Peter, I am generally against privatisation when it comes to large utilities that raise a lot of revenue. It is much less clear to me when it comes to the likes of botanic gardens.

They don’t earn much revenue. But they are a big cost to taxpayers and ratepayers. I think we can reasonably assume that they don’t pay their way, by a long way, in most cases.

I am a professional botanist. In the last three years I have had the opportunity to visit botanic gardens all over the country, from Sydney’s Royal BG and other major ones in Canberra, Perth and all our large cities, to many gardens which barely fall under the definition of a botanic garden in small country towns.

While the Sydney Royal BG is very nicely maintained, many of the smaller ones are in poor condition and are clearly starved of funds and TLC.

It seems to me that privatisation of many small ones could potentially be a good idea. But then, the revenue-raising potential of small gardens in small towns would render them unattractive to potential private concerns.

Privatisation of large gardens is much less clear. I would think that the rate-payer and taxpayer base for Sydney and NSW, along with the enormous significance of these gardens, and the fact that they do generate a fair bit of income (if only from the exorbitant parking fees), would mean that privatisation should not happen. Or at least not unless there are very strict parameters emplaced, which we can have confidence will be upheld far into the future.

Privatisation is fraught with dangers, as you point out. But is certainly not a case of government management always being free of nasties while private management is always full of them.

continued

One potential nasty that I can envisage with government management is that these wonderful gardens in Sydney will become progressively less well funded, as is the case with numerous BGs around the country, as the needs for public expenditure burgeon elsewhere (due primarily to Sydney’s exorbitant population growth and resultant pressure on infrastructure, services and quality of life).

If these gardens are to be privatised, one of the key points should be that it remains public open space and it is only the management that gets privatised.

There also needs to be strict guidelines that will remain binding forever and a day after privatisation.

One of those needs to be that the botanical nature, all the various botanical themes, the diversity of species, etc, gets maintained, and steadily improved where possible.

Significant revenue-raising events (maybe including rock concerts?), should not be a problem, provided that they are properly conducted and that the likelihood of damage to the gardens and to trees in the open space is minimised.

In short, I wouldn’t automatically oppose privatisation of the Royal Botanic Gardens. But it would have to meet a very strict set of parameters before I could approve of it.

Absolutely agree with everything you have written here Peter!
Rhrosty.

As a regular user of the gardens (not a "visitor", since they are within walking distance), the proposed vandalism of Sydney's prime open space is personally saddening. I'm with Paul Keating on this, and will protest, march, lie in front of bulldozers or whatever, to stop it happening.

Regrettably, history tells me that the root-and-branch corruption of our political classes will ensure that it goes ahead, lining the pockets of many "connected" opportunists along the way.

Much as I love the city, if this goes ahead, I'll sell up and go. There is a line that I cannot in all conscience cross, and I suspect this is it.

Wow Pericles, you’re an old greenie!

I am... I am... totally flabbergasted! ( :>|

Well, I dare say that it will go ahead. So are you really going sell up and go?

Erm…. and go where? Somewhere else in Sydney I presume?

You’ve poo-pooed just about everywhere else on the planet, including other Australian cities, which you call (in a derogatory manner) large country towns.

And you wouldn’t be seen dead living in my fantastic part of the world up here in north Queensland!

Don’t you think that if it is organised in exactly the right manner, that there is potential for private management of these gardens to actually be better than government management?

I thought that you basically hated government and applauded private enterprise!

Don’t you concur with me that there is a very real and ominous likelihood that funds will be significantly reduced for these gardens as the critical demand for them rises elsewhere, particularly in relation to population growth pressure?

Oh…. so many questions….

Perhaps the answer is a donation box, where the well heeled can pay a gold coin for the privilege?
As for me, I wouldn't live in a big city if you paid me.
I am surrounded by parks and gardens that are/were free to the visiting public,[ well most of the time,] and only started to become places you paid to enter, or were locked out of, with the advent of city centric incoherent Labor?
However, on this occasion, it seems to be coalition policies, that are the problem.
If only we weren't almost the most over-governed people on the planet?
We could simply divest ourselves of the patently unneeded state governments, state politicians and state bureaucracies and all that reported double handling? We could pocket 70 billions in annual saving?
And simply get rid of this nonsense, and the other hugely regressive instruments like stamp duties, which raise less than the cost to Joe public, of administrations, that only ever seem to siphon money from real projects or the people's needs; and on to their own personal excesses?
Perhaps we should ask the cashed up Sydney water board to pay for the upgrade of our parks and gardens?
I mean, they seem to have plenty of money, hundreds of thousands, to throw at self serving pollies?
Rhrosty.

Peter,
I see this development in the light of worldwide dysfunction of governments. Governments represent those who pay into party funds rather than the people who vote for them.
Coal mines in the Hunter Valley, desecration of nature reserves, McDonalds at Tecoma. It is all a part of an insidious process. We need some sort of people power to fight this.
Bodies like Sea Shepherd perhaps?

Some good points mate. Yes. Who will guard the guardians, the Romans asked.

Who will control those who control our country- the rich and powerful hand in hand with government - both robbing Joe Public?

Don't get depressed, guys. We need to fight the bastards.

Hey, go easy with the insults there, Ludwig.

>>Wow Pericles, you’re an old greenie!<<

Less of the "old", if you please.

>>So are you really going sell up and go?<<

Certainly. Mind you, I suspect this particular project might take a while to get off the ground, so I may be around a while yet.

>>Erm…. and go where? Somewhere else in Sydney I presume?<<

Erm... no, the idea is to leave Sydney.

>>You’ve poo-pooed just about everywhere else on the planet, including other Australian cities, which you call (in a derogatory manner) large country towns. And you wouldn’t be seen dead living in my fantastic part of the world up here in north Queensland!<<

I know some perfectly sane people who actually enjoy living in country towns. And I have spent some enjoyable vacation time in your neck of the woods. But I wouldn't live in either, personally.

Paris. Berlin. London. Rome. All have their appeal. But top of the list would be New York, to be honest.

>>I thought that you basically hated government and applauded private enterprise!<<

I do, Ludwig, I do. But that has nothing to do with the wanton destruction of precious urban open space that is at the centre of this particular plan. I live between two small, but highly attractive, parks, complete with trees, birds and possums, and I would hate to see either of them sold off.

I'd be on the plane the same afternoon.

It would be pleasant - and a refreshing change - if some of these people commented on the plan for the Gardens (good, bad, interesting, or awful) instead of capering about like fighting cocks and lunging at each other, a la Anthony Mundine… or more recently, Bob Carr………...

Fair point, Bronte.

>>It would be pleasant - and a refreshing change - if some of these people commented on the plan for the Gardens (good, bad, interesting, or awful)<<

I viewed the video of the Trust's Master Plan with as dispassionate an eye as I could muster. The first thing I noticed was its lack of specificity, so I attempted to track down the plan itself. Unsuccessfully. The closest I got was this message:

"You do not have permission to access the asset"

Not helpful. However, the recurring theme in the video was that there seems to be an awful lot of concreting, with new paths, viewing platforms, promenades... and a ferry terminal

How that is intended to enhance the experience for visitors is unclear. What does shine through is the addition of "amenities" at Mrs Macquaries Chair, which can only be designed to offer further commercial opportunities. Given that the standard of the existing cafe/restaurant installation is little short of appalling, duplicating the experience can only be described as catastrophic for a most one of the most iconic of Sydney's historic sites.

One of the comments I noted was from Patricia Forsythe, executive director of the Sydney Business Chamber, who observed:

"The Domain and the botanic gardens... fall short on necessary amenities to support the 4 million visitors that visit the park or the 5 million that make use of the Domain."

I don't believe I am reading this incorrectly as code for "a carefully selected number of Sydney business identities could make a motza out of these people, given the apathy of the locals to object to our plans".

Time to man the barricades.