Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2157 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

I would like to move on and address some of the more specific points in relation to the Government's proposal to implement user charges for Tidbinbilla. The first point I want to make is that, despite the assurances of this Government, Labor does not accept that this will be the only entrance charge placed on nature reserves and national parks in the ACT. We do not accept the Government's undertaking that this is a one-off and that charges will not be implemented in other areas. The Government has implemented a user charge for Tidbinbilla only because they can do it at Tidbinbilla. There is only one gate in and out. I am sure that if they could work out ways of doing it in other areas they would do it there, because they accept the notion of user pays. This party, in relation to access to the environment, does not.

The proposals that have been put forward by the Government in relation to entrance charges and the entrance charge regime, we believe, are fundamentally flawed. Through questioning last week in the Assembly, the Labor Party received documents from the Minister which outlined how the Government had gone about calculating the entrance fee for Tidbinbilla. They expect a drop of 45,000 visitors to the reserve. They are the Government's own figures. They expect a drop in visitation. The Government says that this is the worst case scenario; but I would imagine the Government would want to be sure of the amount of revenue they received and they would calculate as much as possible, as much as they could reasonably expect. They can reasonably expect $270,000.

That also means that they can reasonably expect a drop of 45,000 visitors. On average, this would mean, if you divided it up amongst visitors locally and visitors from interstate and overseas, 39,000 fewer visitations from locals and close to 6,000 fewer visitations from interstate and overseas tourists. In reality, the drop is most likely to occur only amongst local visitors - Canberrans and people from the surrounding region. Overseas tourists and interstate visitors coming to the Territory are more likely to be prepared to go through the gate than are locals, who perhaps are aware of other options.

This drop, according to the Government's own figures, could last for between one and three years. We do not believe that that is acceptable. We do not believe that it is acceptable to put in place an entrance fee that will result in 45,000 fewer people accessing a very valuable area of our natural environment and to be prepared to put up with it for one to three years. That is another reason why we oppose this determination today.

I have raised in this Assembly and publicly alternatives that the Government should be considering in relation to revenue raising. I know that these are being considered by the Government, and they should be pursued. They include sponsorship of the animal enclosures. There are examples in other nature reserves around Australia and overseas of sponsorship not only by corporate organisations but also by local community groups, schools and organisations such as Apex, Lions and so on. They are prepared to sponsor animal enclosures. We believe that is appropriate as long as it is done in a way which is sensitive to the natural environment and does not detract from the attractiveness of the enclosures. That is one option that this Government should pursue if it wishes to raise revenue for the upkeep and maintenance of Tidbinbilla.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .