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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2161 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: It was in your budget. It was made. You sat around the Cabinet table at the time, Mr Berry. You approved it.

Mr Berry: The decision was not to do it.

MR HUMPHRIES: You approved the fees, Mr Berry - actual fees - and then you withdrew from them because you had cold feet. Instead, you commissioned a consultancy and the consultancy said, "Find out what is the appropriate regime for imposing fees at Tidbinbilla". That is all the consultancy said.

Mr Berry: I was the Cabinet Secretary too. The decision was not to do it.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, it was not.

Mr Berry: Yes, it was.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, it was not. If the decision was not to do it, why did you introduce the amendment to the Nature Conservation Act?

Mr Corbell: We never implemented fees.

MR HUMPHRIES: It was a precaution, was it, just to complete the legislative powers available in the legislation? The Opposition is suggesting that we are trying to raise revenue from our natural areas by charging visitors for something that they should have for free, even though it costs over $900,000 a year to maintain. Mr Corbell has claimed that we are taxing families. I want to explain that introducing charges at Tidbinbilla as a possible means of providing additional resources for the reserve and as a means of providing an absolute bargain for all visitors is essential in being able to upgrade the quality of facilities we offer to people who visit Tidbinbilla in the future.

Mr Speaker, let me run through a number of issues. We are not alone in having entry fees for protected areas. In fact, the ACT is the only Australian jurisdiction, with the exception of Queensland, not to charge entry fees for at least some of their parks. The rates under this proposal are substantially below what is actually charged for a number of parks and conservation areas in other parts of Australia. Indeed, as far as I am aware, most other fees levied at nature parks across Australia do not come with the guarantee that the funds raised will be reinvested for conservation and visitor services in those very nature parks. That guarantee is given in respect of fees at Tidbinbilla. The ACT is among the last to address this issue and, in fact, benefits from being among the last by having the opportunity to learn from others' experience.

I want to mention one example of such learning. The Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, ANZECC, prepared a report on best practice in user-pays operations in protected areas. It was released late last year. This document emphasises that revenue raised in protected areas has been accepted throughout Australian nature conservation agencies as a necessary adjunct to central funding. The report argues that adopting best practice procedures, which is what we propose to do at Tidbinbilla, will actually improve conservation outcomes as well as providing better visitor services and better facilities.

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