We could display more of it if we had more room.
CHAIR—Would it be unfair to try to compare the historical value of what you display here to that which might be displayed at the Australian War Memorial?
Mr Sweetman—I can give a specific answer to that. I attended the Military Historical Society conference in Canberra in 1988, with a talk on Western Australians’ participation in the Boer War. In the museum in the South African gallery alone there was one photo relevant to Western Australia. When I asked what other photos they had, they said, ‘We have got nothing else on Western Australia.’ There were no photos. There were a couple of medal groups and that was about it. The display that we have here with regard to Western Australia is priceless.
CHAIR—So part of the value of your display lies in the fact that it is focused on Western Australia as opposed to being focused on the broader issues.
Mr Sweetman—I do not think there is a yes or no to that.
CHAIR—I am getting a mixed message.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 100 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Sweetman—Our main focus is on the Western Australian involvement but we do touch on other units because our unit served in conjunction with the Victorian, Tasmanian and South Australian units.
CHAIR—I accept that, but really the fact that you have a Western Australian focus makes this of more historical value than the broader collection that is on display at the Australian War Memorial.
Mr Sweetman—Yes, I misunderstood your question.
CHAIR—The argument will be put up undoubtedly that, if your display is inferior to that which is in the Australian War Memorial or not even complementary to that display, why should the Australian taxpayer in some way fund the preservation of a second-rate collection which you could find anywhere? That is the argument that some people might choose to put. I am not putting that, but these are the sorts of issues we as a committee have to contend with.
Mr Sweetman—But that could also be said of the Tasmanian Military Museum or any museum. They have their own state focus but they do have the fringe collections as well.
CHAIR—I quite reasonably accept this. This is now exposing another level of argument that we have got to contend with probably at some stage.
Mr Bamforth—This should be viewed as a stand-alone entity. In Britain you have got the British Imperial War Museum which is huge; it takes a fortnight to go through it. We have lots of regimental museums right around the country—Staffordshire, the Duke of Wellington and all these places. You cannot compare the two. It is like comparing a football with a piece of cheese. It is not really a fair comparison. It has to be viewed in its context and in situ here. I have just been given a bit of paper, so I will just throw this information in. There are 35,000-plus items in the archives, on show and in storage. Major items are valued in excess of $1 million. I know this is not what you were looking for, but I thought I would put it on the record. It is the largest military museum in Australia outside Canberra.
CHAIR—I accept that.
Mr Bamforth—This place grows. I have only been involved as a guide for a couple of years, and I have met some extraordinary people. I am not a particularly humble person, I can assure you, but these people really had something to offer, and you go away shaking your head saying, ‘Good God.’
CHAIR—Thank you very much. We appreciate your appearance before the committee. We have one more witness before lunch.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 101
[12.57 p.m.]
BODYCOAT, Mr Ronald Barrie, Member of Council and Honorary Architect, Royal Western Australian Historical Society (Inc.)
CHAIR—Welcome. The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public, but should you at any stage wish to give any part of your evidence in private, you may ask to do so and the committee will consider your request. The committee has before it a written submission from the Royal Western Australian Historical Society. Are there any alterations or additions you would like to make to your submission at this stage?
Mr Bodycoat—No.
CHAIR—I now invite you to make an opening statement, and then we will proceed to questions.
Mr Bodycoat—I represent the Historical Society as a councillor and as their honorary architect. I am also deputy chairman of the national trust in Western Australia. In private practice, I am a conservation and heritage architect and have been since 1964. I have formerly been involved with an advisory committee that was set up by the Army Museum on the point of moving from Dilhorn to this site. I served on the Australian War Memorial Advisory Panel at the time when they were restructuring, fundraising and so on. So I have a first-hand understanding of both this collection and the Australian War Memorial collection. It is interesting that I was also involved in preparing for the Commonwealth government a disposal document for Dilhorn and the 1993 disposal document for this site with other consultants. I acted as a heritage consultant. So I am familiar with what has happened with the Army Museum from their days at Dilhorn down to this site, and I am very familiar with this site as well.
If I could add the reason why the historical society is interested, the Army Museum is an affiliate society to the Royal Western Australian, so we have an obligation—a very pleasant obligation—to protect the interests of the Army Museum. Our point in being a historical society is that we want to see a continued presence of the Army, the military, and particularly the army museum on this site. We promote a correct interpretation of the barracks site as an acknowledged historic site and as an Army site. We want to see a military presence maintained on this site, but we want to encourage community use and access, and we strongly advocate an enhancement of the education and interpretation program that this site offers.
CHAIR—Thank you.
Senator WEST—You say you have been on the war memorial panel. You would be, therefore, well placed to give us an indication of how this collection compares with the war memorial collection and the significance of some of the collection’s holdings—whether they are of great significance or not.
Mr Bodycoat—I would have to say that they are two collections, and there has always been a very clear understanding that there was no intention that either would usurp the other. Obviously, the Australian War Memorial is a much bigger, more significant collection in the sense of being representative of the military, of campaigns, and of people in wars throughout
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 102 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Australia, whereas this WA Army Museum is more specific to the people and the events that occurred relevant to Western Australia. It is obviously a smaller collection, but it is a very significant collection—well conserved now—with a great deal of expertise backing up, with very limited funds, what is a very difficult situation. The Army Museum, unlike the Australian War Memorial collection, has no designated home that is permanent, it has no positive future, its collection could very clearly be put in store or disposed of. These are the threats, and this is the concern of people who have worked tirelessly to identify the importance of this collection and its relevance to this site, with the hope that it can stay on this site as part of the military presence of this site, maybe in partnership with other people and other uses for the site.
Senator WEST—In you opinion, is this an important site as well—historically and architecturally?
Mr Bodycoat—It is very important. It goes back well beyond these particular buildings— 1910, 1913 and so on. It is part of the network of forts and signalling stations that go back into the 19th century: Arthur Head, Cantonment Hill, the signalling station which still survives. It is not a signalling station, but it replaced an earlier structure that was a very important signalling point that replaced the point that was for shipping at Arthur Head. And it goes on up to Buckland Hill and across to Rottnest. On this site particularly there was a network of signalling, forts and cantonment of the men who serviced the two forts that were close by—Fort Forrest and Fort Arthur.
Senator WEST—Does the presence of the collection in these buildings actually enhance the value of the buildings?
Mr Bodycoat—They do in the context of the military presence here. To have memorabilia that is well presented and well interpreted helps to tell the story of military campaigns and military personnel, of the people left behind at home, and of the artefacts of war—not just a photographic interpretation but objects that show what war is all about to people who have no real understanding because it all happened before their time.
Senator WEST—Of all of the sites that are still standing in WA, how would you rate them in terms of importance and significance? Presumably Swan barracks is now no longer in any really significant military format to be able to be of great historical value. What other ones are there, and how do they rate in comparison with this?
Mr Bodycoat—I think this is a heritage issue and the heritage process allows you to evaluate the reasons why a place has cultural significance, and also the degree. This site would be on a par with Albany, possibly, because they have important events happening here, they are important military sites, and they are both relatively intact. The military site in Albany was in a great state of decay, but it has been brought back, so when you go on-site, you can interpret not only the guns that have been restored but the buildings that housed men and officers, and you can get a feel of how things were structured in those days. It is the same on this site: the fabric is here. You can see, with proper interpretation, why this place was a barracks and what happened.
Rottnest is another. Perhaps it is different because it still contains guns, tunnels and the means of defending the harbour and the port of Fremantle. This would be on a par with Albany
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 103 because they are both crucial parts of the developmental history of the two towns. This is possibly more important than Albany because it is the port for the capital and a defence point. These forts were structured deliberately, not just to train and house men but to defend the harbour.
CHAIR—I note in the submission that you are referred to as a heritage architect.
Mr Bodycoat—Yes.
CHAIR—What are your credentials to be a heritage architect? Pardon my ignorance.
Mr Bodycoat—First of all, you have to be a registered architect. I guess I am a heritage architect because I specialise in heritage and conservation. That is the work I mostly do.
CHAIR—You have given advice over a period of time to a number of organisations on the value of various sites?
Mr Bodycoat—That is right.
CHAIR—How would you value the shifting of this museum to Hobbs Hall? Would it still have the same heritage value?
Mr Bodycoat—It would have a heritage value, a military value, in the sense that it is associated with a military establishment. This is a more important site than Hobbs, for example, even though there are problems on this site of adjusting the buildings for security and proper conservation, but those issues can be overcome. One has to, first of all, evaluate the heritage value of the collection itself, and that is not questioned. It is an important collection. What the historical society is concerned about is not just the heritage of this site and its proper interpretation; in order to appreciate, understand and enjoy that you need to have a military presence here, ideally. It seems to us that the Army Museum is one such way to achieve the military presence or retain the military presence on this site—maybe in partnership with others. There are problems associated with ownership, with the cost of running, maintaining and using the whole complex, but the community has expressed, I am sure, in the last 24 hours even, a willingness to go into partnership to make this place work appropriately, to work towards paying its way and to be used. The most important thing is that it is not a museum building; it is a living history site that can, in part, be used for other things appropriately.
CHAIR—What other things could this site be used for without compromising the site itself?
Mr Bodycoat—It was built as a barracks so, ideally, it could be used for residential purposes. That is very straightforward. Because we have a heritage act in Western Australia that protects places on the register, and this is one such place, what is done is not a prohibition of change and adaptation but to make sure that whatever happens is done in such a way, with sensitivity, that the heritage values of the site are not compromised. If you wanted to make some changes, and if you wanted to use the building for something other than an army museum or a residential building, that would have to conform to what is appropriate to be able to interpret this place and to maintain its heritage values appropriately.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 104 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
CHAIR—Are the costs associated with doing that any different from normal commercial development costs?
Mr Bodycoat—Not necessarily. Heritage is meant to give an added cost, but you still have to educate the community that the cost of conservation, at the end of the day, gives a greater value or a reasonable value because some people, particularly people who own heritage buildings— and the Commonwealth government is one such—are not necessarily of the mind that a heritage label helps. It is the community that, at the end of the day, has to pay for heritage—whether we pay for it by government grants, by taxation or by fundraising and jam stalls. It is the community that pays by some means or other to maintain buildings and sites and places that are redundant to need. We, as a society, recognise that this is surplus to Defence needs, from one point of view, and has to be dealt with in a proper way. One has to find the strategies and the means—whether it be the local authority, the community, a local university or whatever, including the Army Museum—whereby this place can continue in the way in which this society would like to see it happen.
CHAIR—Would it be fair to say that there is both a moral and a community obligation on the part of Defence to play its part and role in maintaining places of significance such as this?
Mr Bodycoat—I think so. It will not and cannot maintain all the places but it has to be careful that, with proper advice, the key places are maintained. One has to put into place a structure to pay for their maintenance and upkeep, to ensure that they are properly used and maintained, that the funding is there to maintain them and that public access is available in an arranged way.
CHAIR—Do you know if Defence has a list of priorities as to what should be maintained?
Mr Bodycoat—I have no idea.
CHAIR—Either in Western Australia or Australia-wide?
Mr Bodycoat—I have no idea.
CHAIR—Should they have such a list? One of the dilemmas that must face Defence sooner or later, if you look at the southern end of Irwin Barracks, and that new development we saw yesterday—
Mr Bodycoat—Residential.
CHAIR—It is natural to think that might move in that northerly direction and take up some part of those Irwin Barracks that might be deemed by Defence as being surplus to needs without necessarily consuming Hobbs Hall. There seems to be no priority listing as to whether or not part of the environment around that Hobbs Hall would need to be preserved to maintain the integrity of Hobbs Hall.
Mr Bodycoat—There are two good examples. Whereas the National Trust has classified the Hobbs building, the third field artillery regiment building, and it would define a line of space around it such that the building could be reasonably preserved; the rest of the site is available
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 105 for appropriate re-use. It is a good occasion where sale for whatever purpose could and should be done. It would help to fund the keeping of this site. This site has a much different community appeal. The people of Fremantle, the Army Museum and other respectable organisations have expressed a wish to see something proper happen here, but there has not been the same expression at the Hobbs site, Irwin Barracks.
CHAIR—One thing that we had put to us yesterday by Dr Tannock from Notre Dame was that there had been an amount of outpouring in respect of the Fremantle jail, but that where there was community support for the retention of that historical site, with the passage of time, people moving on and changed circumstances, that had now waned and interest had been lost. Where there was clamour, there might seem to be now a burden to the community, the taxpayer, because of the falling off of interest in that site. Is that likely to happen to sites such as this as well?
Mr Bodycoat—There can always be a change.
CHAIR—Is it one of the dangers they face?
Mr Bodycoat—Both sites are protected by the heritage act, which is state legislation set up to do just that—to protect them and encourage the proper use and conservation of them. I think it is unlikely that either site would be allowed to change substantially. I cannot guarantee that. Heritage ministers and heritage councils may change their view. It is then up to the community to make an expression of concern, just as it is up to the community to help to keep these places. The Fremantle prison is an unfortunate demise in what was happening. It is just a matter of time before it will pick up and restructure again.
CHAIR—Thank you. We appreciate the evidence you have given to the committee.
Proceedings suspended from 1.14 p.m. to 2.05 p.m.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 106 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
McPHERSON, Mr Douglas James (Private capacity)
CHAIR—Welcome. I now invite interested members of the audience to make short statements relevant to this inquiry. Three people have already given us their names and I will call those in order in a moment. I will ask those who want to make a statement to come forward and I will then indicate who should come up to the table to speak. Once at the table you should give your full name, your address and the capacity in which you are making your statement— that is, whether it is a personal statement or one on behalf of an organisation. Those speaking for an organisation may either use their home address or an address of the organisation. We plan to hold a similar session later on this afternoon so if you miss out in this hour we should have a little time at the end to accommodate the needs of most people. The first person I have on my list is Doug McPherson.
Mr McPherson—I am appearing as a volunteer guide, but in a personal capacity. Yesterday, you had two sessions with Dr Tannock. I want to put you right on a couple of points—things were said that were really not on the ball. This is with regard to the building, not what he says he is going to do, or anything like that. In yesterday’s inquiry you and Dr Tannock made reference to the drill hall in Mouat Street. You questioned why Fremantle did not argue against the priority sale of this building and Dr Tannock tried, by implication, to compare the purchase of that building to the sale of this site. It is rather like comparing chalk and cheese. To my knowledge, that particular building was a naval victualling store with provisions for officers and for naval and civilian personnel. It probably had little heritage or commercial value, which is why the council decided not to pursue the matter. Dr Tannock makes reference to the university’s effort to retain heritage status of this building and other buildings, yet I find it hard to equate a red carpeted lecture room in a convention centre to the busy naval office I remember. To compare a naval store with a valuable historical site, such as the one we are seeking to save, shows the university’s commitment to retaining the ambience and heritage of the barracks as being very shallow.
Another point that was brought up by Dr Tannock was the Fremantle prison. As he said, a lot of things were written in the paper about Notre Dame, but he seems to have taken up these things that were written about the prison. I would just like to correct his statement when he said, ‘It is all volunteers down there’—indicating that the prison would have to close because of volunteers. This is not true; I know of only one volunteer down there. It is controlled by CALM, which is our building authority over here, and they have a qualified curatorial staff and it all comes under the management of the state government. The trained tourist guides, known as guardians, are employed by the private enterprise. The rented houses and other venues within the prison are a source of income. If you ever visit the prison you will see the various changes that are taking place which will enhance its highly respected profile in the tourist industry. They were two points from yesterday that I wanted to clarify, just to give you some idea. I understand you are not Western Australians and I am a Fremantle boy, so I know what was really there.
CHAIR—Thank you very much. Is there anything else?
Mr McPherson—I have one other thing to say. When you think of this heritage you think of the pride in the place. A lot of people, politicians particularly, keep talking about the museum as
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 107 such whereas when you look at it it is the pride that the people of WA have in this area. You mentioned, Chair, that people say, ‘Where is it? What is it?’ and that is quite true. There are a lot of people who come in here. I do guiding on Saturdays, plus I do school guiding during the week. When people come on Saturday they say, ‘I did not realise this place was here.’ But once they go through it they say, ‘We will go back and we will tell our friends.’ That is an interesting thing. We went through the Olympics Games and we know the amount of money that has been spent there, and we take pride in our football and our cricket and all of that type of thing, but we should have the same pride in our heritage to our ex-servicemen.
As one of the several guides, the values of past years is what I put forward to the visitors, and especially the schoolchildren. It is marvellous. Even year 8 children are interested. They will say, ‘Yes, my grandfather was there,’ or, ‘My great-grandfather was there.’ This gives them an idea of what it was like and we try to present it that way. Without being too political, if this place was in America—and I am not promoting the American ideology—they would have flags flying out the front and you would not get near the place. Finally, even though I say the naval victualling store is not a heritage site, and it might look at though I am hitting the Navy, I was once a leading seaman. Thank you very much.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 108 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[2.12 p.m.]
GORDON, Mr John-Baron, Precinct Convenor, City Precinct of the City of Fremantle
CHAIR—Welcome, Mr Gordon. In what capacity are you appearing today?
Mr Gordon—I am wearing two hats today. Firstly, I am appearing as the convener of the city precinct in the Fremantle community precinct system. That is basically the CBD. This part is not actually our precinct; nevertheless we take an interest in it. Secondly, I am appearing as an ex-soldier and as the son of lifelong soldier.
I would like to say as the convener of the precinct that there is not one identifiable group that I can find, apart from Notre Dame University, which is in favour of this complex of buildings passing out of Army hands. I have to say that the precinct system does not garner everyone in the community, it is only those who are interested who come along. Notre Dame has never attended any of the precinct meetings. I feel I have to say that. Most of the people in the precinct that I am in contact with, as I have said in my submission, are quite trenchant in their feeling that the Army Museum should stay, the building should stay in Army hands, and the only circumstance they could visualise where the Army Museum was ejected would be if the Army itself needed the space for some sort of operational considerations. That is all I can say about the precinct.
Speaking for myself, it might seem a little banal putting one’s own personal experience here but I have got a theory that for every person who stands up and says something or complains or bitches about something there is probably another 10,000 people out there who feel exactly the same way but who are either apathetic or have other things to do. Maybe that is the same thing.
On the morning after the Second World War started, my father was posted to this complex on secondment as guard commander for the petrochemical storages around Fremantle. The Army gave him a railway pass and a bicycle at that time. It was about all they had. Also, my great uncle was the second in command of the 10th Light Horse in the First World War. He was always talking about this establishment and how marvellous it was. He spent time here. Apparently the 10th used to come in here from time to time for various reasons. He was probably one of those who spent his last night in Australia here.
As I have said in my submission, this is an iconic establishment. There is no other like this in this part of Australia. We have lost Swan barracks, with its core building which went back to the days of state volunteered forces before Federation. There is really only Victoria Barracks in Sydney that I know of, and apparently someone said that not even that is safe from the bureaucrats.
CHAIR—It is a site for birthday parties.
Mr Gordon—We will have to go back to the precinct business again. That is, at the meeting we had with the Defence Estate Organisation, I can confirm that we were told, not as trenchantly perhaps as other people were, that selling it was a foregone conclusion and that it would probably be sold even before this committee got a report in. This was in response to my question: what was their mission in Western Australia? Why did they come over? We were told
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 109 that it was to warn us and tell us that this was going to happen. I said, ‘Shouldn’t you be here asking us what we would like to happen, quite apart from anything else? They said that, no, this was what was going to happen and our only redress would be to protest on the political front to our members of parliament.
Going back to my own personal experience, I was a soldier, albeit an airman, at Pearce. I can recall going through those gates for the first time in 1944 as a cadet. ACC during the war years was a very intense proposition; it took up most of your time. It must be parallel to a postulant entering a monastery for the first time when you go through those main gates. It is very impressive. This is one of the reasons I included Colonel Horne’s newspaper article in my submission. There are all sorts of parallels one could make between the church and the Army. While a priest’s workplace is maybe among the poor and repressed, the worried and penitent, all the physical representations of his faith are in those churches and cathedrals. This is the Army’s cathedral—or one of them.
As we have seen recently, the Army is probably, in the end, the most important of the three services. Any maniac can start a war but you do not stop that war by dropping smart weapons from 40,000 feet, as we have seen. Nor do you stop it by firing missiles from submerged submarines a thousand miles off the coast. In the end, if you are going to win that war and take the territory, the Army has to go in and take it province by province, city by city, street by street and sometimes even house by house. And how do we treat them? We do not even allow them a decent regimental home. We want to kick them around the country like they were an unsatisfactory tenant of a state housing commission. Where is this policy coming from? My father always bitched about politicians, but in his day there was not that intermediate layer of academics and high ranking bureaucrats which stood between the opinions of the high ranking staff officers and the elected politicians.
There is a whole layer of evidence which appears to be missing here. I do not know whether I should introduce it. I do not know whether this is meaningful but, as Mr Dalton said earlier, the statement that this building is redundant and surplus to requirements is a statement of outcome. It contains no analysis of the problem. It does not explain what their agenda is and exactly where the agenda is coming from, whether it is ideologically driven, money driven or practically driven, or whether they are just out of control and doing things as they occur to them. That is probably about all I have to say.
CHAIR—Thank you very much.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 110 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[2.20 p.m.]
TAYLOR, Major General Ken Joseph (Private capacity)
CHAIR—Welco me.
Major Gen. Taylor—I would like to talk about five issues very briefly. I have put in a written submission and I will not cover the content of that, but some additional things have come up since then. On the subject of the DEO responsibilities, I have to say that their responsibilities to the Defence Estate Organisation are quite wrong and they must be changed. None of all this unnecessary nonsense would have happened if the Defence Estate Organisation had a proper role. We hear the term, ‘surplus to requirement’. What does that really mean? I will tell you what I think it means in practice. It means that the Defence Estate Organisation have been told to sell off all the assets that they can possibly get their hands on. They advise Army that a particular site is up for consideration for sale—‘Army, do you want it or would you hang on to it?’ Army makes a case and the DEO says, ‘No, that’s not good enough. Try again.’ So Army digs deeper and makes another case. The Defence Estate Organisation says, ‘No, we’re going to sell it.’ Then the Army says, ‘But it’s got big heritage value.’ The DEO says, ‘That might lower the price a little bit.’ That is how the business works. The problem is that the ownership of the territory or property is in the wrong hands. The decisions for disposal are, in effect, made by the Defence Estate Organisation which have an entirely different brief to everybody else. It is not made by those who own and understand the needs.
CHAIR—Regarding ‘own and understand the needs’, who are you specifically referring to?
Major Gen. Taylor—One of the services, but I will talk in Army terms—it is simpler. Army understands the needs now and in the future. For example, the reserves are becoming enormously important—they always were, but much more so now. We cannot live in a future defence environment without massive reliance on reserves. In the near future, the Prime Minister and others are going to put a lot more money into Army funding and Army reserves. In order to get reserves to come to live, to work, to practise here on Tuesday night and all the rest of it, they had to be in the community, they have to be accessible and they have to be visible. What is going to happen is that all those convenient locations where I can hop on my bike on a Tuesday night and go down and do my thing, are not going to be there—they are all going to be gone. If this is not changed, within 12 to 18 months from now you are going to see two little plays acted out in Canberra. You are going to see—in the Secretary of Defence’s office—the head of the Defence Estate Organisation coming in, and the secretary saying, ‘Jim, I’m doing your annual confidential report. How have you done this year?’ He says, ‘Very well, Secretary. I’ve sold and brought in $400 million worth of assets.’ He says, ‘Good, Jim, that sounds pretty good.’ He gives that a tick, et cetera, and they finish. Meanwhile, on the other side of the lake, there is a Senate estimates committee at which the Chief of Army is being quizzed by the Senate estimates committee. They say, ‘General, you’ve been told to make the reserves a lot more effective. Your recruiting is way down, you have less than 50 per cent strength, the nation is relying on the reserves more and more—what are you doing about it?’ He says, ‘I’ve got a plan.’ The chair of the Senate estimates committee says, ‘Tell us your plan.’ He says, ‘There are two things: I have to double the recruiting campaign money because the present one is not working, and I want $800 million.’ He says, ‘What do you want $800 million for?’ He says, ‘I need $400 million to go out and buy some property and another $400 million to put some
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 111 buildings on that new property because I cannot get back the ones that have been sold.’ That will happen in 12 months.
CHAIR—We understand what you are talking about.
Major Gen. Taylor—What I am saying is that there is a contradiction in objectives. The Army has a role for the nation to provide an armed force ready, willing, able and capable but the Defence Estate Organisation is there to sell off the property. So the functions of owner and real estate agent have been confused. The problem is that the role of both owner and real estate agent now belongs in the DEO, which is why we are all here today.
CHAIR—You have been reading me in Senate Hansard.
Major Gen. Taylor—No, I have not.
CHAIR—It is all right.
Major Gen. Taylor—I am sorry, I have not read any of your stuff.
CHAIR—Mr Barsdell realises what I am talking about.
Major Gen. Taylor—This is part of the Defence reorganisation. They reorganise and reorganise, and they have got it wrong this time—very wrong. They have given the DEO a proper brief to go out and sell properties, but they have also made them the arbiter of what they will sell. No matter what the services say, the things are sold because they need the money, et cetera. My point is that the decisions for disposal are there for the services to make, which understand the need and have the need. It is not for the DEO to make that decision for disposal. The DEO have a proper role to execute the disposal. Having been told that property B is going to be sold, they should go out and get the best market value and do their thing. But they are property developers and they are real estate agents; they are not custodians or owners. The role of ownership and real estate agent has been terribly confused, to our great cost.
Leaving that subject of the DEO responsibility, I will move on to a community matter. At first sight this would seem to be just a military affair, but it is much wider than that. It is a matter for the whole community, both national and local. One of the major concerns of the very first settlers of the state was defence. This extremely isolated and very small community had no security. In 1833, four years after arrival, they resolved to put a permanent military camp on this hill and they called it Cantonment Hill. They named the two main roads of Fremantle Cantonment Street and Cantonment Road. These roads lead directly to this barracks. This priority concern of this small community continued up to and beyond Federation. This hill is a priceless part of our beginnings and our later history. In another culture, this would be a sacred site of the greatest importance.
I would like to turn now to the Centenary of Federation. Next year is our nation’s 100th birthday. Defence of the young colonies was a major driving force towards Federation and, because of this vital matter, the colonies joined together for the very first time. They decided to build a series of coastal artillery forts to protect the main ports. Building of these forts was
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 112 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 commenced in 1887, four years before Federation. These buildings and this hill are part of that first ever national program. This is national heritage of the highest order.
Talking of national heritage brings me back to the function of the Defence Estate Organisation. Decisions on national heritage must not and never be the province of the Defence Estate Organisation. Would you let any property manager or developer free to determine how much heritage should be preserved and how much should be destroyed? In no other part of the community would this even be contemplated, let alone accepted. This is like letting the wolf loose among the lambs in the top paddock. The Defence Estate Organisation must only be allowed to make recommendations on heritage. They must not be allowed to decide what should be kept or sold. This authority belongs to the three services and them alone. They are the guardians of our military history and the morale of the forces. These people are property developers. They must never be the custodians or the protectors of heritage. These two philosophies are in such strong opposition to each other that a strong conflict of interest is inevitable. Which one is going to win? The man who is bringing the dollars into the kitty is going to win every time, and it is quite wrong.
I want to talk now just quickly about heritage values. The Defence Estates Organisation said that a heritage value did not prevent disposal. Victoria Barracks in Sydney could be sold and Anglesea Barracks in Hobart could be sold, but this hill has more heritage value than Anglesea Barracks, which was not part of the national coastal artillery defence force. In Sydney the barracks in Paddington are in their second location. The decision to move the Army to new barracks at Paddington was made in 1836, three years after Cantonment Hill was so designated. The barracks in Paddington were not occupied until 1848. The Fremantle Artillery Barracks are on the original site chosen by our very first citizens 167 years ago.
In closing, Defence, more than any other Commonwealth department, has a prime duty of care to protect national heritage, particularly national military heritage, because the very effectiveness of their operations and capability depends upon that. We heard the RSL earlier today talking about that. That is why it is most important that the ownership of that protective role in Defence belongs not to those who are selling properties but to those who understand the need and the requirement. The responsibilities of the Defence Estates Organisation must change. We are in too much peril. They must not be owners. They should only be agents or managers. They must have no authority over disposal, but they can be the executors. They must be the agents, not the owners. They must have absolutely no authority over heritage, and they should only advise the services, the only proper owners of heritage.
I would like to answer a question asked earlier in the day concerning a funding solution. I was very much involved with the Centenary of Federation celebrations. I was the first executive officer of the council. There was $200 million of Centenary of Federation funding allocated to purchase places. We are too late for that here, but it is possible for the government to find the additional funds necessary to buy this location and give them to the Centenary of Federation fund. Say to Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who I know would agree with this, ‘You have got another $4 million or $5 million for your Federation Fund. You can have that funding on the condition that you now buy for the Centenary of Federation Fund the barracks in Fremantle, and when you have got them, gift them as part of the Centenary of Federation gifts to other parts of Australia.’ It is a feasible, practical, simple mechanism, and the end result is that it does not cost the Commonwealth anything. No money changes hands. It is just a book transfer.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 113
CHAIR—On that last point you raised, gift the barracks to whom?
Major Gen. Taylor—There are a couple of options there, obviously. You could give it to the state government and they could hold it in trust for the people. That is one way of doing it. Or, you could give it to the museum foundation and give them the responsibility. Their business plan would accommodate that. But the land must always be held in perpetuity for the people, however you set up the deed of gift or the title deed. The point is, it does not go onto the open market, it remains in the custody of the people. It could be the Commonwealth government or the Department of Defence, but you guarantee the title in perpetuity.
The problem with giving the land to, for example, Notre Dame, is that 20 years from now they may change their priorities and they could put the land on the open market. You cannot prevent that, and that is the problem the foundation has: there is no guarantee of tenure.
CHAIR—So you are not even advocating, really, giving it to the foundation, or anyone else for that matter, whether it be the Fremantle City Council—
Major Gen. Taylor—No, I would not do that.
CHAIR—You see it as being best vested in the state government. Is that a fair way to summarise what you are saying?
Major Gen. Taylor—They are probably the best protectors of the people’s interest and the best guardians of the Commonwealth interest. They are the best intermediate party, yes.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—How important do you think this facility is—what it contains and the buildings—to people with a non-military culture or background? In your experience, which is fairly significant, do you think there are people out there who support this institution?
Major Gen. Taylor—They are there in abundance. You would know from local knowledge the outcry about Leighton Beach and how much stress that has caused for the state government and the major changes that they have had to make in their plans as a result of public opinion. This show has not even got on the road yet; it has only just started. There has been no canvassing of funds and the foundation has not gone out and knocked on the doors of businesses and corporations and said, ‘Could you spare us $10,000 for a major publicity campaign?’ They have not gone to the Fremantle council and said, ‘Could you put some advertisements in the paper for us as support?’ They have not even begun to call in support. It is huge.
Many years ago, I was not here then, but there was a barracks in the city which was demolished to make way for the freeway and Parliament House. The public outcry over that was just unbelievable. It was of the magnitude of the Vietnam marches, and you would get a similar sort of thing here, because they have lost their one and only heritage value in the state, apart from Albany, and Albany is quite small. This is much, much superior to Albany. I am sorry; I am going on a bit too long.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I understand.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 114 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Major Gen. Taylor—The public support is high and huge, and it has not even begun to be marshalled.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Those barracks were generically referred to as ‘the pensioners’ barracks’ and they were superb. Every time I hear of that, it makes me really, really sad. I should not say this, but I personally appreciate everyone’s efforts in trying to save this. My next question is: is there any manifest evidence that younger people, who are going to inherit this legacy that you, your generation, and others have built up for them, have some interest in it?
Major Gen. Taylor—Yes. My wife works voluntarily in schools, and you get it from children in schools, but you also get it talking to the parents and the grandparents, who talk about what their grandchildren—the eight-, 10-, and 15-year olds—are doing and talking about. They are fascinating. You have only got to look at the newspaper reports or the videos of Gallipoli and see the number of young children there. If you talk to any youth organisation, they are desperately searching for history and commemorating it, and they are getting off their own backsides and finding the money to get their own way to Gallipoli for the things over there. I have got two young girls in their late teens living next door to me; one of them leaves next week to go to the battlefields of France. That is what she wants to do.
I do not know why it is. I guess it is because it is a part of our history that is becoming more and more important. I guess it is because Anzac Day has gone through that mid-sixties and seventies period when it all got confused and we did not know who the hell we were and where we were going. There is a vast increase in the numbers of children at the dawn service. Ten years ago there would have been 2,500 there; now there are 10,000 kids at the dawn service, for heaven’s sake. So you have got a logarithmic increase in the interest of youth in these sorts of traditional values and heritage. It is demonstrating itself at the dawn service and in people wanting to go overseas. Five years ago we did not have any battlefield tours of Europe. Now, through the War Memorial in Canberra, you cannot get on the damn things because they are so popular. Sorry, I have gone on a bit too long.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Not at all. This is a rather rhetorical question. In the oath we say that ‘we shall remember them’ and ‘lest we forget’. Do you think that, by getting rid of obvious and manifest places and tangible evidence of the sacrifices that young Australian men, in particular, and women made, that makes the oath somewhat hollow? Is that putting it perhaps a little bit too emotionally, or is there some truth in that?
Major Gen. Taylor—I am not sure I am understanding your question properly.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I guess I am saying that in the oath we end by saying that ‘we shall remember them’ and ‘lest we forget’. It would appear me—that is why I said it was somewhat rhetorical—that by getting rid of places like this that are tangible evidence of generations that lived in 1914, 1918, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Malaysian emergency, Borneo, Korea and so on we do not really mean it when we say ‘lest we forget’.
Major Gen. Taylor—Let me put it this way: I would not be a youth today for quids, frankly. I reckon they have got it real tough.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—There is a lot of competition out there.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 115
Major Gen. Taylor—There is a lot of competition, and the problem is that they are searching. Religion has lost its place. The role of the traditional family has lost its place. Where are their grandparents? A lot of the things that used to be stable props for the growth demand toward maturity were there. You could depend and rely on them and the path was relatively straightforward. Now, when you talk about not only job security but the vacillation of the nature of the work, there is no long-term career because the careers disappear after five years. Religion is not filling the gap for many of them. The schooling is certainly not fulfilling the gap. Parenthood is not fulfilling the gap. They are desperately searching to find their way, the meaning of the life and their way in the world, and one of the things that they are looking for is something that has built-in value. That in part explains this search for things like this that have substance and that have meaning. Tradition and history are now becoming terribly important subjects in schools. When I went to school history was a terrible subject, but not anymore. They are now avidly searching for their history. They are trying to find their roots. We as adults and responsible citizens, to my mind, would be greatly failing in our duty if we did not preserve those things that enabled them to grow up with hope and with feeling and with understanding. If we want them to be good Australians and good citizens we have to provide this sort of stuff for them. There is just no alternative. It is a duty of care we have upon us.
CHAIR—Thank you very much. We are very much appreciative of your presentation to the committee and we will take that into consideration when we construct our report.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 116 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[2.44 p.m.]
HASKELL, Mr William James (Private capacity)
CHAIR—Welcome, Mr Haskell. Would you like to make an opening statement?
Mr Haskell—Thank you. Most of the museum volunteers are absolutely appalled at the way in which this deal has been put across. The way in which Notre Dame University had a priority choice on the precinct here is absolutely abhorrent as far as we are concerned. Dr Tannock made mention yesterday that it was always their intention to have it as a museum. That would be the best kept secret as far as we are concerned. I was in that march in May, as were so many other people, and it is only in recent days when the pressure went on that Notre Dame has indicated that the museum was always in their thinking, that they would retain the museum as an entity. I was also picketing at Notre Dame all of the time that the picket was run. One thing that was very apparent to me was that the scholars down there would be almost universally overseas students. I am also going to talk as a serviceman. It absolutely appals me to think that my mates who are commemorated in this building here are going to be superseded by overseas students. I do not have anything against overseas students, there is a place for them, but it is certainly not in this precinct here.
I will get back to where I came from. I am an ex-serviceman who has seen the seamy side of war. I served as a machine-gunner in Syria. We were in the first shipload of Australians evacuated from the Middle East when Japan came into the war. We were taken prisoner in Java, and with Weary Dunlop we were the first Australians to work on the Thailand end of the Burma Railway. I have seen the pits as far as depravity to human beings is concerned. I have so many wonderful mates who are lying in a foreign field up there. I do not want to be emotive about this, but that is the area where I am coming from, that I am speaking for people who are no longer able to speak for themselves.
I might add that Weary Dunlop, as far as I am concerned, was the greatest Australian I ever came across. I doubt if there will ever be another man who in similar circumstances would conduct himself in the way that that man did. He was a hero from go to whoa, not only as a camp commander but as a most brilliant surgeon who carried out the most innovative surgery you could imagine.
He had the good sense to know that whatever he did there was no record of the operations that he was performing. There was an English artist by the name of Jack Chalker. Weary Dunlop realised the potential of this man and every operation that Weary did, Jack Chalker was there sketching because otherwise people would have no record of just what took place. Jack Chalker was also an artist in another areas. He had wonderful drawings of all the various hospitals, and the prostheses that were used up there. In fact, he made a wonderful record of all the ways in which prisoners of war survived. When the Year of Remembrance was on we were asked to do something in commemoration. We thought that the best thing that we could do would be to make a contribution to the doctors who worked on the Burma-Siam Railway. If you have taken the trouble to look at the prisoner war gallery up there you will see that everything there is authentic. It comes from direct sketches by Jack Chalker and from fellows like us who work there. We know it and we know it well.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 117
I conduct groups throughout that prisoner of war gallery. I have a commentary for school groups and others which generally lasts for about half an hour. I would say that universally the reception I get is that they are stunned. They do not realise that human beings, let alone Aussies, were treated the way that they were treated, nor the untold depths to which doctors went to save prisoners of war.
There is a particular area as far as cholera is concerned—a disease that strikes people over in a matter of hour—and our magnificent Aussies overcame it, and they overcame it in a way which it is my delight to be able to tell. That museum up there, and the prisoner of war gallery, is absolutely priceless. To think of it being located anywhere else, to Johnny-come-latelies who have been here about five minutes, as an old digger, that absolutely appals me. That is about all I have got to say.
CHAIR—So you would see it not having the same context or the same impact if it were at Hobbs Hall?
Mr Haskell—I believe that this area, for ex-servicemen, is the responsibility of Australia. I do not care whether the defence department or whoever undertakes it, but to those thousands of Aussies who lie in foreign fields and who are commemorated in this area, we pay homage to them, and it is the duty of Australia to preserve this site as it is. I would not even contemplate Hobbs. This is an area of wonderful significance.
When I was a boy, I used to go to school in Fremantle. This area then was an active artillery setup. They have horsedrawn limbers where they used to service the forts over at Fort Forrest. That wonderful hill up there was the only signal station for the port of Fremantle. I can remember the black cane balls and house flags of ships flying there, and they were always put up 24 hours before the ships came in. There was none of this modern-day telecommunications and what have you. The people of Fremantle would look at Signal Hill and they would know that ships were due in within 24 hours, because they would see the house flags, and to me that is just wonderful. Boyhood memories are one thing, I know, but this place is a place of deep significance. That is not just my word. I move around in returned services, I move around in Probus, in all sorts of groups, and I would say that the proposed acquisition by Notre Dame is universally—I repeat: universally—discounted by the whole lot of them. They think it is appalling that an area like this is going to be supplanted by a private university that has only been around for about five minutes.
Senator HUTCHINS—What if it were the University of Western Australia? You made a comment about ‘five minutes’ and ‘private university’.
Mr Haskell—This is a military establishment. I am 100 per cent in favour of it being retained as a military establishment. General Taylor mentioned some things. I might mention that I am not a general. I was only one of the ORs, and I am not making too good of a fist of it—
CHAIR—You are doing very well.
Mr Haskell—At least I am putting across my sentiments, and my sentiments are: this is military, it stays military, and I do not want universities or anything in it. They will mess it up.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 118 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
CHAIR—What about the proposition that Defence Estate might become a little bit sympathetic towards the cause and leave this part intact but excise the valuable part—that is, in real estate, the oval—and sell that.
Mr Haskell—If Defence Estate finds the means whereby they will finance this as a museum factor, I have got no complaint. As long as this museum is retained as such and we have the capacity to finance it, that suits me fine.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Mr Haskell, I really do appreciate the contribution that you make to our history. If it were not for people like you, we would be infinitely poorer. We would be impecunious as far as history goes. I do acknowledge the contribution of you, and those like you, who give so much.
Mr Haskell—I will interrupt, Senator. Think of those thousands overseas who contributed.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I often think of them, Sir; yes.
Mr Haskell—They are the ones we remember.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—What of that memory of those young men, and some young women, who died over there? You lost a brother over there.
Mr Haskell—I lost my eldest brother on the Kokoda.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Let me just go on. There must have been six or seven of you from the same family, all your brothers, that served in the Second World War?
Mr Haskell—They used to have a star for everyone serving overseas. My mum had seven stars.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—It is quite extraordinary, isn’t it, for a mother to send seven sons away?
Mr Haskell—Yes. I had a brother who was on the Australia when it was Kamikaze attacked. I do not need to go into our history, but we have a very proud record of service to this country.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Yes, indeed. Being a machine gunner I do not suppose you were in a machine gun company but probably as a machine gun support in an infantry battalion.
Mr Haskell—I was a Vickers machine gunner. I was in a machine gun battalion. We had a whole battalion of Vickers machine guns.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Did that mean you would not have had the opportunity of actually training here at the barracks even though you knew them well?
Mr Haskell—No. We trained in Northam camp and then we trained in Woodside in South Australia before we went overseas. I might add that we were probably the best trained troops
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 119 that ever left for the Middle East, but we were given away on a plate by a government who sent us in on a no-hoper expedition in Java. They sent in 3,500 men to stop I do not know how many battalions of Japanese, but it was a no-hoper from the word go. They knew it was a no-hoper because the general’s staff had disappeared to Burma before we even lobbed there. We were just put in as a go-between. We like to think that we did stall the Japanese drive down to Australia a bit but, as far as most of our men are concerned, we were sacrificed. We had no hope.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—What year was that, Mr Haskell, just for the record?
Mr Haskell—That would have been in February 1942.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I am in a better position than you are. You have got the contribution; you have got the runs on the board; your family has the runs on the board; but I am in a better position than you are to save these barracks. Yet I do not feel that confident about saving them. I am committed to doing whatever I can. I am not ashamed to say that and I am not ashamed to declare my position on what should be and what normally is a committee that does not have an opinion while it is taking evidence. But I think it is so overwhelming that we need a fair modicum and a fair contribution of compassion and commonsense here. I think that of all the letters that I have read and all the contributions that have been made here—and all the contributions are commendable—yours has been the most moving. You say that you were only an OR. It has come out very well, Mr Haskell, in your contribution.
Mr Haskell—I might add that I was a senior officer in the tax office after I came back.
CHAIR—We do not hold that against you.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—You never knocked on my door, Mr Haskell.
CHAIR—You should have tried though.
Mr Haskell—You should not have, Mr Chairman, because we used to pick up your wages for you.
CHAIR—Are you going to dig a deeper hole yet?
Senator LIGHTFOOT—No. I am going to stop digging, put my shovel up and say that I was too young to go to the Second World War, thank God, and I was too old to go to the Vietnam War. I did my training in national service at Seymour School of Infantry for non- commissioned officers, so I do have something in common with you—certainly not the tax department.
Mr Haskell—You did not have to get a tin of bully beef up at Canungra, did you?
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I have eaten plenty of bully beef. I do thank you very much for your contribution.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 120 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
CHAIR—Thank you very much, Mr Haskell. We appreciate the evidence you have given to the committee. It will be taken into consideration, as is the evidence of every other witness.
Mr Haskell—Thank you.
CHAIR—I have an indication from at least another two people who wish to give a statement to the committee. We will do that after the last submission.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 121
[2.59 p.m.]
ANSTEY, Mr Stephen William, Spokesperson, Residents Action Group and Precinct 3, City of Fremantle
HOWARD, Mr Patrick John, Member, Residents Action Group and Precinct 3, City of Fremantle
CHAIR—Welcome. The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public but, should you at any stage wish to give any part of your evidence in private, you may ask to do so and the committee will consider your request. The committee has before it a written submission from you. Are there any alterations or additions you would like to make to your submission at this stage?
Mr Anstey—No, none at all.
CHAIR—I now invite you to make an opening statement, and then we will proceed to questions.
Mr Anstey—This submission will be jointly presented by Patrick and me. With the permission of the chair, I would like to refer to the photograph over there on occasions.
CHAIR—If you refer to the photograph, it does become a little difficult to record that part in Hansard. If you can be fairly descriptive when you do so, it will assist us.
Mr Anstey—I will indeed.
CHAIR—If you know the names of streets or the names of landmarks, people can then get a fairly accurate picture of what you are talking about when they read the Hansard.
Mr Anstey—Our submission and our presentation today is mainly concentrating on the two most vulnerable parts of this site—namely Cantonment Hill and the part known as the Tuckfield Street oval, which we as citizens for many years have called the Tuckfield Street park. So if I use the term ‘park’, it is synonymous with ‘oval’. Although our presentation will be focused on those two parts rather than perhaps on the built environment and the Army Museum in particular, I wish to strongly record the precinct’s and the citizens’ of the area’s support for the Army Museum and its retention on this site. It has our absolute support. This community has lived with the Army for 90 years, and there is longstanding support and interaction with the military presence in this area. We support that ongoing presence—whether it be that the status quo is preserved or whether it be under many of the scenarios mentioned by Senator Lightfoot and others and in the Army Museum’s submission—but our main submission is focused on the two more vulnerable parts of this site.
Our interest in this situation is longstanding. We were interested in the future of this particular site well before knowledge of the sale of this site was known. Citizens in this area sent a letter to the council two years ago, asking the council to look into acquiring the Tuckfield Street oval for public open space.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 122 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
CHAIR—Have you got a copy of that letter?
Mr Anstey—I do not have it with me, but I can certainly get a copy for you.
CHAIR—If you can take it on notice and supply it, it would be welcome.
Mr Anstey—Yes. In December last year—still before the announced sale of the land—to support that letter and that notion, I and other local residents took up a petition. By way of showing you whom I represent and where that petition was taken from, I will refer to the map.
Overhead transparencies were then shown—
Mr Anstey—A petition of 162 adult residents was purposely restricted to the area bounded by Canning Highway, East Street, Vale Street, Finnerty Street and Tuckfield Street. That is the area that our action group represents.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—So that takes in more than the barracks precinct?
Mr Anstey—Yes, absolutely.
CHAIR—And that is all part of precinct 3?
Mr Anstey—It is indeed. Precinct 3 extends well beyond this area that you are looking at here. It extends over to the prison, north of here onto Montreal Street and to the other side of East Street. It is representing, roughly speaking, about one-fifth of the city of Fremantle in terms of its residents.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Would it be roughly 10 times bigger than the Artillery Barracks itself?
Mr Anstey—In terms of area?
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Yes.
Mr Anstey—Indeed—far more than 10 times.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—More?
Mr Anstey—Yes.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Can you give us any idea of how big it is? We know by looking at the barracks that it is about three hectares.
Mr Anstey—Are you talking in terms of the citizens in our precinct area?
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Yes, those in precinct 3.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 123
Mr Anstey—I think we are looking at an area at least several hectares squared. Someone would be better placed to give me that exact figure. We are talking about an area that goes probably about three or four kilometres square; 1,100 homes is what I have been told.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Thank you, that gives us some idea of how big it is compared to the map.
Mr Anstey—This petition was universally supported. We had one genuine refusal from all the households through this area. It actually contains, in the restricted area here—
CHAIR—I am just confused. How many households did you survey in that area?
Mr Anstey—Roughly speaking, I would say that it would have been about 200 households.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—And one dissenter?
Mr Anstey—There was one dissenter. This petition at this particular point in time was focused on the Tuckfield Street oval—to keep that in public ownership for the citizens. At that time there was no announcement of a sale for the broader site, so our campaign at that particular point in time was focused entirely on the oval. I might say that, at that particular time, it was focused for public amenity reasons. The metropolitan regional scheme recommends that residents should be within 400 metres of a recreational area and at that particular time the residents in the northern part of the area bordering Canning Highway, East Street, Malcolm Street and Tuckfield Street were not within that frame. In this area that we are talking about there is a growing number of young families and children. In Dorothy Street, where I live—and I live right down here in the hollow—when I moved in six years ago there were no children. Now there are 11 in that very short street there. That is a pattern that is repeated through this area here. So just on public amenity grounds we were interested in that particular area there.
CHAIR—Sorry, could I just stop you? I do not normally do this, but to whom did you give the petition?
Mr Anstey—The petition was submitted to the Fremantle City Council because we saw it at that point in time as a local government issue. As a result of that petition the Fremantle City Council passed as policy that they wished to acquire that particular area. I use the term ‘acquire’ in a guarded sense—‘acquire’ in the sense of gaining ownership or control over the area, not necessarily buying the area. Then the announcement of the sale occurred and residents gave submissions to the council in the shaping of their policy for the area. We were very influential, I feel, in the nature of the Fremantle City Council’s policy. When that was released we became very active in canvassing support for that policy. There were 293 written submissions following the call for submissions on that policy. Ninety-seven per cent of those written submissions were supportive of the council’s policy for the entire site. The key parts, from our point of view, were the retention of Cantonment Hill and the author of the Tuckfield Street park/oval in public hands.
With the announcement of the Senate inquiry, we became very active in formulating a response, and you have that. We are very pleased to be invited to speak to you about this. You have our submission, and the details in there give you the reasons these areas should be
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 124 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 preserved. However, I will summarise those as quickly as I can. I will focus on both the hill and the park, often interchangeably because they are integrally related, but sometimes separately. The park, as you have heard, has strong historic significance. The park did have a soak on site up until very recent years—Patrick will talk about that. There is a strong army connection, and Paul Bridges alluded to that in the Army Museum submission so I will not go on about that. There is also some anecdotal evidence that it was used for camel trains and the watering of camels to go on to the goldfields. This area leading from Cantonment Hill down to the river has traditionally been rich in natural springs and that is why these areas were used for that.
The oval is an important and integral part of the whole site, not just with the hill, and is listed as such under every heritage listing. I am not certain that the committee is aware of the various heritage listings that are out on the site. I am told that you have not been alerted to this, but it is on the Register of Heritage Places at a national level, it is on the National Trust Classified List, it is on the local municipal inventory of significant places and it is on the state Register of National Estate. That is the entire site, including the oval. All of those parties have recognised the heritage value of this particular area. The other significant thing is that Cantonment Hill and the park are two of only several remaining hills that existed in the Fremantle area. The others were quarried for limestone in the colonial period and, whilst Cantonment Hill has evidence of quarrying—and that, in itself, is an important historic feature—it is a rare survivor out of several important hills that existed in the inner area of Fremantle.
Going back to the hill, the military part of the significance of this hill has been well told to you by the Army Museum people and by several of the immediate past speakers. However, just to add a few things to that, tunnels run under that hill. It was a signal control station for artillery during the last war. Those tunnels are presently blocked for safety reasons, but they have immense tourist value if we are looking at an integrated tourist facility for this site, and we will talk about that briefly soon, too. There are some very important features on the hill. We see it as historically very important. There are also very important ethnographic reasons why this site should be kept in public hands, and Patrick will briefly talk about that now.
Mr Howard—Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. It is very encouraging to the residents of the area that you senators are here today. Thank you. The people involved as residents in the group that Stephen and I are working with are all people who are in employment. We have been under great pressure to prepare quality material, and you must forgive us for some of that. It fell to me to look into the Aboriginal heritage significance of the site. It is written that it was at this site and indeed in the vicinity of the oval that Stirling first met indigenous people in 1829. That is assumed to have occurred in this immediate area.
Stephen mentioned springs and soaks in the area and there is still evidence of one flowing into the Swan further down. A soak was visible on the oval itself up until the 1970s. The area was bulldozed to make it more like a playing field around 1980 and that soak has now disappeared. But, certainly, that is part of the longstanding significance of the area and no doubt a part of the reason it was of significance to Aboriginal people, apart from its obvious physical characteristics.
Cantonment Hill is identified in records predating European settlement as a major camp site of Aboriginal people who called it Dwerda Weeardinup, which means place of the dingo spirit. Numerous sources from the early colonial period document its important place in the life of the
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 125 traditional owners of the area—Whadjuk people. Ethno-historical investigation in 1988 into the Aboriginal heritage of the Fremantle area, commissioned by the City of Fremantle and conducted by Martin Gibbs of the University of WA’s Centre for Prehistory, outlines the cultural significance of the hill and gives it a prominent place in the design of a heritage trail incorporating a number of Aboriginal sites in this immediate area.
To add to the list of heritage registrations that Stephen has mentioned, Cantonment Hill is registered with the Aboriginal Affairs Department as a site of ceremonial and mythological significance. This registration means that no future use or development of the area may infringe the cultural values which it embodies. Detailed formal ethnographic and archaeological studies of the site have not yet been conducted. These would have to be commissioned by any future owner before the site was disturbed in any way—a point which has been lost on a number of the speakers who have seen parts of the site as an easy target for development. Technically and legally a sod cannot be turned without the commissioning of appropriate investigations. From this point of view it is clear that the great importance of Cantonment Hill as an Aboriginal heritage site along with its place in the European history of Fremantle must preclude any further encroachment on the physical integrity of this landmark and constitutes a strong argument for the retention of the precinct as a community asset.
Mr Anstey—I would like to very quickly refer to the social significance of the site. Numerous speakers have spoken about the importance of the hill as an icon in their lives, particularly from a military point of view. From an every day citizen’s point of view, the hill and its surrounds are a Fremantle icon—not just for the residents of Fremantle but also for the broader residents of the state. Senator Hogg, you mentioned a straw poll that you conducted about the museum, talking to people anecdotally. I would suggest that, if you conducted a similar straw poll on the hill, you would find that just about every resident in Perth would know that site. It is a site of importance recognised by most Western Australians. It is the site that everyone sees when they come over the traffic bridge, which is one of the main entry points into Fremantle.
There is deep-seated community feeling for the retention of Cantonment Hill and this broader precinct in public hands. The reactions that were heard in the audience here when some of the Defence Estate Organisation’s developers’ plans were announced—option 1 and option 2—give you a fair indication of how much outrage there would be. If option 1, which sees development on the hill and the reclamation of the nature reserve on the front, were put up I believe there would be a huge outcry. We all thought that this article in the Fremantle Herald was just a touch exaggerated, but if that is—
CHAIR—Could you identify the article, please, for Hansard?
Mr Anstey—It is the front page of the Fremantle Herald on Saturday, 7 October 2000, with the title ‘Battle looms for hill’. I would suggest that you are seeing something that is fairly recent press, and this article is quite right: there will be a huge battle for the hill and we are just seeing the start of it in terms of the amount of community feeling that is being generated over this particular issue.
CHAIR—Could we get a photocopy of that, please, at some stage?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 126 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Anstey—Yes, certainly. Reference was also made to support from other groups. Our group has had support from all the other citizens groups in the areas surrounding Fremantle. The Leighton action group people, who are coming, possibly and hopefully, to the end of their campaign, are gearing up, because this is their area too—the North Fremantle people and so forth. They feel really strongly about this, and they are gearing up on this issue as well.
I would like to just briefly allude to the management of the site and the various models that we see as being important for this particular area. The residents would support any option that would see the site retained in public ownership as an integrated site. That is our preferred stance. There have been several scenarios mentioned as to how that would be obtained, but we would prefer that the state government took control over the whole site so that the site was vested in some way in state government hands, with a board of management that was representative of the key stakeholders on the site, and that may well include the army museum.
The other option that we would fully support is the model of ownership that the Army Museum has put forward. We are supportive of their business plan and, indeed, we have been consulted over it, and we would welcome an Army Museum management of the site, particularly since it identifies the hill and the oval as being managed by the Fremantle City Council, which we would also strongly endorse. We would support either of those two models or variations on them. I might at this stage hand over to Patrick, who will talk about Defence Estate’s handling of this matter.
Mr Howard—You will not be surprised to hear that residents have been gravely concerned about the manner in which the Defence Estates Organisation has conducted the process. I refer briefly to a letter from Liz Clarke, dated 10 July 2000 and addressed to the CEO of the City of Fremantle. The letter gets off on the wrong foot, we all feel, by taking a very patronising tone about the quality of the City of Fremantle policy and suggests, in a very patronising and dismissive way, that the city might have benefited from the assistance of consultants in the matter—preferably consultants hired by DEO. You will have noted yesterday that the city performed extremely credibly and very professionally as its staff presented to you.
It is hard not to see Ms Clarke’s suggestion as a very disingenuous one. Indeed, why did the consultants that DEO has hired not open a discourse with the City of Fremantle long before that letter was written—since DEO has been driving the process from the beginning? In the same letter, Ms Clarke complains—indeed ‘bleats’, I think it would be fair to say—about how disappointing it is that the City of Fremantle did not fully consult with the DEO. This is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, since the level of consultation by DEO has been little short of disgraceful. A little further on in this letter, Ms Clarke positively whines about how the shortness of time provided to Defence to access and respond to the draft is regretted. That is another outstanding case of the pot calling the kettle black, since making the most of pressure of time has been central to DEO’s whole strategy in the conduct of this property disposal. This has put enormous pressure on persons in groups with legitimate interests and concerns around the site to prepare their submissions and responses.
Ms Clarke suggests finally that council await receipt of a report, to be commissioned some time after 10 July by DEO, before proceeding with their policy development process. Where is this report? As far as we know it does not yet exist. The announcement that the sale is to be completed by 7 December shows just how disingenuous that suggestion was, because if the City
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 127 of Fremantle had followed the suggestion there would be no City of Fremantle policy for the site on the table before the date of the proposed sale.
Residents have been shocked by the quite rudely dismissive posture of DEO, apparently designed to cow any opposition long enough for the sale to go through. We feel that residents are entitled to expect that, as custodians of this site, which is of incalculable significance, the Department of Defence would submit to the established conventions and processes of civic planning. Instead, it would appear that they have sought to evade those conventions and processes.
The Department of Defence claim some respectability for their disposal process by applying a priority purchaser classification, supposedly on the basis that UNDA is a worthy body to own the land. This is in no sense a criticism of UNDA. The insistence of DEO on receiving their market value makes a joke of the priority purchaser classification and its attendant supposed respectability. If any purchaser has to pay market value, it then has no choice but to sell the land for residential or commercial development. The Department of Defence might as well sell the land direct to the developers. We feel that would be a more honest approach.
CHAIR—Can I just draw your attention to one thing? I am not wanting to stifle you, but we are now starting to run into time constraints that I have not had with the other witnesses. I just draw to your attention that there will be senators leaving soon after 5 o’clock. I have indicated to a couple of other people that they will be given an opportunity. There are still two more witnesses to proceed after yourselves. I am prepared to give you a reasonable amount of time but I just draw that to your attention because I do not want you to think it is unlimited.
Mr Howard—Thank you very much. Our emphasis is on the oval itself, which is the key to our concerns. Discussions about the future of the whole site have focused, quite appropriately we feel, on issues of viability and financial sustainability of any plans for the future of the site. Mr Utting, the mayor, and of course Jim Dalton and UNDA, have all referred to that. It has been suggested that the sale of the oval can somehow remedy a revenue shortfall, though just how has not actually been clarified. The fact is that the oval has no capacity to generate an income stream, which is the need that everybody has pointed to in looking at the viability of the museum proposal and indeed any other proposal. It has no capacity to generate an income stream for anyone but a developer. From the point of view of a government seeking to balance the books on the site, it offers a one-off injection of funds. In the context of the long and even medium term view, that injection of funds would be a drop in a bucket, as Jim Dalton hinted this morning, which makes the sale of the oval, in our eyes, a gratuitous and destructive act, not even supported by an economic rationalist point of view.
The perversity of this proposal does not even end there. A glance at the map may tempt one to think that the oval could be excised from the precinct without negative effects other than the loss of the oval itself. But that is far from the truth and I think that Stephen may comment on that. The permanent alienation of this land from the state community for the sake of a relatively trifling one-off injection of funds is an egregious instance of the sale of a birthright for a mess of pottage. I refer to Jim Dalton’s point that this is a state matter, not a Fremantle matter. It is indeed not about Fremantle any more than Kings Park is about the interests of the people of Crawley or West Perth; it is about a state asset and, as such, is of significance to everyone in this state. Thank you very much.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 128 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mr Anstey—To conclude, I would like to say that we see a broader vision for the site as an integrated site, of which the oval and the hill are an integral part to give viability and integrity to the whole site. Patrick alluded to the economics of selling the oval. We see the oval as actually contributing the economic viability of the entire precinct. We see it as a site that has huge tourist potential, given all the elements, and some of those were alluded to in the Army Museum’s submission. We see a model with the oval as a recreational space for families and children. The council’s policy articulates things like barbecues and a family gathering area there, and access, which you cannot get at the moment, through the council reserve up to the signal station. The signal station, if it were open to the public, has enormous viability from a tourism perspective.
You have seen the site; it is a magnificent site. It would be an enormous attraction to the citizens of Western Australia and to visiting tourists. If you see it like that, as an integrated site, then it adds viability to the Army Museum’s model of management. Anyone who is going to come and visit the hill—and most people will, because it is wonderful—will come down to the Army Museum. That is how the whole precinct should work. It should work as an integrated precinct, in public hands, and managed responsibly by either a state government board or by the Army Museum as an integrated site. If you hive off one part of it, such as the oval, you will lose an important part of the site which gives economic viability to the whole site, and you will destroy the integrity of it.
The last thing I will say is that governments have, in all cities, set aside land for its beauty, for its presence, for its location, or for public amenity. They do so because of the importance to the citizens. This land is such land, and it should be vested in public hands for the citizens of Western Australia. Thank you.
Senator HUTCHINS—Have you met with officials of the DEO at all?
Mr Anstey—A couple of months ago—at extraordinarily short notice, and not through the DEO but through Fremantle City Council—we were asked to send some representatives to a meeting with the Defence Estate Organisation. I think I was given a day and bit’s notice. All of us, and most members of the precinct, are working people and we all have full-time jobs. At that very short notice, I found it extraordinarily hard to get members of our group to the meeting.
Senator HUTCHINS—But you got there, didn’t you?
Mr Anstey—I got there, but I had to beg my boss, down on my knees, to get there.
Senator HUTCHINS—Okay, but you met with them. Whom did you meet with?
Mr Anstey—We met with Liz Clarke, and we met with Wing Commander Griffith and his colleagues over here. Whilst it was a constructive meeting, and we were pleased to be meeting with these people—
Senator HUTCHINS—Was this in September ?
Mr Anstey—Yes. It was a hastily prepared meeting, and that has been the sum total of community consultation. There has been no community process in terms of letter dropping the
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 129 area or explaining things in a rational manner by those means, through the press, or in any other way. It is not acceptable to the citizens of this area, because we have lived with the Army in this area, very happily, for 90 years. It is not good enough to treat citizens like that.
Senator HUTCHINS—I am not sure whether it was you, Mr Anstey, or Mr Howard who said that in 1980 the oval was bulldozed. Is that right?
Mr Howard—The landform was changed. I am unable to put an exact date on it.
Senator HUTCHINS—We went and inspected it yesterday, and there is a little knoll and then—
Mr Howard—Yes.
Senator HUTCHINS—There are not two football fields there. There is nothing there, in fact, except grass.
Mr Howard—Yes. That is not the original landform, as I have explained.
Senator HUTCHINS—It has been like that for 20 years, I assume, with the school across the road?
Mr Howard—Yes, that is right. It was generally a flattish area of land, but sloping away. The part that overlooks the rear area of Gun House has in fact been greatly elevated because land was pushed out there which is now 10 feet above the bottom of the reserve. The result would be that, even with a low-level development on that area, it would overshadow part of the system 6 bush reserve. Of course, it is not going to be a low-level development if it is developed. It will be three, four or five storeys or whatever—if the developments in the area are anything to go by.
Senator HUTCHINS—But that oval area is owned by the Commonwealth. Cantonment Hill, as I understand it, is owned by the council, isn’t it?
Mr Howard—No, that is not quite correct. There is a reserve that goes around the flank of the hill, running from the oval around the—
Senator HUTCHINS—Where it has been reforested—where it has been regenerated: is that Commonwealth land?
Mr Howard—No, that is mainly City of Fremantle land. The area that you referred to rather unflatteringly yesterday as rather scrubby bush is the vegetation of the Swan coastal plain. You could grow to love it if you lived here, as I have.
Senator HUTCHINS—I am sure you could.
Mr Anstey—Just to clarify the importance of that reserve and the relationship to the oval: that is a system 6 reserve. It means that from state government listing it has been given the highest classification of a reserve that can be given. The reason it is a system 6 reserve is that it
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 130 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 is the last original remnant of bushland in this Fremantle area, as well as having an important role to play for the migrating birds and other things. The oval is really important because it acts as a buffer to that system 6 reserve, as does the land at the top of the hill, which is the signal station land. Together, they provide a buffer to that system 6 reserve, which is really important. As Patrick has alluded to, any development on that site is going to be detrimental to that reserve. There are the state government planning documents. The City of Fremantle has two publications which stress the importance of providing buffers to that system 6 reserve. That is what those areas of land are currently doing—to have development. As Patrick said, it will be high-rise development in this area. We have had examples of that over at North Bank and locally. That is an entirely inappropriate development for this area. But given the scenario where the defence department are pushing for full market value, it means that the Tuckfield Street oval is the most vulnerable part, the most likely to be sold off, and that is what will happen to it. It is not an acceptable outcome; it is an integral part of the rest of the site.
Senator HUTCHINS—I must say that when I saw the oval yesterday it did not look like it had any intrinsic heritage value at all.
Mr Anstey—Yes, but it is also misleading. Since the school over the road has vacated the site, that oval has not been maintained properly for the better part of 2½ years. It is actually looking reasonably good in our eyes at the moment because it was mowed once the Senate inquiry was started.
Senator HUTCHINS—It looked like it gets locked up too.
Mr Anstey—The thing about that area is—
Senator HUTCHINS—Does it get locked up? Who has got the key to it?
Mr Anstey—Currently it is not locked up.
Senator HUTCHINS—Who has the key to it?
Mr Anstey—No-one, because the padlock on it does not work at the moment. It gives the impression that this is an area that you cannot go to. That is, I imagine, the impression that Defence Estate want to create on that area. It is not an area that the public can readily access because of the fence that goes around it. Until recently, it was not a happy place to go to because it was full of vegetation and fennel and other things. It is looking at just about its worst at the moment. Imagine an area that was properly managed, controlled and slightly landscaped to integrate it with the site and reticulated. It would be a jewel in the crown for the City of Fremantle.
Senator HUTCHINS—Is this where the camels were?
Mr Anstey—Yes.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 131
CHAIR—We are out of time, so we will draw it to a close there. Thank you very much for your appearance.
Proceedings suspended from 3.39 p.m. to 3.51 p.m.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 132 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
LOVE, Mrs Judith Anne, Vice President, Mundaring and Hills Historical Society
CHAIR—I welcome our next witness, Mrs Judith Love. In what capacity are you appearing before the committee today?
Mrs Love—I am appearing on three counts: as a descendant of original settlers here, as a person interested and involved in history, and as an ex-teacher.
CHAIR—The committee has before it a written submission from the Mundaring and Hills Historical Society. Are there any alterations or additions you would like to make to your submission?
Mrs Love—No. But I would like to draw to your attention the fact that I also wrote as a private citizen, under my own name. I know you have that letter.
CHAIR—I now invite you to make an opening statement, and we will then proceed to questions.
Mrs Love—Thank you. I am appearing with three hats on, and, rather surprisingly to my husband, agreeing with a lot of what has been said previously, so I will not reiterate it. I am a fifth generation West Australian, born in Fremantle and having, as my predecessors, descendants from the Pearse and Armstrong families who arrived here in 1829 and 1830. William Silas Pearse was our most famous. I mention him only because he was very active in the decision on where Fremantle Harbour would go—not out to sea virtually, but in a protected area.
I had two grandfathers who were councillors in Fremantle and from them I got a great pride in Fremantle. I spent a lot of my childhood here. I was taken around the sites; they were introduced to me. I still have enormous love for Fremantle. It was that which motivated me to want to appear before the committee, even though I am quite scared stiff. I had an uncle who also worked for Fremantle City Council before he went overseas and was killed; but, fortunately, another uncle who was overseas came back so my links to this place are very lasting. As a child I never crossed that bridge without my grandfather pointing out to me what those signals meant, because he was in business running lighters. So this is my history.
We are now into the seventh generation of the family here and, if the seventh generation could say anything to you, I am sure they would say that this is their heritage and they want it kept. I am speaking now as a person active in history and in volunteering. I have spent 18 years in my own area collecting history and taking children on various tours. I have worked very hard for my local area, which is in the hills. I do not know whether I could afford to live here, frankly, so I have to stay in the hills.
I want to draw to your attention a very derogatory comment that I saw in today’s paper about handing this over to ‘mere volunteers’. I want to draw to your attention the fact that volunteers today are not little old ladies who sit in the corner and go to sleep in a musty museum. Today volunteers are getting high qualifications. We have young members of our society, one of 75
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 133 historical societies, and the same goes for all of them. People are getting well qualified. People are moving into the computer age and museums are getting to be, hopefully, a bit more like this one, which is so interactive and which wraps around young visitors. We came in here today with some Army men, the men in spotty suits I heard someone refer to them as. I though to myself that if I was coming in here with a class and here with these men in camouflage gear and here were these wonderful machines, they would be fired up. We have got to keep this place as it is. It is part of our heritage. All the wonderful things that have been said before are true. We cannot let it go. True, you may have seen that as a sandy oval but give people half a chance and it will be an exciting tourist attraction. I have no doubt that the people here can do it.
I want to speak now as a teacher. I mentioned that I felt quite excited to be coming in with all the men in the spotty suits. It is the sort of stuff kids love today, being part of an active place. Soldiers are still going forth, they are still training here. I think kids feel this very strongly. We have got to show them that history is living and exciting, and I believe that this place does exactly that.
I have travelled pretty widely and the places I remember are the places where the museum is still sited where it always was and doing business. I call to mind a little town in Austria. It might be big for all I know but I saw one bit of it. I went to Graz. I saw the armoury there. We walked in the door where the local duke or whoever he might have been called brought his army in and equipped them with all this terrible looking stuff. It was thrilling to me as an adult. How much more thrilling is it to a child to walk right up to what is a very good representation of Wear y Dunlop’s operating theatre, or to walk through what is a representation of the trenches of World War I? I just do not see it happening anywhere else but here, where it should be. We are constantly reminded that once you move heritage away from its founding place—and surely this is it—then you have lost a very great deal.
Those were the main points I wished to make. I concur with what previous speakers have said, that children are getting much more interested in the past and in war and the sacrifices that were made for them. I think this is a place where we can continue to show them this. I look forward to the Fremantle Army Museum’s greater cooperation with Fremantle City Council. I am sure they will make a great thing of it and something that we can be really proud of. That is mainly what I wanted to say.
CHAIR—Senator West.
Senator WEST— Mundaring and Hills Historical Society, what area does that cover?
Mrs Love—It is immediately above the airport. It is on the crest of the Darling Range.
Senator WEST—So it has no connection with Fremantle?
Mrs Love—Perhaps not, but my main reason for coming was to show you that there are people from all over the state who feel a close connection with this museum, and who feel demeaned if volunteer work is cast aside and not counted for anything. Of course, we are affiliated with this Army Museum in the Royal WA Historical Society’s Affiliated Societies’ Group. So we know of them. We meet with them. We have very professional conferences. We are close in that way, and we need to be for purposes like this.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 134 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Senator WEST—Has your organisation given any thought to options?
Mrs Love—No. We feel that we certainly are far away from what are the best options for the people here. Ideally, of course, we would like the whole site to be saved. It seems only right. Its historical value is spread right over, and I do not think any jewel can be picked out of the crown without it losing a lot of value.
Senator WEST—Is your organisation aware of other sites of significance like this?
Mrs Love—You mean in our own area?
Senator WEST—In your own area or in Western Australia.
Mrs Love—Oh yes, because every historical society worked with its shire council, and we work very closely with them these days. Over 18 years I have seen a big change. We have to account for ourselves to our shire council, and we worked with the heritage register, which you will be familiar with. Our society had two or three members constantly working on that for a couple of years. So, yes, we know our historical sites, and we often have to fight for them too.
Senator WEST—What I meant was: we have had evidence that this is a historical site of significance in terms of military history. Are you aware of others? Where does this rate in some sort of pecking order in WA?
Mrs Love—It would have to be No. 1. The nearest we can come to it is some spots in the hills which were training camps, which were only transitory, and we know of those, but this is No. 1. This is why I chose to support it.
Senator WEST—Thank you.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Mrs Love, could you tell the committee something briefly—unless the question has been already asked—about the site. In your submission you mention that it goes back even further than some of the evidence that we have heard, to Aboriginal people in the area. I do not want to dwell on Aboriginal people in the area, but perhaps you could tell us about your experience and your historical knowledge of the site on which the barracks are built.
Mrs Love—I think wherever there was water and wherever there was fishing—
Senator LIGHTFOOT—There was probably neither on this hill.
Mrs Love—Within a striking distance, I would have thought, is where you could expect to find the sites. We have been told that there is such a site here, and it was one that, I guess, they retreated to in the face of the invasion of the settlers. It seems that every area has a similar site that the Aboriginals retreated to. I have just been reading about three throughout Perth— including Mongers Lake and Hyde Park—where Aboriginals retreated to in order to be fringe dwellers, so I know that to be a fact.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—What about post-settlement?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 135
Mrs Love—It was a site of the very early buildings. One of my relations built right down on Ocean Road and rented the house to C.Y. O’Connor, in fact. So, the nearer the port, the more likely you are to find the old dwellings.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—That is Charles Yelverton O’Connor, I imagine?
Mrs Love—Yes. He died still renting that house—owing some money for the rent. Obviously, I have not studied every inch of the terrain here, but I know the general principles which apply. Aboriginal people will retreat to water closest to the settlement, and I am sure that they did. There is evidence that they did. It is not really easy to get evidence from the Aboriginal people about where they mainly camped. We have certainly tried and failed rather dismally in Mundaring. We can only find evidence of where the things were that they needed.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Do you have any early photographic evidence of the site?
Mrs Love—No.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Does your family have any?
Mrs Love—No, they were very bad record keepers. They assumed it would be here forever, as do we.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—It may very well be.
Mrs Love—I hope so.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—So do I, Mrs Love. Thank you.
CHAIR—Mrs. Love, in your experience as a person involved in the Mundaring and Hills Historical Society, do you have a view as to the overall current state of this site, as to whether it is well maintained or whether it is run-down? We have had a look around different parts of it. Do you have a view?
Mrs Love—The main areas that I have been to are, I think, very well maintained, but I have not tramped all around the edges as you have done. No, I cannot say I have a general view, but where I have been it is excellent, and it is still being used for its original purposes, which I think is wonderful.
CHAIR—There is only one other question I wanted to raise, and I think you have partially answered it already. If this site were to be sold, whether to the state or whatever, and the Army Museum were asked to move to Hobbs Hall—are you familiar with Hobbs Hall?
Mrs Love—Yes, but once again I have hardly walked through it because an ordinary citizen has no right to walk through it.
CHAIR—All right, but just in terms of the geography of the area, would that be a reasonable site for the Army Museum’s collection?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 136 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
Mrs Love—No. Parking, I imagine, will be very hard there. Whilst I maintain that volunteers are a well educated group and are becoming more educated, travelling long distances to do their voluntary work gets harder and harder. I think it would lose so much. I gather just from looking at the outside that storage facilities would be very limited there, and obviously the Army Museum itself would have commented on those. It is possible, and it is only possible, isn’t it? And you need so much storage.
CHAIR—This particular museum that is here moved five years ago.
Mrs Love—Yes, I am familiar with that.
CHAIR—I can understand their reluctance to want to face another move. Did you see the museum in its previous site?
Mrs Love—Yes, I did.
CHAIR—How does that compare with its ability to display here?
Mrs Love—There is no comparison. Speaking again as a teacher, there is the ability to get a bus in here and the children are safe. Old people come in here and they are close to the steps. There is no comparison. Also, here there is a place where you can go for advice and information. I have had old photos identified here—not of this hill, unfortunately—but the facility here is fantastic. We would go green just thinking about it where I live. But with time, we will get there in the end.
CHAIR—Thank you very much, Mrs Love. You did excellently. We will now move on to the Fremantle Society and then we will have our open session. A number of people have indicated that they wish to make a statement, and our list is of the order of six. If you have appeared in another capacity before the committee, we will not deter you, but we will ask you to drop to the end of the queue such that those who have not had an opportunity to address the community will have that opportunity.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 137
[4.08 p.m.]
DOWSON, Mr John, President, Fremantle Society
KNOWLES, Mr Trevor John, Secretary, Fremantle Society
CHAIR—I now welcome to this hearing Mr John Dowson and Mr Trevor Knowles, representing the Fremantle Society. The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public, but should you at any stage wish to give any part of your evidence in private, you may ask to do so and the committee will consider your request. The committee has before it a written submission from the Fremantle Society. Are there any alterations or additions you wish to make to that submission at this stage?
Mr Dowson—No.
CHAIR—I invite you to make an opening statement and then we will proceed to questions.
Mr Dowson—Thank you. We made a submission following the dot points that were advertised in the press. Is that the format that you want?
CHAIR—This is your opportunity to say what you feel needs to be said and then give us some opportunity to question the issues you raised. Do not feel constrained, other than by confining your remarks to a reasonable time.
Mr Dowson—The Fremantle Society has been around since 1972 and has been involved in many Fremantle issues. I would like to actually leave some background information here.
CHAIR—Could you identify that for the Hansard record so that people reading Hansard know what it is.
Mr Dowson—It is a copy of the Fremantle Society magazine. It is a special issue we put out in June this year which has a history of the society and some background for anybody who wants that.
CHAIR—Thank you very much.
Mr Dowson—Like most people involved in this issue, we see this as very much a heritage issue. We very much want to support the retention of the whole site, preferably for military purposes and, if not for military purposes, for public ownership. My basic feeling has been that over the years Australians have come to respect their military heritage and military history. It is a growing thing and it is something that you can see the evidence of in Anzac Day parades and attendance at various ceremonies. That is very positive and something that we should be building on. It is something that has been growing and growing. The military heritage of the country is a very important part of that. If the physical evidence is taken away, I do not think we have much to hang our hats on. In terms of military heritage, a lot of it has already disappeared. For example, the drill halls that used to dot the suburbs of Western Australia have all basically disappeared. In fact, the National Trust has been writing about that recently in their issue. In
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 138 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 terms of the visible presence of military heritage, a huge amount of it has already gone. There used to be gun emplacements during the war and there used to be plenty of things that were reminders of military heritage. Most of that has gone.
When Major General Phillips did a survey of military heritage throughout Australia he identified what he thought were some of the key military heritage sites around the country. In his book, which was published, the only Western Australian site that he covered was the Artillery Barracks site. That gives some indication of the importance of the site. The Fremantle Society very much believes that this is a national issue and that it is an issue of national pride. Ironically, if we were still in a Cold War situation with some military problems we would probably be building on these military assets. The irony is that, with the Cold War gone and with being at peace and being in prosperity, we now seek to destroy some of the very assets that we have. It is very important that we do not keep chopping up and selling off assets like this. Our main thrust is to preserve the whole site for military purposes. If that is not possible, we do not see why simply economic rationalism dictates that you start chopping off bits and selling them for development sites and so on. That is the main thrust of our argument.
Mr Knowles—I might add a couple of comments that go back to the origins of the Fremantle Society. I refer to a building just down the road from here which local people would know as the old Fremantle Asylum. Today, anybody who was seeking to demolish the Fremantle Asylum would probably be put in an asylum because they would be treated as crazy. It is such a valued asset to the community. It is an asset which was proposed to be turned into money and, as we all know, money just dissipates. Nobody could have said, ‘Here is something that represents the Fremantle Asylum.’ That was 25 or 26 years ago, but the same applies today to this site.
We understand that the committee is looking into the process of the disposal of federal government assets. Maybe the beginning of the process should be to evaluate what the community needs. As John has said, the community is more and more valuing the heritage and history of our ancestors. You only have to look at your own family perhaps—certainly my family. When my kids were younger they had no value for heritage issues; they had very little value for things that were old. But as they get older, like me, they value things of age. If none of it is left, we have nothing to show generations to come. We have friends who live in England on the Isle of Wight. The first bit of their house was originally built in 1250. It was added to in 1500 and added to in 1600. Australia does not have all of those things going back that far but we do have something like this that was built in 1910 and, as a complete entity, it represents something that is valued, in my opinion, far more than money.
The federal government and state governments should not be looking at just the dollars that are tied up in something like this. Sure, there are millions and millions of dollars tied up in this, but there are things that are more important than dollars. If you sell this, the dollars will be spent on something else, and this will have disappeared and gone forever. It will go into private ownership perhaps and then the private owners will decide to cut this bit off, cut that bit off, and we will have lost it. The only way it can remain as it is and as it should be, in my personal opinion and in the Fremantle Society’s opinion, is that it remain in perpetual ownership by a federal or state government or a municipal council. Once it goes into an incorporated body or a private company, nobody can guarantee its future. It is a fantastic asset as it exists at the moment, in total—not only this building but also the site outside, the signals station, the open space in the parkland and even the building down at the entrance to the city on the other side of
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 139 the bridge, the navy stores it used to be called. All of those things form a total and the total should be retained. I do not think there is anything else I can say.
Mr Dowson—Purely from a selfish point of view, the Department of Defence should understand that, if they want to recruit people and advance their particular department in the future, they need physical reminders—things around that remind people of what Defence is all about. It is not good enough to say that handing this over to a private university is a good result. It is not a good result; it is a very second-rate result and, of course, there is a danger of the sell- off of land to pay for development, land which is part of this important site and which has Aboriginal significance as well as white heritage. We very strongly support the Army Museum staying on this site. Fremantle is very much a tourist destination and an asset like this is valuable for the future. The Army Museum should be here and we would like to see the defence department have a presence in Fremantle in this historic setting. Thank you.
Senator WEST—In your submission you talk about the probity of the disposal process and that you have requested the Ombudsman investigate why public tenders were not called for in the process of disposing of this property. Have you had a response from the Ombudsman?
Mr Dowson—Yes, Senator. We had a response yesterday. The Ombudsman has investigated the matter and indicates that due process has been followed and that, therefore, they will not be proceeding any further with our inquiry.
Senator WEST—How do you feel about that?
Mr Dowson—We feel, and the community perhaps feels, that it is a very underhand process. It is not a public process and it should have been a public process.
Mr Knowles—Following the letter of the law does not necessarily mean the best outcome for the community. The defence department is following the statutory requirements. That is okay, but that is not necessarily the best outcome for the community.
Senator WEST—I take it that, along with everybody else in this community, you first heard of this through media comments?
Mr Knowles—That is correct.
Senator WEST—No one had approached you?
Mr Dowson—No, Senator.
CHAIR—Can you identify anyone who is in favour of the sale in the Fremantle community?
Mr Knowles—In favour of disposal of the site?
CHAIR—The sale of this place?
Mr Knowles—I personally do not know of anybody.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 140 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
CHAIR—Has anyone identified themself out there?
Mr Knowles—I guess Notre Dame is in favour of it.
Mr Dowson—Nobody has said to us that it is a good result, as far as I know.
Mr Knowles—The Treasurer does not reside here, but he probably thinks it is a good idea.
CHAIR—I heard you say Notre Dame, but they are a university; I am talking about individual citizens or organisations. Are there any to your knowledge?
Mr Knowles—Not that I am aware of. There may be some.
CHAIR—There will be an opportunity for others who are appearing to say something. We have heard that, as a result of this committee coming here to hold this inquiry, the grass on the oval has been cut. We heard a story about someone cutting the grass near the terraced houses down here, and so on. Has this site been well maintained, if not in its totality, in part, or has it not been maintained?
Mr Knowles—You have only to look around you to see that it is well maintained. Maybe it is not pristine, but it is a well-maintained set of buildings.
Mr Dowson—My view is that the military has always taken pride in their buildings and looked after them. I have been here many times and I think that pride is still in evidence, in general terms.
Senator WEST—Yes, that is on the actual barrack site, but look at the whole site encompassing the oval, the terrace houses and everywhere else. Has the oval been kept in good appearance?
Mr Dowson—That was never supposed to be accessed to the public.
Mr Knowles—I do not understand the purpose of the question, to be honest.
CHAIR—I am wondering whether parts of the site have been allowed to run down.
Mr Knowles—Yes, I guess the remanent bushland on the limestone ridge is run down— because that was not an issue. The Army is not renown for its restoration of original bushland, I suppose. It was not part of their charter. Money is short, so they did not do anything.
Senator WEST—There is a section of remanent bushland in there that is the council’s.
Mr Knowles—That is correct.
Senator WEST—We are looking at the non-council held areas outside the barracks’ area. What has the maintenance on that been like?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 141
Mr Knowles—I can give you a vague sort of answer. Look at the house I live in, for example: it is a heritage listed property in Fremantle. If you go back in time, no doubt it was in pristine condition and it was the pride and joy of the owner, who was a hotelier who had some hotels down in the town. Over the years it ran down a bit. Now it has a new owner and it has been restored, I would like to think, close to pristine condition. That happens with all sorts of properties. Owners, for all sorts of reasons—lack of money or lack of interest—allow things to fall into disrepair, not that this site is. I think that, overall, this site is great—apart from the bushland. The oval is the responsibility of the owners of the site, not of the Fremantle council. I know the council is putting a bid in for it. I do not really understand the question. Whether it is in good condition or bad condition, it does not alter the fundamentals of the fact that, in the Fremantle Society’s view and in my personal view, the starting point for the disposal process should be to evaluate the best result for the community. In our opinion, the best result for the community is for it to remain in federal government ownership as a military, or in future quasi- military, operation of the museum.
CHAIR—As I understand it, to restore the residences down here to any reasonable standard for occupancy would take, I think, a figure in the order of $300,000.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—It was about $25,000 each on average, I think.
CHAIR—There are varying figures. I suppose it depends to what stage you are going to do it. But to make them habitable again, let us just say it is a figure of $300,000. At this stage, I understand that Defence Estate have not been prepared to invest those sorts of funds to return those to being habitable and that their response—I am not advocating this, by the way, but I believe this is their position—is that, rather than put the money into a non-returning asset such as they have there now, they are better off selling the whole thing lock, stock and barrel, getting some return on the property and using the money wisely at the sharp end, as they call it, in Defence rather than the blunt end. What is your attitude to that?
Mr Dowson—On the one hand, you have the blow out with the submarines costing billions, and then you have this petty cash down here. We are talking about a very small amount in a Defence budget. My point is that this is an icon; the whole site is an icon. It has the history, the heritage and the memories. To be looking at it in terms of what it might cost, really we are talking about a very small amount of money in terms of the Defence budget, yet it is such an important site. If it cannot go back to military use, maybe it has to have another use, but I don’t know about just selling it off. When I was a boy, I used to stay up at Gun House. That was the house that the head man in the whole state stayed at. It has a lot of heritage as a place where the top military man in the state used to live. Just to sell it off, dispose of it, as though it does not matter; it has its whole heritage and all these places along here have a lot of heritage significance. I think the cost of restoring them is not that great. They are still in fairly good condition, wouldn’t you think?
Mr Knowles—They were built for residential purposes, and people should be living in them. Maybe the federal government has a responsibility with not coming to some arrangement perhaps with the state government on an earlier basis. All governments are talking about homeless people and not enough accommodation for people, yet here we have wealthy landlords who have empty houses on their hands. There is not a simple answer to your question.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 142 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
CHAIR—I understand that. I am just trying to test the water.
Mr Knowles—Social conscience and social responsibility are also issues, which are not the direct responsibility of the Defence department other than for its own personnel. It is easy then to take this little bit of the government and say, ‘We don’t have that responsibility, so therefore we’ll turn it into cash,’ but the government as a whole does have responsibility for all sorts of issues. I have worked with the federal government for 40 years, and when you want to knock something off, you just take one little bit, isolate it and say, ‘This isn’t our responsibility. Get rid of it.’ But you cannot really do that.
CHAIR—Fair enough. Thank you. As there are no further questions, I thank you for your appearance. We will now move into the open session with a number of witnesses.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 143
[4.30 p.m.]
WELLS, Mr Norman Tattershall (Private capacity)
CHAIR—Now that we are into this open session, we ask contributors to try to confine their remarks—we are not trying to hobble anyone—so as to at least give everyone who wants to put something on the public record that opportunity. We will see if there are questions from the table, but we are not trying to occupy people’s time. We would rather people have their say than for us to be asking copious numbers of questions. If we have any questions, undoubtedly we will ask those questions.
Mr Wells—I am a retired Regular Army warrant officer with 30 years service, and I appear here of my own volition. During that service I served overseas in four operational areas and know personally a number of Australians who paid the supreme sacrifice. I have strong ties to museums of this nature. I understand that the museum is run by the Army History Unit. Whether or not they want to take up the responsibility of running a museum, the museum should be in an appropriate place rather than in a backblock tin shed. I also understand that it is the function of Veterans’ Affairs to run museums. If that is the case, maybe the government should restructure things and make sure that all museums in relation to fallen soldiers are dispersed across the country.
I did not get to see the Australian War Memorial in Canberra until I was a senior NCO in the Army serving over on that side of the country. Young Western Australians have no opportunity to get to that magnificent memorial, so this place has been developed by volunteers to give Western Australians that opportunity to see, in particular, the great job their Western Australian forebears have done. Many do not realise the great significance of the huge things the Australians who have gone away to the big blues have done in the Somme, the siege of Tobruk. The first men to deny the Nazis land victory were our blokes at Tobruk. It was our blokes who had the Japs on the top of New Guinea before the Americans registered a land victory in the Pacific. A lot of people do not understand this. They just say, ‘I think my Dad went—or my uncle or my grandad—but I don’t know what he did.’ So those opportunities to pass that on to the youth of Australia exist in such museums.
Are the youth of Australia hungry for that information? This year I had the privilege of attending an Australian War Memorial tour—Gallipoli 2000. Last year they were quite happy because they had exceeded the number of Gallipoli dead by spectators—there were some 9,000 people there. This year it was estimated that the youth of Australia and New Zealand was something in excess of 20,000 people. So the numbers and interest are swelling. Again, we rolled on to the Western Front where they celebrate the magnificent Australian victories on the Somme on the last Saturday in April. People turned out in droves from other lands to attend these ceremonies. Veterans’ Affairs run ceremonies there, and ambassadors, military attaches and many military people on attachment in Europe made it their business to be there.
This great heritage has to be told and this great story has to be told in appropriate places. Appropriate places are not daggy buildings that the people want to push us off into. You are sitting here in this building on a hot Western Australian day, but it is only a spring day. It rises to 45 degrees in Perth, and that can make rooms pretty hot, particularly in the buildings that I served in in Irwin Barracks. They are all like bloody greenhouses—they should grow tomatoes
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 144 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 in them. When I was a young soldier and we lived in the barrack block at Irwin Barracks, it was cooler to sleep in your car outside than in the barrack block. One thing that I was discussing with the general this afternoon is something that does not seem to be in the military budget, and that is air-conditioning. Buildings are what they are and that is what you are going to sleep in or live in, but as you sit here in the comfort of this room you will notice that it has a very stable temperature. That is the temperature that you want to have these magnificent, frail relics in that we display downstairs.
To move us off to Hobbs Artillery Hall and the drill hall at the back, built for parking artillery guns in that do not feel the cold, a hall that has no lining in the ceiling, is not right. The rooms and offices are pokey and small, from memory, although you have been there more recently. However, they were certainly hot in high summer. From the point of view of the type of building for a museum, this is a much better option, and that has not been spoken about in the last day or so. Finally, need I say that I very much support all my colleagues in their view that we remain here and that we continue to tell the great stories of ANZAC in this building.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Mr Wells, what about the additions that we could bring to the barracks here to retain them as a working barracks, as something that is alive and that people could see working? Do you as a long-serving NCO, and senior NCO in the Australian Army, have any ideas that we could utilise here? There is general concurrence on having this as the headquarters of the Western Australian cadets, in conjunction with the University of Western Australia Regiment and the museum. While they do not superimpose on each other entirely, there is obviously a lot of common ground there. I might add, Mr Wells, that when I was in National Service, warrant officers scared the hell out of me. I still feel a sense of apprehension when someone says—
Mr Wells—I had better not talk about my past.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I was a warrant officer, but I feel a bit uneasy still.
CHAIR—Can we get one of those warrant officers for the Senate?
Senator WEST—I am sure your Whip would like one.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Forty-five years on and I still feel a little uneasy, Mr Wells. Is there something? I want to take back some good news to Canberra, and when I talk to John Moore, the Minister for Defence, I would like some ideas.
Mr Wells—I am sure there is something that can be done with a bit of thought. I have known Artillery Barracks for many years. The second half of my service was in this region, some 20 years. It always seemed to be just a flick-pass place where they put people for a while, moved them out, put another mob in there and moved them out, and put another mob in there and moved them out. Certainly, it was purpose built for the old artillery long ago. As for whether that suits current military garrison requirements I will let others work out. As for all those military interest groups of a lesser sort of mode, cadets and societies, even to the point of sharing it with other Defence museum groups such as Navy or Air Force, I don’t know. Maybe the Air Force might want to land a helicopter here or something, but they will be late!
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 145
Senator LIGHTFOOT—It is an Artillery Barracks, and you said it was purpose built. Warfare is fast today, warfare has changed, our defence needs have changed. Lugging heavy 25- pounders or other artillery pieces around the country is too slow and cumbersome.
Mr Wells—I understand that Defence might not want to use this building. I can understand that part. But this building has such heritage that everyone has spoken about it over the last couple of days. For it to go to some sort of educational growing group that will eventually squeeze like a pimple us or anybody else who is here with a military flavour because they will have an overriding control is totally unacceptable. I cannot see that Hobbs, without an equal expenditure of money to aircondition the joint, without spending a great lot of money, is going to be anywhere near what this place can provide.
Maybe this place, with the passage of time, will provide more expansion for the museum as it grows because more and more hear about it and more and more people want to give it their valued family treasures. They are pouring in the gate. We need more display space all the time, not less. Dr Tannock said he thought we were all going to wither on the vine and blow away on the Fremantle doctor. That is not the case. The place is getting bigger. There are more people— and I am certainly not taking away from my senior colleagues in years at the group. We have got returned veterans and the Vietnam community is all moving through to retirement at this stage. There are a lot of Vietnam veterans starting to become more involved, as I am. There is a new group moving in to pick up the glove.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—We had some evidence this morning that there were at least 100,000 ex-service personnel in Western Australia and probably closer to 200,000. Strangely, it seems to be growing. I take your point.
Mr Wells—The kids in Europe were faxing one another on their emails, ‘See you at Gallipoli.’ All the backpackers swarmed to Gallipoli. There were millions of them. They closed the gate 10 miles away at 1 o’clock in the morning because the prime ministers were coming. The Turkish police with machine guns and flashing lights said, ‘Nobody can come in after this because it is too dangerous.’ If you were not in by 1 o’clock you were not in. Everyone was there not for the dawn service like in Kings Park; they were there all night. Even the War Memorial tour left the motel five miles down the road at midnight to go to the dawn service.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I would not have thought there was anything more dangerous than a Turk at night with a machine gun.
Mr Wells—It was a magnificent scene seeing all those people rugged up. It was bloody cold. They were there all night waiting for the event.
CHAIR—Thanks very much, Mr Wells. We will now move to the next person.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 146 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[4.43 p.m.]
KERRIDGE, Mr Royce (Private capacity)
Mr Kerridge—I would like to say that it should be kept for its heritage value because this is the last place a lot of blokes had their meals before they went overseas. As you say, we can go to Canberra, but we are not all in the position that Senator Lightfoot is in where we can get on a plane and go for free. We have to pay our way. A lot of people cannot afford it. I have never been to Canberra. A lot of our children will never get there. There should be something on this side of the country with the heritage so that our kids or grandkids can come and see what their grandfathers and great-grandfathers have done. They can look at the pictures they have got of Gallipoli to give some meaning to it. It is not just something in a book. It is something that they can see—where he has been, what happened and where he served. It gives some idea of what happened and some meaning to the story.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Do you have a service background?
Mr Kerridge—I did national service at Pearce. My father went to World War I and he was stationed here during World War II. That is my association with it.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—You live around—
Mr Kerridge—I live at the back of Gosnells.
Senator HUTCHINS—Where is that?
Mr Kerridge—It is out to the east. It is about 20 miles out from here.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Have you come down especially to give your evidence here today?
Mr Kerridge—I came down to give a bit of evidence and have a bit of a say. I brought my grandson down here, and he is only three. If you took it away from here, you would have to go to Canberra—and you have no chance of getting there for a long time. We do not want to live in the eastern states. Australia stops at the end of the New South Wales border—I do not think it extends beyond the New South Wales border.
CHAIR—I could agree with you there, coming from Queensland!
Mr Kerridge—We should have some heritage that we can look at, and this is a magnificent place to have it. There is plenty of parking, and it is easy to get to from all points of the state. If you move over to Karrakatta, it is hard to get to. Most roads come down here. If you come down from North River, there is a major road through. If you come from Gosnells to Armadale or from Rockingham to Mandurah, there is a major road through. If you come from Hobbs barracks, it is out of the way.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Not living in directly in the Fremantle area, you do not feel that it is an impost to travel here to see the museum?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 147
Mr Kerridge—No, not if I want to go and see it. If I want to go to a museum, I have to go to Perth to see a museum, so it is the same thing. I have been here a couple of times and I have enjoyed it. We looked down there in the basement and saw the wall they had to go over the trenches. It gives you some appreciation of what they did and what they put up with. I reckon they must have been bloody brave men or fools to go over those trenches. When you see them you think, ‘No, I bloody wouldn’t; I would run like hell the other way.’ You appreciate what they did. Before, when my old man talked about it, I thought, ‘Oh, yeah.’ I had no appreciation for what they went through.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—There is an entrenched perception by Western Australians that we are sometimes neglected here with the maintenance of these sorts of military establishments. Would you share that perception, Mr Kerridge?
Mr Kerridge—I think so. If you look around this state now, most of our history has gone. We have none left—it has all gone over to the east. I think we should have something we can take our kids along to so we can tell them, ‘Look, that is what happened,’ instead of having to traipse all the way across to Canberra.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Being a national serviceman, and having taken an interest in some of these defence establishments, do you think this is singularly the most important establishment that needs to be preserved? Or are there others?
Mr Kerridge—No, I think it is about the best one to preserve. It is a well-built building. It has the history of being the place where they had their last meal before they went overseas. A lot of them never came back, so it was their last meal in Australia. The first convoy went down to Albany from the eastern states. The convoys from here met them out at sea, and they all went across in a convoy. If you go out there on the verandah, you can see where the ships sailed out through the heads to go overseas. It is probably the last that a lot of men would have seen of Australia. That is why it should be kept. We have lost Blackboy Hill, which is where they trained—that is all gone; it is all houses now—and I think that it should be kept.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—For all Western Australians.
Mr Kerridge—For all Australians. You can see a board there which has been laid out to show how it was at Gallipoli. If you read a book about Pine Hill, what the hell does Pine Hill mean? If you look down there, you can see where everything was and you can envisage it. Otherwise, if you read a book, it means nothing. It has no meaning to you.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—It is another dimension downstairs, isn’t it?
Mr Kerridge—Yes, it is. It gives you some appreciation.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Thank you, Mr Kerridge.
CHAIR—Thank you very much for appearing, Mr Kerridge.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 148 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[4.49 p.m.]
TAYLOR, Mr Allan Henry (Private capacity)
Mr Taylor—I am not a volunteer, I was requested by Bill Haskell to do this early in January 1995. He asked me to do the bamboo work down in the museum. Scott Properjohn, who was with Bill, did all the figures. That man, may I say, waited until he finished his last one and died of prostate cancer. It was the finest work he did. It was hard at first to get material like bamboo. I am going to say this much: many times I should have been arrested.
CHAIR—Don’t tell us that.
Mr Taylor—I am not afraid of it. The first bamboo we got was from the zoo—the big stuff. When I first asked the head gardener, he said, ‘No, we do not give our bamboo away.’ When I told him what I wanted it for, he relented. We got home with it—some of it was 35 feet long, and one piece was 42 feet long—on a VW. It did not make any difference; we got it there, but I was nearly arrested. It was in Dorothy Street, and a policeman stopped me. He came back to me and said, ‘You are a bit extravagant with your length.’ I said, ‘Sir, I am truthful. I can’t let one piece or one inch go.’ He said, ‘How far have you got to go?’ and I said, ‘Around the corner, about five minutes from here.’ He said, ‘I will escort you.’ When we got there, I said, ‘I want to show you what I have done.’ So when he went in and said, ‘You haven’t done a bad job, have you?’ And this is how I soothed him down: I said, ‘Would you like a cup of tea, because I am going to have one.’ and he said, ‘We just had one.’ So we got out of it. All the work that was done was by that artist that Bill mentioned.
CHAIR—Was that Chalker ?
Mr Taylor—Yes, Bill Chalker. Bill kept a very strong eye on me, and I can honestly say that many people—Japanese prisoners of war—after they saw this, found out where I lived. I do not how they found out; I never told them. They said, ‘Did you do that work over there?’ I said, ‘Yes, I did,’ and they said, ‘It is as near as you could get to it.’
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Very good.
Mr Taylor—It breaks my heart to think that we are going to leave it, unfortunately. I will not say how old I am: 56.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—It is not all over yet, Mr Taylor.
Mr Taylor—I only hope it is not. Unfortunately, I cannot do as much as I have done in the past, but I can still do a bit. Six days before the opening of this museum down here, Bill and I received our first lot of thatching from the islands. We worked until the early hours in the morning for five of the six nights trying to get the roof on the Weary Dunlop section and all those. I only hope to God it does not move. That is all I have to say.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 149
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Thank you, Mr Taylor.
CHAIR—Thanks very much.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 150 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[4.54 p.m.]
HANDCOCK, Mr Ian Gilbert (Private capacity)
CHAIR—Over to you.
Mr Handcock—I come as a private citizen and as a small ‘p’ politician. At midday today, I was in the dentist’s waiting room and I was very aware of the power of one: his power to inflict pain upon me—but he didn’t. The other power of one is my only brother, who would hardly forgive me if I had not come here this afternoon. For those of you who have seen movies of World War II, the blitz and the ack-ack guns that fought the enemy bombers, if you picture those guns, most of them were 3.7-inch heavy anti-aircraft quick-firing guns.
The 24th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment was raised here in these barracks in about 1952. My brother was one of the first members there. Because the guns were coming to the end of their useful life they were being sold, we said, to Krazenstein’s, which was sending them to Japan. The story was that they would come back as razor blades. My brother, who was then a commissioned officer of the regiment, realised that they would be done and gone. So he went by himself to the then minister for the Army and the minister agreed to sell him one of those guns for £5. The condition was that it had to be housed in a particular configuration, particularly as you would see 25-pounders outside war memorials. Eventually, that gun moved on and is now to be found at Leeton. Those of you who drive by will see it. It only looks like a peashooter, but it sits there pointing into the sky and, to the best of my knowledge, it is the only one of its kind in Australia; the rest all went to Japan. That was the power of one—someone who went to the minister—and for £5 he got ownership of it.
I have been involved with Fremantle for a long time. When I was 19 years old I was the president of one of the major political parties in Fremantle. In 1955 I was a candidate for the Senate. I was unsuccessful. I lowered my sights and I became a member of the town of East Fremantle as a councillor. I served 14 years there as a councillor and 17 years as the mayor, some 31 years in all. I am the only freeman of the town. If one looks at the map, the town of East Fremantle is so close that it is on the right-hand side of the map. If Dennis Lillee were here he could—he would not want to say throw; he would rather bowl—almost throw a cricket ball at the town of East Fremantle from where we sit.
This place is important to the people of East Fremantle. I do not come here chapter and verse. I have listened to the other speakers and I have admired the efforts that they have put in and the information that they have supplied. I come not with that sort of technical detail but with what I would say was the concern of a citizen of the town of East Fremantle—someone who has served almost half my lifetime as a member of the council, doorknocking and doing all the things that little politicians do. This place and its military connections are important to the town.
Increasingly, I am finding that people are talking to me about this. I have heard other speakers say that there is a move afoot in the populous to try and retain it. I think many of us, including myself, who made no previous effort to make a submission to you or anybody else on the subject are suddenly starting to realise that time is slipping away and we are losing our opportunities. So I come to say on behalf of my town—and I am not now in office—that, from what I know of the spirit of the town, it would support the connection of the Army and this
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 151 place. I personally see the museum as part of the ongoing bit. It is from the new recruit through to the museum. We have a retired general, we have a retired warrant officer and we have a serving Air Force officer here. The museum is the ongoing bit. We need to see old people because we too will be old. We need to see what has happened to people who have gone away and died in order that we might understand what they have put up with. It seems to me that in these times we need examples of people who have given guts and determination for their country, for me and for you.
Like the Senator, I did not quite get into World War II—looking back, I am very glad—but someone died for me. They might not have done it with terribly altruistic motives; they might have done it as a job. I do not care. I am here because of what other people have done. It is important to us, as citizens, that the museum and the military should remain here. In my view, this place is absolutely outstanding and it always has been. There is an enormous groundswell of support for this place within the Army; it is only just being awoken. That, essentially, is what I came to say.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Firstly, congratulations on your redoubtable contribution to local government. I cannot remember who said it, but someone did say that all politics is local. I am sure my colleagues will know who that was. It is true, and it is a very important saying. Who was it?
Senator WEST—Chairman Mao. Ross, I never thought I would hear you support Mao!
CHAIR—This is a red-letter day, Senator Lightfoot!
Senator LIGHTFOOT—It definitely was not Mao Zedong, it definitely was not Chou En- lai and it definitely was not Sun Yat-sen. It was someone a little closer to home. Having said that—and as none of my colleagues have owned up to who actually said it—I am going to move on. Mr Handcock, could you tell the committee whether you believe this is singularly the most important—God forbid, I do not want to put words into your mouth—
CHAIR—You are doing very well! You ask the best leading questions I know, Senator Lightfoot.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Mr Handcock has been around long enough to say no. Do you think this is singularly the most important military building in this area, at least, if not in the state? Where do you rank it?
Mr Handcock—I first learnt public speaking under a man who went to Westminster proposing that Western Australia secede from the Commonwealth. I am a states righter, and I appreciate everything you do for the states.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Thank you, Mr Handcock.
Mr Handcock—I was very disappointed when Swan barracks were lost. I was talking of my brother being an officer here, but I, too, was an officer here in the same regiment. Later I became an officer of the field artillery at Hobbs Artillery Barracks—that is a gardener’s cottage compared with this place. In my mind, there is no question of the suitability of this place as
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 152 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000 against that. As to its importance, in some ways—and why I do not know—it almost reminds me of the Raj of India, of a fort, almost of Kashmir. This is a walled city containing the capacity—I am being a bit romantic here—to defend itself and to go out and to defend others or to attack if need be. This is unlike anything that I know in Western Australia. It is singularly the best and most important military establishment for me.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—As you are a politician who has put in the hard yards and has been around for the odd decade or so, I suppose I could ask you this question: politically it must be seen as something important as well—that is, not just for the emotion and history attached to it. If it is going to be saved, it has to be a political decision; but, beyond that, there must be multipolitical reasons for maintaining it, as well.
Mr Handcock—I have long held that, if national service had to come back and if the money for it could not be found in the defence budget, it should be found in the social security budget because of the benefit that it can bring to those who do it and because of the benefit it would give to this community and to the surrounding area, with which I am very familiar. I served with a number of people in these barracks who I later found involved in community efforts, in organisations, on councils—sometimes as mayor—because of, in my view, the sort of stiffening, the resolve and the organisation that came out of their national service. It changed me, and there is no question in my mind that national service changed me for the better. I do not think I have quite answered your question.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—I think I see the importance of what you are saying.
Mr Handcock—Small ‘p’ politically, it is very important; big ‘p’ politically in terms of the government and the opposition troubles me. I just hope that parliament sees the benefit—small ‘p’ politically—to this community and does not get overly caught up in its own domestic problems.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Your very wise words are recorded in the Hansard. I do not have any more questions.
Senator HUTCHINS—In line with Senator Lightfoot’s comments about the politics of it, are there any political consequences for the coalition government if they proceed with the sale as outlined to the University of Notre Dame? Do you see any?
Mr Handcock—They will not be liked, or they will be liked less. I am not anti the university; I am pro the university.
Senator HUTCHINS—No, if they dispose of this site and get rid of the museum here.
Mr Handcock—To take the Army out of here would be like taking the snail out of his shell: there would no longer be a shell. I would say that there would be a great deal of antipathy towards whoever the community saw as responsible for the loss of this to the Defence Force system.
Senator HUTCHINS—So you would not comment any further than that they would not be liked.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 153
Mr Handcock—Whoever is seen to be responsible would be positively disliked.
Senator HUTCHINS—I am inviting you to make an even stronger comment, because I do not know if that is going to have any impact in Canberra.
Mr Handcock—Given that we are essentially in Fremantle and that my town is totally within the federal electorate of Fremantle, I do not know what the coalition would make of that. They would probably see the incumbent as very difficult to displace. What troubles me is that it may be seen as of no consequence politically to the present government. I am fortified by the number of people who have come here from the northern suburbs and by an earlier speaker from Gosnells, because I am just next door. They have come here, as I have, on their own time and from their own effort to tell you how they feel. They are very passionate in a slightly different way from me. They seem to be much more passionate about the museum and the Army. I see the Army and the connection with the museum as just so good for the broader community. We need a range of things: as we need grandparents so we need museums and libraries. This is one of those places which fulfils that sort of grandfatherly role.
Senator HUTCHINS—Do you think the repercussions could be beyond just the one federal seat?
Mr Handcock—Yes. I am unable to quantify it. I am only a little politician.
Senator HUTCHINS—You are pretty good at it.
CHAIR—Thanks very much, Mr Handcock.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 154 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[5.09 p.m.]
ALEXANDER, Dr Ian Christopher (Private capacity)
Dr Alexander—Thank you. I realise it is late in the day so I will keep my comments very brief. I am a community advocate. I have qualifications in town planning, which is really why I am here. I see the proposed sale of this barracks and the surrounding land as part of a growing pattern of land sales all over metropolitan Perth and, indeed, other cities of the Commonwealth. I am sure your committee has heard in other places similar points made.
CHAIR—This is the first place we have been.
Dr Alexander—Fine. As far as Perth is concerned, this is not an isolated instance of the proposed sale of a government asset which is valuable to the community. All over metropolitan Perth, in numerous locations, land owned either by the Commonwealth or the state government is being put up for sale. Increasingly, as you have heard in comments over the last couple of days from people in Fremantle, the community is getting angry and frustrated that these sites— which, after all, are held by the government in trust for the whole community—are being disposed of for short-term financial gain. Indeed, a coalition of residents has recently formed under the banner of the Community Planning Coalition. It has a membership of about 40 groups across metropolitan Perth, including representatives of several groups in Fremantle and surrounds, who are concerned about this issue.
Specifically on this site, the Tuckfield oval—which was referred to in the residents’ submission—is zoned under the local planning scheme for public open space. As you have heard, Senators, it is not currently accessible to the public, but the Fremantle City Council, on behalf of the community—which extends into the town of East Fremantle as well—wishes to acquire this site so that the public can access and enjoy it as public open space rather than as a fenced off oval. I think the same applies to Cantonment Hill, which, of course, is an icon of great importance, but moreover, it forms part of a public open space system which goes right down the coast.
When you look up and down the coast, hills near here to the south and to the north are under threat. A couple of kilometres to the south, Clontarf Hill is in the path of a proposed freeway. Just one kilometre away from here, John Curtin Senior High School is located on public land and has proposed selling part of that site to meet a financial shortfall. To the north, the Leighton rail yards are proposed for sale, but under community pressure, the government is backing off there. Further north and to the east, there are several high school sites which are being disposed of or have already been disposed of. In all cases, the local communities have said, ‘This is not what we want. We want these sites to be used for the benefit of the whole community rather than an exclusive set of people who may take control of it when it is sold into the private domain.’
In Fremantle, I believe there is a very active community, as you have heard. People here are upset at the idea not just of the site being disposed of but also by the process which has been followed which, clearly, has not involved consultation. The Fremantle City Council set up the precinct system, which is a model almost unique in Western Australia, although it has precedence elsewhere, particularly in Sydney, as a way of representing community opinion, not
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 155 just to local government but also to state and federal governments. Clearly the precinct system here representing the people of Fremantle is saying that they want to be involved. They have a positive plan for the use of this site, which is not pie in the sky but actually says, ‘These assets here, including the hill, could be used for tourism and to generate revenue’, which seems to be the major problem that the defence department faces in relation to this particular site.
So the community is willing to work with the defence department if only the defence department will open its mind to working with the community. At the moment, they, like other government departments, unfortunately tend to ride roughshod over the community and then say, ‘What’s going on? We’ve got a protest.’ Why do we have a protest? It is not because people oppose the defence department—quite the opposite, as many submissions have shown. They oppose and are very disillusioned by being excluded from the planning process. In my experience over the years as a town planner, the thing that upsets people most in planning and development proposals is when they are excluded entirely from having a legitimate say in the formulation of plans.
Now the community here in Fremantle is making their point very clearly, but also I think they are making a plea to the defence department to say, ‘Here’s some good news you can take back to Canberra with you. The Fremantle community is willing to work with the defence department to come up with a creative use for this site which does not involve disposal of the assets, but involves retention of it for the whole community, including the military museum, Cantonment Hill and Tuckfield oval.’
Senator HUTCHINS—Dr Alexander, I am not sure if I understood what you are saying with regard to some sort of cooperation between Defence and the community groups. It would seem to me that it is not Defence’s role to manage properties, or make them business making ventures, or to have them as tourist attractions, their job is to be involved in the defence of the country. I invite you to comment on my observation.
Dr Alexander—I recognise the point you are making, but here the defence department holds an establishment which we sit in now which fulfils a role other than just purely defence. It is a reminder of our military history and, as all the eloquent speakers before me have pointed out, it a very poignant and emotion charged reminder. So the defence department is already managing facilities on behalf of the community. The fact that this museum exists and draws visitors from all over the state and elsewhere is a testimony to that.
As for Cantonment Hill behind us, there are options of handing over that land in trust to another public authority such as either the state government or the local council which already holds part of the hill in reserve. I believe the same could be done with Tuckfield oval. The defence department may not make an immediate profit from the sale, but I am sure that by negotiation with the relevant authorities that it could share in the benefits of another government instrumentality, if you like, managing that land on behalf of the community.
CHAIR—Thanks very much. We appreciate the evidence that you have given to the committee this afternoon.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 156 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[5.17 p.m.]
LLOYD, Mr Anthony Thomas (Private capacity)
CHAIR—Welcome, Mr Lloyd, Would you like to make a statement?
Mr Lloyd—Thank you. I was in the Army before. When our boys and girls went up to East Timor we were left very thin on the ground here. I rang the Premier’s department about a civil guard, a home guard. No answer was the stern reply. We should have had Bren pits dug from Port Beach to Port Hedland where the home guard, militia, civil defence, whatever, could have manned or ladied those Bren pits. When the Indonesians came down this way we could have picked them off with some heavy pieces in the sandhills. And if we had to withdraw we could have gone to the hills and become partisans and bumped them off that way using hand grenades, et cetera. I know that for every one Indonesian that goes down, 10 civilians are going to get strung up too. That is the way it is.
I am familiar with Bren, sten, bazooka, flamethrower, Lee Enfield, bayonet, et cetera. With the new weaponry I would need a quick crash course to be able to defend this nation. Where am I going to train, in the backyard? We need an army barracks to train the civil defence of this nation, a home guard. I have been on parade before and I will go on parade again in the defence of this nation when the boys are away doing their duty elsewhere.
That is my beef, that there is no civil defence training. We are all running away from it. I know the ABC did a Dad’s Army thing, but they would have fought the Nazis if the Nazis would have landed. I know it was meant as a joke, but it was not a joke. I am very passionate about this. Do away with these army barracks? We may as well just train in High Street. We need training facilities for when the enemy gets here.
Also, the old soldiers from World War II—I was about 14 when that kicked off—have to become air-raid police and special constables. They have to put the fires out. They have to tell people where the air-raid shelters are. They have to have whistles and rattles that show them where to go otherwise the civilians will not know where to go. They can turn around, like they did to me, and say, ‘Where is your gas mask? Get your gas mask. Go home and get it.’ They were from World War I. They were doing their duty in World War II. That is what I would like to see.
This is an army barracks. It still is and it should stay an army barracks so you can billet soldiers and civil defence personnel here when the Indonesians come down, because they will be down—do not worry about that, they were just testing the waters in Timor. They will be here when they are ready, and who is going to defend the nation? Someone has to be on the home front keeping the home fires burning. Mr Taylor was in the Army. I have spoken to him. Dick Taylor lives down the road from me. He would man a bren alongside me. You are going to die one day. You may as well die with honour and dignity. You are going to get blown up, so what? You have to defend the women and children. Army barracks it is. Army barracks it stays. That is all I have to say.
CHAIR—Thanks very much. Are there any other people who have not had an opportunity and who want to make a contribution?
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 157
[5.21 p.m.]
DOBIE, Mr Peter David (Private capacity)
Mr Dobie—I am in agreement with keeping the museum. The law has been touched on; the legalism has been done rather secretively. It was done within the letter of the law, but the community is not too happy about the way it has been done. The law, right throughout society— tribal law, religious law and secular law—has evolved and developed as a means of holding society together. But the way it has been done here is that the letter of the law has been used to divide society. It has been very cleverly and correctly done, but it has been used in a divisive manner, not only locally but also nationally, internationally and globally if you want to use that cliche. I hope I am getting across.
CHAIR—You have made your point.
Mr Dobie—The wider community have been taken unawares by this. They will gradually get around and come to an answer. The law is the foundation holding society together; yet, at this point, it is being used correctly but in a divisive manner. I do not want to make comments on that, but it raises the point. I will leave it at that.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Laws are made on behalf of the people but the people have lost control of those laws. Is that what you are saying?
Mr Dobie—I am trying to distil it out myself. The law is a subjective thing. People in this room have a wide and diverse political opinion. They might use a law for a certain purpose and in a certain way. Someone else in the same room will use that same law for a different purpose or a different law to counteract the original one. The law is a complex thing. There are different societies with different ways of running things—right from the basic tribal thing. You get the native title thing through to international law and everything else. The law has evolved in a formalised way to hold society together, creating an umpire for the arguments. Here it is going in the opposite direction. It just has to be pulled back in a little bit, and then it will work all right again. It always happens that way. Right throughout society there is legalism, the law, trust in the community and everything else like that. This has been a bit of an aberration.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Is it out of the reach of normal people, and out of their understanding, quite often?
Mr Dobie—Put it this way: something has been done. The way it has been done by the government, and how this deal was set up in the first place, is all legally correct. As someone said earlier this afternoon, we cannot complain about it, really, because it has been done correctly and we cannot go any further. But the community does not agree with it. So it is within the letter of the law but it is outside community standards.
Senator LIGHTFOOT—Yes, I understand what you mean.
Mr Dobie—That goes to a wide range of issues, a whole range of issues locally, within states and internationally. People are trying to find answers now, and it is all over the place. No-one has found the answer, but it is coming to it.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 158 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
CHAIR—Thank you.
Mr Dobie—I hope I have got through.
CHAIR—I am not winding up. Are there any more people who want to appear who have not had a chance to have a say? If so, please come forward. I am winding up at 5.30 p.m.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 159
[5.26 p.m.]
LOCKWOOD, Mr Brian (Private capacity)
CHAIR—I invite you to make your comments.
Mr Lockwood—I live in North Fremantle. I have been in the country 40 years. I served in the First Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers in Malaya. In 1980, I took my Australian wife and two Australian children home. I said, ‘I’ll take you to my Army barracks.’ The Army in Scotland was built on tradition. I was brainwashed to know my number and the regiment’s history. I was in the best regiment in the world. I took them to see my regiment, where their father served. It was an ice rink; it had been destroyed. It was built in 1678; they removed it. Do not let it happen here. Thank you.
CHAIR—Thank you, Mr Lockwood.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 160 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[5.28 p.m.]
BRIDGES, Mr Paul (Private capacity)
CHAIR—I invite you to make your comment.
Mr Bridges—I live about 20 miles up the river—that seems to make an impact on how people feel about the issue—and I drive 40 minutes each day to get here. I have also been a mayor in my local authority. I want to talk about probity, and by that I mean the fairness and equality of treatment. Yesterday, Dr Peter Tannock said in his statement, ‘The government has been clear and open with us.’ Contrast this with the treatment meted out to the Army Museum of Western Australia. On Saturday 22 January, we read in the newspaper that we were to be sold, and that Notre Dame hoped for a decision within three months, but the museum was safe in the medium term. On the Monday after that, our manager faxed the Army history unit with the questions. A little over a month later, we got the response that the building was listed for sale and we were out. In March of that year—all these dates are in 2000—I happened to be in Canberra, and visited our parent body, the Army history unit, and spoke to two of the people there. Basically, the word that I was told was that it was Hobbs or Leeuwin or, if we really wanted to stay, we would have to put up a damned good fight. We have put up a damned good fight.
On 27 April, the foundation wrote to Senator Abetz and all the correspondence that was coming to queries was coming through Senator Abetz so we tried Senator Abetz. We did not receive a reply until much later. On 15 May, Senator Chris Ellison was invited to the museum. He came to the museum at 11 o’clock and was shown over the place by the board chairman. He gave very positive feedback. He is an ex-Western Australian University Regiment member. The uni regiment was really pleased that he was coming, and they prepared briefing notes for him. Of all the other politicians, none had had briefing notes from the university regiment. What he did not say was that he had actually sponsored the priority application for Notre Dame.
On 7 July, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs came and opened our last gallery, the prisoner of war gallery—the one that you have heard so much about. On that date, we learnt that the priority sale agreement had been signed in principle. That was on 15 May, the same day that Chris Ellison was being shown over the site. On 31 August, a letter with that date on it was received by Mr John Tally Hobbs, who is the President of the Royal Australian Artillery Association. The letter was the standard reply that comes from the office of Senator Abetz, being the minister responsible. He stated:
The significance of the Army Museum is acknowledged, together with the dedication of those who have contributed to its success.
Oh, yes—ha, ha.
As the Museum is a Defence entity— and that is in question— the department has recently engaged a consultant to work with the Army Museum, its staff, interested parties and the community to identify options available for the housing of the Museum’s collection.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 161
That is total news to us.
CHAIR—How much more have you got?
Mr Bridges—I will be as brief as I can.
CHAIR—Could you table the letter. It will be an exhibit before the committee.
Mr Bridges—I will conclude very briefly. The first formal contact the foundation had with DEO was on 14 September. We read that paragraph out and asked, ‘Who are these consultants?’ They said, ‘Knight Frank, the people sitting at the table.’ We have never seen them since. It is a lie that is being peddled to the public by Senator Abetz in the standard response that goes out from his office. They are just not here. Contrast that with Dr Tannock’s comment from yesterday: ‘The government has been clear and open with us.’ It certainly has not been clear and open with the Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation and its volunteers, the body which runs this museum.
I know in this society we have free association; that is what our diggers fought for. But to me, it was really offensive, after yesterday’s hearings, to go downstairs and find a huddle of DEO and Notre Dame. Thank you.
CHAIR—Thank you very much. We will put that document as an exhibit before the committee.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 162 SENATE—References Thursday, 19 October 2000
[5.32 p.m.]
GORDON, Mr John-Baron (Private capacity)
CHAIR—Mr Gordon, you had a question that you would like to pose.
Mr Gordon—Firstly, I would like to thank you, at least for all those people in the council precinct system, for coming here and for listening to us. I would like to ask a question which is probably on everyone’s lips: do governments generally adhere to the recommendations of Senate standing committees, or would it take a brave government to dismiss your findings?
CHAIR—Government are not bound to endorse, or otherwise, the recommendations of any Senate committee.
Mr Gordon—The question is, though: does it often happen that they ignore you?
CHAIR—Some do and some do not. It depends. Thank you for the question. I am sorry I cannot give you any faith or hope in the system other than to say that these inquiries are very important because they give people an opportunity to see the operations of the Senate and the committees of the Senate in action. Of course, there are House of Representatives committees and joint committees as well. For much of the maligning that politicians are stuck with, these hearings do have a value. They do not always deliver the value that some of the people who are participants in the process think that they will. Nonetheless, they are an important part of the democratic process to which we belong.
Having said that, in concluding the two days of sittings that we have had in Fremantle I want to acknowledge the cooperation of the Army Museum of Western Australia Foundation in making the facility available to us. As I said at the outset of the inquiry, nothing should be read into our acceptance of the facility as a meeting place other than the fact that our normal facility at the Legislative Council was not available. We do appreciate the ushering, the morning and the afternoon tea, the general security and the general arrangements that have been made for the comfort of the people who have turned up, for Hansard, for members of the secretariat, and for those senators who have been present. I can assure you we have appreciated the hospitality and I think that is good indeed.
The second group I want to thank are those from the Defence Estate Organisation because they did organise for us the inspections of this site and the inspections of Hobbs Hall. That was appreciated by the committee.
And last but not least I want to thank the witnesses and the people in the audience who have appeared before us. Whilst I cannot say anything to in any way pre-empt what the committee might determine as a result of this inquiry, I remind people that this is the first part of the inquiry. On Friday 10 November there will be further hearings of this committee in Canberra. At that hearing we will have the evidence from the Defence Estate Organisation. Even then, having heard that evidence, we will then move to further evidence on a number of other related Defence sites. One could say that whilst we have focused on this particular issue there is a broader issue that we are pursuing as a committee which we believe has importance not only here in Western Australia but also in other parts of Australia. If you pick up the book of
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Thursday, 19 October 2000 SENATE—References FAD&T 163 submissions that we have you will see that, whilst the bulk of them at this stage refer to this particular site, there is a broader issue there for the committee.
In closing, I want to thank you for coming. Without you this hearing would not have been a successful hearing of the committee. I want to thank Hansard and Sound and Vision for the services that they have provided for us here today. I declare the meeting closed and we will resume on 10 November.
Committee adjourned at 5.39 p.m.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE