DON WHITTINGTON is a former president of the Fremantle Society and a current committee member. He was a Fremantle city councillor from 1975-1984 and during that time was chair of the planning and development committee for six years. Since then he has remained active in the community and speaks out frequently on planning issues that impact on Fremantle.  He is also a member of the Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour Community Liaison Group. 

THE proposed sale or lease of Fremantle port is piecemeal decision-making at its worst and we must insist as voters that we have a say in any such decision.

After all, it’s less than two years ago that Premier Colin Barnett told parliament his government would not be selling Fremantle port. This broken promise smacks of short-term fiscal gain concerning a state treasure that has been a seafaring, commercial and community asset since it was designed by Charles Yelverton O’Connor and opened in 1897.

Everything that happens at our port impacts on Fremantle and the wider community, and that is why its sale or lease is of great concern to the Fremantle Society and many of our citizens.

Yes, we are deeply disturbed our state and the Fremantle community, in particular, will cede ownership or control of a state jewel that has incalculable historic and cultural significance.

But, more significantly and despite the premier’s promise, the government is selling a strategic revenue-generating asset with other state assets to address a budget crisis of the government’s own making.

The sale of Fremantle port could fetch the government close to $1.5 billion, but the port is already a healthy revenue earner for the government, generating $45 million in the past financial year.

So while the sale or lease might ease the government’s short-term budget pain, this is arguably at the cost of an asset that would have continued to reap benefits — financial and cultural — for future generations

There are many other concerns as well, not least of these being the controversial $1.6 billion Perth Freight Link, which is likely to generate a much greater volume of containers even if the port were not to be sold. However, with the port in private hands, there is likely to be an inexorable demand for even greater capacity, which inevitably will mean thousands of extra freight trucks on Fremantle roads that already are clogged.

This leads to two further issues. It seems passing strange that cash-strapped federal and state governments would spend a vast amount of taxpayers’ money on a freight link that will benefit the private owner of the port rather than the state government.

But perhaps more importantly — given the limited capacity of the port and the pressure on Fremantle roads — should not the government be planning with a sense of urgency for port expansion to the outer harbour?

There are also other strategic long-term issues of a working port being owned by a private operator. At the moment, the port is government-owned and that means the community essentially has some kind of input over how it is managed.

But there is no accountability once it is sold and the community will have limited involvement if it has issues around noise or operations.

As a member of Fremantle Ports’ Inner Harbour Community Liaison group, I appreciate the opportunity of being kept informed on port operations and consulted on a regular basis. It is unlikely that a private operator would commit to such consultation with community representatives.

And what of the extremely important integrated planning for the Victoria Quay precinct? Fremantle Ports has worked closely with the City of Fremantle and engages in community consultation on future planning for the area.

It would be a travesty if we lost the opportunity to progress plans developed for vital infrastructure upgrades such as the railway station forecourt redesign and relocation of the bus interchange.

While the state’s citizens and tourists currently enjoy public access to Victoria Quay and the south and north moles, the port’s private owners might find it better suits their business operation to deny public use of the moles and parts of Victoria Quay with a resulting serious impact on local residents, visitors and tourists.

Another issue is the possible economic impact the sale of the port is likely to have on our inner-city traders if the workforce is reduced.

The new owners might decide their administrative staff don’t need to be based in the port tower and they could run the operation more cheaply from O’Connor or even Melbourne.

This will deal a crippling blow to our city and West End traders, in particular, if there are no or severely reduced Fremantle Ports staff to shop or eat there.

The new Port operators might even see a better financial return in removing the staff from the port tower and turning it into a hotel. Or, even worse, as mentioned previously, the public might be denied access of any kind to Victoria Quay.

These issues are likely to have a major impact on the CBD development plans of the City of Fremantle, and Mayor Brad Pettitt has already expressed his concerns about aspects of the privatisation.

The port should not be privatised, but if the state government is determined to proceed down this path, it needs to engage with local government and undertake comprehensive community consultation to ensure the best outcome for our community long before binding agreements are drawn up.