David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

On the weekends and in other recreational time, our freedom to enjoy the great outdoors is unnecessarily hampered by the meddling of Commonwealth, state and local governments. Today I want to make a bold claim and propose a bold solution on behalf of both the Liberal Democrats and the Outdoor Recreation Party, our sister party in the New South Wales election. The bold claim is that Australia's national parks are chronically mismanaged by both Commonwealth and state governments. National parks are not protected from feral animals, weeds, rubbish, bushfires or vandalism. These problems are pervasive. Whole mountainsides are covered by mats of impenetrable weeds, undergrowth often fuels massive bushfires and the paucity of native wildlife is such that Tim Flannery describes our parks as 'marsupial ghost towns'.

The bold solution of the Outdoor Recreation Party and the Liberal Democrats is twofold. First, people should be allowed to use national parks for a much wider range of recreational activities than is currently the case. Second, most of our national parks should be privatised. Australia has over 1,000 national parks comprising 28 million hectares, which accounts for about four per cent of our land area. A further six per cent of our land area is protected in state forests, nature parks and conservation reserves. In our national parks, commercial activities such as farming are prohibited. Even the humble and environmentally friendly business of beekeeping to produce Australia's delicious and distinctive honey is substantially restricted. Indeed, all human activity is strictly controlled. Few dare to challenge the assertion that humans are the main environmental threat and should be kept out as much as possible. Many national park users are disenfranchised and excluded through prohibition and regulation. Even worse, few people in power engage with the numerous groups of knowledgeable and outdoor oriented people who are willing to help.

Loca l communities adjacent to parks along with hunters, fish ers, campers, fossickers, trail bikers, horse-riders, kayakers, four-wheel drivers, bushwalkers and many more are prepared to volunteer time and effort for better managed and more inclusive national parks. Instead, they are largely ignored. Long-time former CEO of Parks Victoria , Mark Stone , used to say that parks could not be managed successfully without the support of local communities and stakeholders. He was right. G overnments will never have sufficient funds to do all t hat is required and certainly do not have the expertise or local knowledge necessary to manage parks via central planning.

In the UK, national parks make up a similar share of the land area as in Australia. In England , they account for 9.3 per cent of the land area; in Wales, 19.9 per cent; in Scotland, 7.2 per cent . But that is where the similarity ends. Much land within UK national parks is owned by private landowners , including farmers. T he thousands of people who live in villag es and towns within those parks plus organisations like the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, various wildlife trusts, the Woodland Trust, English Heritage and Historic Scotland.

The management of UK national parks is also profou ndly different. Whereas ours are subject t o central command and control— mainly by sta te governments—each park there has its own national park authority. While these authorities sometimes own bits of land, they work with all landowners to protect the landscape. N ational park authorities are run by boards comprised mainly of locals. They employ staff who work in offices, fieldwork stations and visitor centres, and have many volunteers who undertake jobs such as leading guided walks, fixing fences, dry stone walling, monitoring historic sites and surveying wildlife. Every a uthority is obliged to produce a national park management plan s etting out a five- year plan for the park. Local communities, landowners and other organisations are asked for their opinions and help in achieving the plan.

Farming plays a key role in shaping the landscape of UK national parks. Sheep are common in the more hill y and more rugged areas, while there is some cropping in lower areas. Quite a few farms in national parks have diversified by opening farm shops to sell their produce direct to visitors or by opening their farms to school trips. They are also given preference in grant applications for environmental projects.

In 2013, I visited a farm in the Lake District National Park in England. It ran sheep a nd also had a farm shop and cafe . It was not a source of riches but it supports a farming family adequately well. The farmer explained that there were areas of the farm where he was subject to a range of constraints on such things as grazing, fencing, pasture renovation and use of fertiliser, and where tree preservation was a higher priority. In other areas , he was free to farm as he chose, receiving the same agricultural subsidies as farms outside the park but additional grants for tree planting, maintenance of dry stone walls and other environmental initiatives. Critically, he had to allow access to his land for a number of outdoor pursuits. He took enormous pride in the fact that he was a custodian of both a productive farm and an environmental legacy for the benefit of future generations, including his own children. He was adamant that both productivity and environmental values had been enhanced under his care.

When something is owned by everyone , it is effectively owned by no- one. That is the problem facing Australia's national parks. Management is centrally controlled, governments can never employ enough public s ervants to manage them properly and there is little volunteer involvement. Nobody is personally responsible. This means feral animals and weeds run rampant while bushfires are more serious and difficult to prevent. Imagine if the UK approach were adopted in Australia. Imagine if significant parts of national parks were privately owned and managed by locally run boards in accordance with locally agreed management plans. Imagine if land w ere farmed where viable and tourism w ere encouraged, with some of the money currently used for park management offered as incentives for owners to preserve environmental values. Would the environment be any worse off than it is under a policy of locking it up and l ooking at it through binoculars, with just a privileged group of park staff having free access?

Recruiting volunteers on a large scale to address specific problems such as track clearin g, pest animal and weed control or species monitoring could save taxpayers millions and deliver vastly superior environmental outcomes. As it stands, biodiversity and environmental values in Australia's national parks are in decline. Using the skills and enthusiasm of volunteers in local communities and park users to address basic management tasks would be one way to a ddress this decline. As Pr ofessor Flannery went on to say:

The truth is that things are now so dire that we cannot afford to persist with business as usual; a change of direction is essential…

Farmers would have a strong incentive to control feral pests , such as goats, pigs, foxes, rabbits and cats. Their presence in the parks would also help keep tracks open and detect problems. The proceeds from selling the park, with environmental caveats, could be used to upgrade visitor facilities and fund research.

The very idea of this offends some people, not least the public sector unions that represent national park employees. But it is not radical. As the United Kingdom shows, it is perfectly feasible. Australia is a big country with plenty that is unique. But we are not so unique that we cannot learn from others. National parks are for people as well as nature. We should never forget that.

Senate adjourned at 23:00