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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2168 ..

MS HORODNY: Unfortunately, Mr Corbell has taken my statement out of context. Our position on entry fees has been consistent and it has been honest. Mr Corbell seems not to have read the determination that was tabled last week, because he insists on talking about the fee being paid on an individual basis rather than by car. The Greens are not totally opposed to the concept of entry fees but just did not support entry fees for Namadgi and Tidbinbilla at that time because we did not believe there was sufficient justification for them, particularly for Namadgi. If Mr Corbell had read on, he would have seen that I said:

While entry fees may be appropriate for some national parks which have high visitor rates and high management costs, we do not believe that there are sufficient grounds for imposing user fees in the ACT.

I then went on to list some general concerns that we had with entry fees, such as whether the costs involved in collecting the fees outweighed the revenue raised and the tendency in some other parks for entry fee revenue to replace government funding, thus skewing the objectives of parks from nature conservation to revenue generation.

The Greens have never totally opposed entry fees for nature reserves. Our view is that, if governments want to introduce fees, then it should be done in a way which ensures that the funds go back to park management, that nature conservation principles are not compromised and that equity issues are addressed. Fees are also appropriate for services being provided to visitors that are beyond the normal tasks of park management and for commercial users of the park who are exploiting the features of the park for their own profit.

The Government came forward with a proposal for fees, and we were willing to consider it against our own criteria, to see whether we would support it or not, or support it with conditions or amendments. We would do this with any proposal put forward by any member in this Assembly. It is really the ALP which is being hypocritical in opposing outright the entry fees. It was, of course, Mr Wood who, as Environment Minister, introduced amendments to the Nature Conservation Act, which we have already heard about, to allow entry fees to be collected. It is no good the Labor Party saying, "It was Treasury that wanted this amendment to go in. We never supported it. Cabinet never supported it". That is absolutely beside the point. What is your argument - that you are at the mercy of Treasury?

The ALP was also in government when it commissioned a study into marketing strategies and options for ACT nature parks which extensively canvassed the idea of entry fees. Once again, you canvassed the idea of entry fees, so you cannot sit back from the responsibility for entry fees eventually being introduced. ALP members were also silent on the subject of entry fees in recent Assembly debates on reports produced on nature-based tourism in the ACT which led up to this decision. Entry fees to some national parks are found in other States, and I have no doubt that some of these were introduced by Labor governments, or at least maintained by Labor governments. It is very surprising, therefore, that the ALP here has suddenly taken on this crusade against entry fees. My understanding is that the Labor Party's own environment committee, in 1994, also suggested that fees of some sort be introduced.

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