From the Nomad News...Interstate visitors must now buy a pass to enter most NT national parks

msg · Guru

From the Nomad News...Interstate visitors must now buy a pass to enter most NT national parks

vince56 · Senior Member

Here we go again, paying to see what we rightfully own as Australians. One day someone with time and money will challenge this stuff and I reckon they would have a good case!

Whenarewethere · Guru

Wouldn't be surprised if governments are working on a footpath tax. Usage per footstep will be sold in blocks of a million. You will have to buy your years amount in advance. If you need to top up there will be a premium!

Cupie · Guru

vince56 wrote:
Here we go again, paying to see what we rightfully own as Australians. One day someone with time and money will challenge this stuff and I reckon they would have a good case!

Wouldn't be surprised if governments are working on a footpath tax. Usage per footstep will be sold in blocks of a million. You will have to buy your years amount in advance. If you need to top up there will be a premium!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps a Treaty will change all of that. Perhaps others rightfully own the place and are working on user taxes (rent) & you'll be paying them.

Gundog · Guru

Alas many parts of the Grampians and other parts in Vic you have to pay...........Thanks chairman Dan.

msg · Guru

Funny how we are in lock step with USA. This was just posted on UTube. www.youtube.com/watch

Cuppa · Guru

I don't mind the idea of contributing to the upkeep of National Parks but I do object to the method of payment being state based & established more for the P&W bean counters that the park users.

People travel differently, & so I think the means of paying should reflect that. We like National Parks, they are the accessible 'jewels in the Crown' of Australia. They are special places with special rules, but they also belong to all of us.

As National Parks, I should be able to buy a reasonable priced pass which gives me access to any National Park in the country. Obviously I & most others wouldn't visit every park in the country during the validity of the pass, nothing like it, and so the price should reflect that. $300 per person per year would seem reasonable.

Having a National pass would allow for the many folk who like to travel without planning too much.

I also think that camping in NP's should be no cost or minimal fees for pass holders, perhaps with the exception of the very high demand places.

As for pre-booking .......pah!

-- Edited by Cuppa on Wednesday 5th of April 2023 06:25:01 PM

RickJ · Senior Member

Following a money trail almost always reveals the real story.

Cassie63 · Senior Member

Just paid $12 to look at Wave rock in WA, apparently goes towards maintenance which was lacking, some of the tracks had tree branches laying over them and no doggy bags.

msg · Guru

Trees dropping bits? No doggy bags? What?

delapan · Senior Member

if Territorians are able to enter free then it is against the constitution as Tasmania found out a few years ago, under the constitution people can not be discriminated against by where they live. Regardsi

-- Edited by delapan on Thursday 6th of April 2023 09:47:50 AM

bomurra · Veteran Member

Parks in WA have required a pass or fee for years. Parks have to managed to ensure they are there for the long term, this costs money. It is simply a case of end user pays.

Mike Harding · Guru

bomurra wrote:
Parks in WA have required a pass or fee for years. Parks have to managed to ensure they are there for the long term, this costs money. It is simply a case of end user pays.

Amongst many other government managed services I have no need of the education system or the NDIS so can I deduct a suitable proportion of my taxes because I am not an "end user" of these services?

vince56 · Senior Member

Spot on Mike, it is a "user pays" system, our taxes are never enough for the incompetent and spend-thrift governments and the overpaid bureaucrats so they throw in these "user-pays" extra taxes.

The big issue is that as you point out, "non-users" of a myriad of services and sites still pay!

peter67 · Guru

Cassie63 wrote:
Just paid $12 to look at Wave rock in WA, apparently goes towards maintenance which was lacking, some of the tracks had tree branches laying over them and no doggy bags.

Last time I visited wave rock was around 2010 and it was free. Did you climb up the top and view the ugly paving slabs some clown propped up around the top of the rock to catch water?

Cupie · Guru

peter67 wrote:
Cassie63 wrote:
Just paid $12 to look at Wave rock in WA, apparently goes towards maintenance which was lacking, some of the tracks had tree branches laying over them and no doggy bags.
Last time I visited wave rock was around 2010 and it was free. Did you climb up the top and view the ugly paving slabs some clown propped up around the top of the rock to catch water?

Yep, I was rather taken by the 'besser block' like structure that the local graziers had erected to gather rain water. It was just far enough back so that it didn't show in photos taken from the foot of the 'wave'. Probably by accident & not design I think.

I lost the metal tip off my golf umbrella when walking along the top in 2005. You didn't happen to find it?

We stayed in the CP adjacent to the rock & I enjoyed cycling around the salt pans with old fences, with crooked rose wood? posts, running through the middle of them. Picked up a few excellent Mallee roots as curios. They make excellent firewood too.

No entrance fee then.

Warren-Pat_01 · Guru

I have no issue with paying for a visitor's pass - providing that money goes to the park.

One only has to compare WA parks (that have a fee) to those in Qld (above the Kingdom of the Great SE Corner) to see the difference. And for those who think I'm biased against parks in the SE Corner, compare the facilities & staff at Girrawean NP to White Mountains (or any others NP where you are lucky to have one ranger for three NPs!

The problem is policing the passes - needing staff or automated security devices.
And the good old honesty box for camping fees used to work well until staff were removed to save costs. Now you have a fair chance of free camping unless a ranger happens to arrive on a rare visit. I object to booking on line as I might change my travel days, might not have internet or mobile access - but most state governments don't care.

Cuppa · Guru

I am of the opinion that for as long as I have been travelling this wide brown land that the NT, until these recent changes, have consistently 'done' NP's better than any of the other states, at least in terms of meeting my needs. Their mix of basic free camps with limited facilities (toilets only) and lower cost (excepting the 'big ticket' parks like Uluru & Kakadu) campgrounds have been very satisfactory, particularly with the provision of the NT parks speciality, those very useful square tables/raised sleeping platforms. With low overnight fees I have long thought of them as the example of good value that other states should emulate. I am sad that they should now, after many years, be moving toward the models used by other states when I think the move should be the other way round.

Typical NT National Park. All facilities shown, with exception of potable water available from ranger station a couple of kms away. Toilet, table/sleeping platform, firepit with bbq plate. All we need $6.50 per person per night in 2019. No booking required. (Butterfly Falls campground, Limmen NP)

DSC06611 (1).jpeg

-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 9th of April 2023 07:57:47 AM

msg · Guru

My thoughts are if you need facilities maybe you should pay a caravan park. National Parks I thought were to preserve the natural landscape. The fees should be used to eradicate those elements not natural to the park. Walkways, steps, signs and everything else to my mind is not natural and should be kept to a minimum and only used as an aid for those who cannot scramble over the terrain to view particular sights.

Gary and Barb · Senior Member

Gundog wrote:
Alas many parts of the Grampians and other parts in Vic you have to pay...........Thanks chairman Dan.

Being a Vic from way back, and organising trips all around Australia, I have been frustrated by the permits, camping fees and the ridiculous booking systems in other states. I am so pleased we can camp almost anywhere in Victoria and that very FEW parks require fees. When it is First Nations land, I accept that we must pay. After all, it IS their land and we are entitled to pay entry in any owned property. I take your point that Government Parks and reserves may be a different issue.

Victoria is far and away the easiest state to organise travel in. Very little need for permits, passes or camping fees!
When a Labour Government got rid of the fees some 15 years ago, I was initially alarmed, thinking that parks would be deprived of funds. It has actually been a raging success, with Rangers and Park officials free to do their curatorial work without having to collect fees from tourists and campers. A few years of educating and enlisting the help of the public means we can now enjoy outstanding free reserves. The Grampians is now Gariwerd National Park and is actually administered through Parks Victoria, Barengi Gadjin Land Council , Eastern Maar, and Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporations. This area includes Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park and adjacent parks and reserves. It has over 80% of Victoria's Art Sites, many of which tourists severely damaged prior to the current management. It is understandable that they restrict such unique historic material. Not to Mention the incredible natural resources, history, or amazing and unique flora of the area.
Wilsons Promontory is another rare case where fees are charged, mostly because it is so heavily visited.
Other than that, You can move around most of the state parks without permits and for free.

WindyHill · Member

a reasonable priced pass which gives me access to any National Park in the country.

Problem is that they are not National Parks, unlike the USA where there is an annual pass to all National Parks at approx 85USD per year.
Our parks are called National Parks but they are actually State Parks so every state runs their own system.
Would be great if they all agreed to hand over management to a National Department and it became a truly national system.

But I wont hold my breath.

RickJ · Senior Member

Warren-Pat_01 wrote:
I have no issue with paying for a visitor's pass - providing that money goes to the park.

As I said above, following the money trail will reveal the truth.

There are vast tracts of land being handed to groups to achieve nothing more than a micro economy at the expense of those Australians wishing to visit.

Providing paid access through easements can be quite deceptive when it is in the guise of caring for the area.

Gary and Barb · Senior Member

RickJ wrote:
Warren-Pat_01 wrote:
I have no issue with paying for a visitor's pass - providing that money goes to the park.
As I said above, following the money trail will reveal the truth.
There are vast tracts of land being handed to groups to achieve nothing more than a micro economy at the expense of those Australians wishing to visit.
Providing paid access through easements can be quite deceptive when it is in the guise of caring for the area.

Not sure I agree with this premise. It trivialises their ownership rights. When I visit Native Title sites, I see a lot of progress for the locals. They re-establish their culture, language, art, economy and independence and protect the land from degradation through mining and other exploitation. More power to them.

Have you actually traced the "money trail", or are you merely outlining an assumption you have made?

Cuppa · Guru

RickJ wrote:
As I said above, following the money trail will reveal the truth.
There are vast tracts of land being handed to groups to achieve nothing more than a micro economy at the expense of those Australians wishing to visit.
Providing paid access through easements can be quite deceptive when it is in the guise of caring for the area.

What do you mean by this somewhat cryptic comment? Sounds very 'conspiratorial'?

RickJ · Senior Member

Might I be *conspiratorial* by just requoting the title of the topic.

From the Nomad News...Interstate visitors must now buy a pass to enter most NT national parks.

I dont see anything cryptic about being charged to enter an area of my country and wondering where the proceeds of that entry fee go.

I do however question the validity of any group of people having the ability to decide who pays and who doesnt pay for access to public areas of my country, Australia. I also question where and how the money raised from charging access is going and being used.

From my observations many of these huge tracts of lands being managed by so many various smaller groups in the form of micro economies and not by elected governments is just cause for the term *conspiracy* to be raised in general discussion. The question is, of course, as to where the actual conspiracy might be occurring.

Cuppa · Guru

RickJ wrote:

From my observations many of these huge tracts of lands being managed by so many various smaller groups in the form of micro economies and not by elected governments is just cause for the term *conspiracy* to be raised in general discussion. The question is, of course, as to where the actual conspiracy might be occurring.

That's the cryptic & the conspiratorial bit. You obviously know who you are referring to. wink