The La Perouse Headland encircled by the La Perouse Loop Road(Anzac Parade) is a nationally and internationally significant site because of its association with the Laperouse expedition and subsequent relationship established between France and Australia; it is the most important site in Australia linking Australians and French. The Laperouse Museum collection was a Bicentennial Gift from the French Government to the people of Australia. Prior to 1988, the Friends of the Laperouse Museum raised funds for the restoration of the Cable Station in which the exhibition is housed. When properly managed there was a comprehensive education and events program associated with the Museum and Monuments and other sites in Botany Bay National Park.
Google “La Perouse” and the first hit is Wikipedia – about the suburb; the second is again from Wiki and about the person, Laperouse . The third hit contains comments posted about the National Park. The official National Parks website does not figure in the top 100 hits – such has been the lack of promotion of this area.
During the International Year of Astronomy National Parks failed to commemorate Dagelet. Just prior to World Youth Day in Sydney the Receveur Tree Trunk and the Altar Stone from the Boussole were shipped off to France without replicas being made for display for the pilgrims who visited La Perouse. Nothing has been done to investigate and promote the geological finds even though examples of the miniature Giant’s Causeway can be seen north of the bus terminus. The plaques on the Laperouse Monument and in the Musuem (and storage) are testimony to the high honour in which Laperouse is held. The headland has for over two centuries provided the major physical connection between the Australian and French nations. In French towns and villages of the western front(WWI) Australian soldiers are still honoured for their bravery – the headland has also provided a connection with those sites and by coincidence the priest scientist Receveur buried here was born April 25.
We have other historic sites in Sydney where one major story is told: eg. the Macarthur Family at Elizabeth Farm ; May Gibbs at Nutcote ; Wentworth Family at Vaucluse House. None of these compares with La Perouse yet under the management of National Parks the Laperouse story and the Bicentennial Gift from the French Government will be further dismantled. The first cut was made in 2009 – see link.
This is the link to the proposed changes to La Perouse Headland.
At the entry to the La Perouse headland – on the north eastern corner of NPWS land on Anzac Parade on The Loop – National Parks propose a series of poles spelling out what they effectively propose to rename the area – Guriwal – La Perouse -Lapa. This sign would set the tone for the interpretation.
The sign would become the dominant suburb name sign as it would be located at the ‘Gateway’. Randwick Council in July 2008 published the City of Randwick Civic Signage Manual. The authors state on page 5 that there is no jurisdiction over ‘other government agencies’. However, that does not preclude other government agencies cooperating with Council in its endeavour to provide a uniform approach(example left).
The word ‘gura’ is listed by linguist Jakelin Troy as meaning ‘wind’ (see Macquarie Aboriginal Words dictionary). Given this area is subject to tornadoes(see link), the area could well have been referred to as ‘windy place’ . However in Val Attenbrow (2001), Aboriginal place names around Port Jackson and Botany Bay, Australian Museum, Sydney, the Headland near Bare Island is recorded as Wadba Wadba. The source given for this is Dawes 1790-91. Attenbrow also lists ‘Bunnabee’ for the North Head of Botany Bay as recorded by Larmer 1832-1833.
NPWS in their interpretation plan don’t provide details for the naming rationale for Guriwal and have elevated the name ‘Lapa’. A lot of suburbs have colloquial/slang names which are used with affection or to denigrate but are such names appropriate to use in an official capacity, and in this case in a high profile tourist area with sites of international significance?
Would Council accept the following:
Merooberah – Maroubra – The Bra
Boora – Malabar – The Bar
Bobroi – Coogee – Coodge
Gulgadya – Kensington – Kenso
Guriyal – Matraville – Matto
(Note: Merooberah, Boora and Bobroi are recorded in Attenbrow; In Troy, Gulgadya is listed as meaning grasstree and Guriyal as parrot.)
It is difficult to understand what National Parks management is trying to achieve with this plan or to assess the veracity of data on which they base recommendations. (Note: This has been prepared by consultants, but working to a specified brief.)
NPWS already have a Botany Bay Plan of Management which was ratified by NSW Cabinet in May 2002 but the majority of actions which were listed to be completed within 5 years have not been (see link). The Historic La Perouse Headland Plan of Management which was a joint venture between NPWS and Council remains largely ignored despite all the cooperative work that it involved. NPWS spent over 3 years preparing the La Perouse Headland Conservation Management Plan. Once again people gave up time to attend meetings and write submissions; NPWS allocated staff recources and paid more consultants. Fourteen sets of comments were received during the exhibition period: St Andrews Catholic Church, Ivan Barko, Yvonne Simms, Doug Morrison, Lynda Newnam, Charles Abela, La Perouse Precinct Committee, Friends fo the La Perouse Museum, Randwick City Council, Corkery Consulting, French Consul General, Randwick Tourism, Vic Simms, David Ingrey(representing the DECCW Cultural Heritage Group). The 14 submissions were summarised and and released in a Summary of Submissions paper in October 2009. As yet there is no record of the Plan being finalised. In the summary of submissions local people of aboriginal descent are recorded as asking for references to Dharawal language to be removed. Yet it is suggested that ‘Dharawal’ be used in the draft Interpretation Plan of the headland. On the 28th February 2007 Ms Lisa Corybn, the CEO of the Office of Environment and Heritage(OEH) – see http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/parks/DarugMOU.pdf, signed an MOU with descendents of the Darug. Mr Bob Debus, then Minister for the Environment, had previously given approval. La Perouse was recognised in that MOU. Kurnell was not – the southern side of Botany Bay is generally recognised as being part of ‘Dharawal country’.
The authors of the Plan also refer a number of times to the importance of access but the larger area of the park where Aboriginal Cultural Walks – interpreting plants, animals, marine environment – would take place are not incorporated. Part of a major coastal track was closed a few years ago (still recorded on the tourist map) but there is no suggestion to re-open and extend this even though it would be important for cultural interpretation. See link for details.
Toilets are basic facilities at any park yet those controlled by National Parks at Cape Banks are not available for public use. The only public toilet available is near the top of the stairs to NPWS controlled Congwong Bay but the authors of the Plan suggest moving that toilet to RTA land near the bus terminus. If it happens beach goers, including divers, will need to cross the road to access this basic facility. In the Draft Conservation Plan NPWS suggested a drawbridge for Bare Island. It is clear that people who make such suggestions are not thinking about their customers/clients. Would this happen at Nielsen Park Vaucluse also controlled by NPWS?
From the NSW State Plan (2006) onwards there has been a recognition that NPWS has to do better at attracting volunteers, providing for visitors and marketing key sites and experiences. Volunteering workshops have been held and a Tourism Taskforce formed. The most recent count of visitor traffic to the headland was recorded in the Energy Australia Botany Bay Cable Environment Assessment of 2007. The Energy Australia consultants noted that on busy weekend days vehicle traffic reached 7400 movements per day. Rather than use this data the authors refer to the Botany Bay (now prefixed with Kamay) Plan of Management which was written in 2000, prior to the opening of the M5 and the subsequent increase in visitors from SW Sydney. The figures quoted in the Plan of Management, unlike the Energy Australia figures, were guesstimates. Data from the museum is incomplete even though income and expenses should be accurately recorded. There is no visitor profile data – no studies commissioned. There is a history of embarking on projects without a plan, eg. last year’s Watchtower Restoration
There is a proposal for a commercial food service but no suggestion that research has been undertaken or the established La Perouse cafe owners consulted. (Note the Friends of the Laperouse Museum with a grant recently outfitted the kitchen with basic catering items but again no acknowledgemet.) Yet recommendations such as the following are made: A mini “kitchen” facility will be incorporated into the main desk(of the Museum) so that it has a more multi-function capability, with a coffee machine, refrigeration and possibly a microwave or toaster for reheating of snacks. The expectation is that the information officer at the desk is capable of processing visitors entering the museum, handling questions about the exhibitions, providing basic directions, advising on purchases of publications and artefacts as well as producing coffees and heating snacks. I quote this to illustrate the poverty of observational (and consultation) ‘skills’.
In the introduction to the Interpretation Plan the authors state:By way of background, immediately surrounding La Perouse, the Local Government Area (LGA) of Randwick is a mostly residential area with significant commercial, institutional and military uses. With a population of just over 130,000, the LGA has one of Sydney’s largest Aboriginal populations. NPWS fail to recognise the significant industrial component: 5 of the 42 Major Hazard facilities of NSW are located on the DP terminal which comprises 70% of Port Botany. Maritime transport is a major theme on Botany Bay but goes unrecognised. If you check the 2006 census for municipalities in SSROC you get the following figures on aboriginal identity The City of Sydney council area is higher than Randwick. The % average for all Sydney is 1.1% so Randwick is not significant in the bigger scheme: Botany Bay City Council 1.7%;Marrickville 1.5%;Sydney 1.3%; Randwick 1.2%. According to Tourist figures quoted in the Plan : During 2010 Sydney received over 2.6 million international overnight visitors. Most were on holiday or visiting friends and family. The largest group of international tourists are from the United Kingdom (12.9%), followed closely by Mainland China and Hong Kong (12.5%).2 France is ranked tenth with 2.9% of the market share. A major push for the overseas tourist industry lies in attracting visitors from mainland China. But no mention is made of the fact that the first chinese to land in the new colony did so at La Perouse. They were the 11 sailors aboard the Boussole and Astrolabe. These men joined the expedition in Macau and one of their number was killed in the massacre of Laperouse’s men in Samoa. There is a story line that runs from 1788 to the Chinese presence at the historic La Perouse Market Gardens up to today. Chinese born residents of Randwick comprise the second largest group (after UK) of those born outside Australia.
The current proposal will remove the story of the Laperouse Expedition and only present trivial aspects of it. These recommendations have been made by managers and consultants with no understanding of the significance of this site. Concerns should be emailed to: Ms Robyn Parker,Minister Environment & Heritage: email@example.com Ph: 9228 5253 and Mr Chris Eccles, Director General Department of Premier and Cabinet, (02) 9228 5555 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Governor Macquarie Tower,Level 39, 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY NSW 2000 GPO BOX 5341, SYDNEY NSW 2000 The Office of Environment & Heritage is within the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
In response to an email to Ms Robyn Parker concerning the consultation process I received this from the Head of Parks Ms Sally Barnes. It doesn’t address the issue of transparency but does mention that the submissions will go to the Regional Advisory Committee. This is chaired by former MP Garry McIllwaine and membership includes Simon Balderstone. There has been no attempt by the Committee to liaise with the neighbours of the National Park even though this is supposed to be part of their brief. See link