LARGE hotels won't be allowed as national parks are freed up for private development in a bid to cash in on ecotourism, the Victorian government has pledged.
But green groups warn allowing private investors into national parks could allow developers to destroy some of the state's most precious natural jewels.
Responding to a report into Victoria's tourism industry, Treasurer Kim Wells said the government would strike the right balance between boosting tourism and protecting the environment.
Every other state and the Northern Territory, as well as countries such as New Zealand and Canada, allowed private investors to develop in national parks, he said.
Developments will need to be sensitive to the environment, and about one third of national parks considered wilderness areas will not be open for development.
Ninety-nine-year leases will be available to the private sector.
Environment Minister Ryan Smith will develop approval guidelines and be responsible for giving projects the green light.
Tourism Minister Louise Asher said more than one quarter of international visitors to Victoria went to a national park.
An estimated $481 million of annual economic benefit to the state comes from tourism at Wilsons Promontory, Port Campbell and the Grampians alone.
The challenge was to get international visitors to stay in regional Victoria and spend money rather than head there for a day and return to Melbourne.
"We need those high-spending, international visitors to go into regional Victoria for economic development purposes," Ms Asher told reporters.
"Nature-based tourism is huge. It's growing worldwide and Victoria needs to keep up."
Ms Asher said interstate experience indicated there was only likely to be a limited number of developments, which would be low-rise.
"I don't think it's going to be a stampede into these places," she said.
"A hotel like the Sofitel is clearly not going to be allowed in a national park.
"Other states and the Northern Territory allow it and pandemonium hasn't broken out."
Victorian National Parks Association executive director Matt Ruchel said the government was putting some of the state's most precious areas at risk of irreversible damage.
"Our parks were not created to end up as building sites for hotels and large-scale infrastructure that can only be used by a privileged few who can afford it," he said.
"There is a danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
"People visit national parks for experiences they can't get elsewhere. They want the opportunity to see the natural world at its best, not hotels and a shopping mall."
Victoria Tourism Industry Council chief executive Dianne Smith said the government should not have taken 14 months to respond to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission report.
"It doesn't send a positive message, however, as an industry, we want it to work for us," she told AAP.
Gerty Dancer said
01:51 AM Aug 24, 2012
Karijini NP in WA is a beautiful place, very well managed, AND they have an "Eco-tourist" resort there. No problem. People who dont or cant bring their tent or caravan or motor-home have somewhere to stay. Its not cheap, but neither is it fancy, certainly not a "large-scale infrastructure". Opening National Parks so more people can see our wonderful scenery is a good thing, so long as they are careful. IMHO.
Wizardofoz said
09:53 AM Aug 24, 2012
I wholeheartedly agree, the resort on Fraser Island has been a positive and a recent trip of mine to Club Med on the the national park island of Lindeman showed me that a resort can work in harmony even on a very small island, even though the resort facility was run down and a little neglected, the amount of ecology work Club Med did was amazing, in the end the resort became unfinancial to them and it was recently sold...I trust that the Chinese buyers treat it with the same respect and I hope that it doesn't just become an exclusive Chinese tourist outpost.
Tourism and National Parks have a lotr to compliment each other, if worked in harmony.
-- Edited by Wizardofoz on Friday 24th of August 2012 09:57:56 AM
03_troopy said
02:20 AM Aug 25, 2012
but wasn't it better when they were virgin areas with no commercial interests? and as far as the Chinese owning any of these so called "eco-tourist" resorts, they only buy something if it's going to make them money, so they'll do whatever they can get away with to bring in as many dollars as they can.
Wizardofoz said
04:43 PM Aug 25, 2012
Troopy, that's like saying "But wasn't the world a better place when it was a virgin area"...no doubt it probably was, but that's progress and we wouldn't even be here to enjoy it if it stayed that way. As a kid, I lived on the outskirts of Sydney about 20 kms from the CBD, it was rural and almost country, now it's the centre of Sydney metropolis, that's life...we live, we grow, we expand. We can do more than control and maintain it as best we can.
So long as we develop these areas with thought, planning and genuine care, that's all we can do and hope for, as the world and progress rolls on.
rockylizard said
08:54 PM Aug 25, 2012
Wizardofoz wrote:
So long as we develop these areas with thought, planning and genuine care, that's all we can do and hope for, as the world and progress rolls on.
Gday...
Yeah .... understand and empathise with the sentiment ...... HOWEVER, look back with open eyes and an open mind ..... I think flying pigs are more likely than "thought, planning and genuine care" from those who drive the "development/progress"
Now they are progressively "developing" and then locking up Fraser Island (and other areas) for instance, there is not much left to see that is "anywhere near virgin"
Cheers - John
03_troopy said
09:53 PM Aug 25, 2012
Reminds me of a Joni Mitchell song.... invade paradise.. put up a parking lot. Progress be buggered, it's just how the average Joe Blow gets excluded from using areas for their recreational passtimes like fishing shooting camping and 4WDing and then the money hungry developers are allowed to go in and tidy up and pretty up everything and sell it back to you as resort style accommodation at top dollar. As long as you aren't too scruffy looking, or you don't want to drive a tent peg into their lovely grassed areas. And why even consider allowing foreign owned companies to have a slice of it? Geez they've bought up enough of our mining and pastoral land already, not to mention our brandnames.
Hmm that's better out than in.. i feel better now.
Wizardofoz said
10:29 PM Aug 25, 2012
You can scream and complain all you like, but there's not one single thing that you, me or anyone else can do to halt or stop it, as long as people want to use theses facilities and others have the money to create it, governments and the powers that be world wide, will offer them the opportunity.
Again that's life, I call it progress, like I said, nobody is going to stop it, so best to have with some form of control.
turbopete said
01:07 AM Aug 26, 2012
I would prefer to have the national parks developed with facilities to suit a variety of budgets and conservation controls i place that maintain the integrity of the area, I also believe that responsible dog owners should be able to take their dog in with the provision the dog is kept on a lead and its poop is picked up
LARGE hotels won't be allowed as national parks are freed up for private development in a bid to cash in on ecotourism, the Victorian government has pledged.
But green groups warn allowing private investors into national parks could allow developers to destroy some of the state's most precious natural jewels.
Responding to a report into Victoria's tourism industry, Treasurer Kim Wells said the government would strike the right balance between boosting tourism and protecting the environment.
Every other state and the Northern Territory, as well as countries such as New Zealand and Canada, allowed private investors to develop in national parks, he said.
Developments will need to be sensitive to the environment, and about one third of national parks considered wilderness areas will not be open for development.
Ninety-nine-year leases will be available to the private sector.
Environment Minister Ryan Smith will develop approval guidelines and be responsible for giving projects the green light.
Tourism Minister Louise Asher said more than one quarter of international visitors to Victoria went to a national park.
An estimated $481 million of annual economic benefit to the state comes from tourism at Wilsons Promontory, Port Campbell and the Grampians alone.
The challenge was to get international visitors to stay in regional Victoria and spend money rather than head there for a day and return to Melbourne.
"We need those high-spending, international visitors to go into regional Victoria for economic development purposes," Ms Asher told reporters.
"Nature-based tourism is huge. It's growing worldwide and Victoria needs to keep up."
Ms Asher said interstate experience indicated there was only likely to be a limited number of developments, which would be low-rise.
"I don't think it's going to be a stampede into these places," she said.
"A hotel like the Sofitel is clearly not going to be allowed in a national park.
"Other states and the Northern Territory allow it and pandemonium hasn't broken out."
Victorian National Parks Association executive director Matt Ruchel said the government was putting some of the state's most precious areas at risk of irreversible damage.
"Our parks were not created to end up as building sites for hotels and large-scale infrastructure that can only be used by a privileged few who can afford it," he said.
"There is a danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
"People visit national parks for experiences they can't get elsewhere. They want the opportunity to see the natural world at its best, not hotels and a shopping mall."
Victoria Tourism Industry Council chief executive Dianne Smith said the government should not have taken 14 months to respond to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission report.
"It doesn't send a positive message, however, as an industry, we want it to work for us," she told AAP.
I wholeheartedly agree, the resort on Fraser Island has been a positive and a recent trip of mine to Club Med on the the national park island of Lindeman showed me that a resort can work in harmony even on a very small island, even though the resort facility was run down and a little neglected, the amount of ecology work Club Med did was amazing, in the end the resort became unfinancial to them and it was recently sold...I trust that the Chinese buyers treat it with the same respect and I hope that it doesn't just become an exclusive Chinese tourist outpost.
Tourism and National Parks have a lotr to compliment each other, if worked in harmony.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/rundown-lindeman-island-sells-for-12m-20120427-1xprr.html
-- Edited by Wizardofoz on Friday 24th of August 2012 09:57:56 AM
Troopy, that's like saying "But wasn't the world a better place when it was a virgin area"...no doubt it probably was, but that's progress and we wouldn't even be here to enjoy it if it stayed that way. As a kid, I lived on the outskirts of Sydney about 20 kms from the CBD, it was rural and almost country, now it's the centre of Sydney metropolis, that's life...we live, we grow, we expand. We can do more than control and maintain it as best we can.
So long as we develop these areas with thought, planning and genuine care, that's all we can do and hope for, as the world and progress rolls on.
Gday...
Yeah .... understand and empathise with the sentiment ...... HOWEVER, look back with open eyes and an open mind ..... I think flying pigs are more likely than "thought, planning and genuine care" from those who drive the "development/progress"
Now they are progressively "developing" and then locking up Fraser Island (and other areas) for instance, there is not much left to see that is "anywhere near virgin"
Cheers - John
Hmm that's better out than in.. i feel better now.
I would prefer to have the national parks developed with facilities to suit a variety of budgets and conservation controls i place that maintain the integrity of the area, I also believe that responsible dog owners should be able to take their dog in with the provision the dog is kept on a lead and its poop is picked up