Parks and Crown Land Legislation (Mount Buffalo) Bill
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Second Reading I am pleased to lead the debate for the coalition
on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation (Mount Buffalo) Bill 2010. At the outset
I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill, which the coalition
welcomes, because it will provide some long-needed certainty for the future of
the Mount Buffalo Chalet and the surrounding sites. We believe providing this
security and a future, while also enhancing our natural environment, can be
done. We also welcome the bill because it attempts to fix this government's
drafting errors and omissions in a number of previous bills. A key feature of this legislation is the extension of the maximum lease term for
Mount Buffalo Chalet and the Dingo Dell and Cresta Valley areas in the Mount
Buffalo National Park. The bill amends the National Parks Act 1975 and the Crown
Land (Reserves) Act 1978 to extend the maximum lease tenure from 21 years to 50
years.
Just last year this house considered the terms of leases on public land under
the Crown Land (Reserves) Act and the Forests Act. The coalition supported
extending the term from 21 years to 65 years. The granting of such extended
leases is now up to the discretion of the minister. Given this, the coalition
wants to ensure that this process remains accountable and transparent and that
any leases or licences granted by the minister are determined on a sound footing
with clearly defined criteria. Unfortunately when we asked for more details
about these criteria during the briefing on the bill, the government was unable
to provide any details.
We hope they will be developed through the process and that we will have the
accountability and transparency that should accompany them.
The bill also makes other amendments. It amends the offence and enforcement
provisions relating to marine national parks and marine sanctuaries. Under this
legislation, boats operating under a rock lobster fishery access licence will be
able to anchor overnight in a marine national park or sanctuary. While the bill
prohibits rock lobster pots being on board overnight, it will make it easier for
boats by saving them from travelling long distances back to port each night
after working their pots out at sea.
To ensure that marine parks and sanctuaries remain protected, the bill will also
make the use of commercial fishing equipment in a marine park or sanctuary an
offence.
This amendment has been made because the government has had difficulties
prosecuting under the existing offences relating to taking fish for sale. This
brings the National Parks Act into line with the Fisheries Act and ensures
consistency in the enforcement and prosecution of the offence of using
commercial fishing equipment in marine parks and sanctuaries.
I thank the minister's office and the department for providing a comprehensive
briefing on this bill. However, it was disappointing that we were unable to be
provided with the number of successful prosecutions of people attempting to take
fish for sale from a marine park or sanctuary.
Another aspect of the bill involves the additions and alterations made to the
existing reserves and parks. Approximately 820 hectares will be added to several
existing parks and reserves across the state.
Terrick Terrick National Park and Greater Bendigo National Park will receive the
most substantial additions, totalling 468 hectares. The coalition supports these
additions and welcomes the ongoing protection of Victoria's grasslands and
vegetation. In addition, the bill also revokes four permanent Crown land
reservations totalling 4.7 hectares. This will affect Geelong, Shepparton and
Swan Hill.
It is disappointing that we need to debate many of these amendments today
because of the errors, oversight and poor decision making of the government in
drafting previous legislation. As a result, today the house has to make a raft
of miscellaneous amendments to the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act, the Forests
Act and the Crown Lands Act Amendment (Lease and Licence Terms) Act to rectify
drafting errors by this government on bills the house has previously debated and
passed. The government's failure to consult, its poor decision making, its lack
of foresight and general inability to get things right the first time has meant
that Parliament has been forced to debate the same legislative provisions again
and again. This is a poor reflection on any government and is a clear indication
of the Brumby government's tardiness and general carelessness when it comes to
dealing with matters in this Parliament.
I now want to devote a significant amount of time talking about the Mount
Buffalo Chalet.
Last month marked the centenary of the chalet, and celebrations were held. The
building, which is on top of Mount Buffalo and within the Mount Buffalo National
Park, was opened in 1910. Victoria's alpine region is a key tourist attraction
not only for this state but also for the nation. Approximately 200 000 visitors
from all over the country and all over the world flock to visit Mount Buffalo
National Park each year but this heritage-listed chalet with its spectacular
views has been left abandoned for almost four years.
The December 2006 bushfires which ravaged Victoria's alpine region impacted on
the chalet and on the surrounding sites. This, in addition to a combination of
poor trading over consecutive years and a growing need for significant
investment to update the chalet, resulted in the last leaseholder -- the Burbank
Group -- pulling out only two years into a 10-year lease. Parks Victoria has
maintained the chalet since it was officially closed in January 2007.
I have to say that I find it incredibly perplexing that such a major tourist
attraction can be left virtually deserted and forgotten by this government for
more than three years. The chairman of the Alpine resorts working group, Rob
Anderson, has branded the government's efforts to rebuild the chalet as an
'absolute disgrace'. John Kroger, from the Alpine Valleys Tourism Board, has
said that four years is a lifetime in tourism, and four years loses people's
interest, loses the recognition and loses the identity.
The chalet is the only one of its kind in Victoria in that it provides an
accommodation facility within a national park. Its close proximity to our most
iconic and popular ski fields and its spectacular views and scenery make it a
very desirable destination for both winter and summer seasons. For years the
local community, local council and even at times Parks Victoria have been
pleading with this government to restore certainty to the future of the chalet.
Labor has dithered for years without providing any real direction to the chalet
and the surrounding alpine area; it was only five months ago that Parks Victoria
began a request for tender process to attract new potential investors.
It is my understanding that a number of tourism and accommodation operators have
responded to the request for tender. This bill will grant the selected
leaseholder a lease term longer than the current maximum of 21 years as
specified in the National Parks Act. The government has chosen to extend the
lease term for the Mount Buffalo Chalet from 21 to 50 years. This is consistent
with the 50-year lease tenure introduced last year for the Point Nepean National
Park.
It is interesting that the government has decided to go with the 50 year
management lease when just last year it amended the Crown Land Acts Amendment
(Lease and Licence Term) Act to extend the maximum tenure for leases on public
land to 65 years. The coalition supports the proposed extended lease. We believe
that a longer lease will make it more commercially attractive for investors and
further guarantee the long-term viability of the chalet and surrounding sites.
Having said this, I think it is important to recognise that this 50 year lease
arrangement is rather conservative when compared to other Australian
jurisdictions. Victoria's nature-based tourism strategy found that a significant
factor contributing to low investor confidence in nature-based tourism is
insufficient lease terms. We know that New Zealand has no maximum tenure in
national parks and the same goes for Tasmania and for Parks Australia.
The Queensland and Tasmanian state governments offer a 99 year lease term.
The National Tourism Investment Strategy identifies limited lease terms in
national parks as an issue which can inhibit investment and sustainable private
development. While the coalition supports the proposed 50 year lease offered for
the Mount Buffalo Chalet, we have had representations which support a further
extension to, say, 99 years.
The Alpine Shire Council proposes that a 99 year lease for the Mount Buffalo
Chalet would make it more commercially attractive to potential investors,
provide investors with greater long-term security and make it comparable to
other alpine resorts. Alpine resorts operate under the Alpine Resorts Management
Act and
It was in 1997 that the previous coalition government changed the management
leases for alpine resorts and extended them to 99 years. The CEO of the Alpine
Shire Council, Ian Nicholls, believes that a 50-year lease is insufficient. He
stated:
...we are still of the view that the lease period should be of a longer term.
The 50 years will not be enough to attract a major investor [as evident]. At a
minimum, it should be 65 years and preferably 99 years depending on the scale
and type of investment.
The Burbank Group, the former investors at the chalet, stated that Parks
Victoria had rejected the need for a 99 year lease despite the company receiving
financial advice that it was the minimum tenure needed to recoup the costs of
renovating and restoring the historic chalet. Currently operators have put in
submissions to redevelop the chalet under the request for tender (RFT) process.
The RFT specifically said that 50 years was the maximum lease available, so we
would expect submissions to have been developed on that basis and hope there is
a successful tenderer this time around. However, given the concerns that I have
just outlined, the coalition would be prepared to consider a longer lease,
should that be required, to ensure the successful redevelopment of the Mount
Buffalo Chalet and its ongoing financial sustainability.
All records show that considerable investment is needed to refurbish the chalet.
The chalet relies solely on diesel generators as the only source of power. The
facility has had very little investment over the last 50 years and has not made
a profit for at least a decade. The building does not meet the current building
standards and costs approximately $70 000 per month to run.
Following the loss of the Cresta Lodge facilities in the December 2006
bushfires, the government offered a $6 million insurance payout to improve
infrastructure such as water, heating and sewerage systems. However, locals and
Parks Victoria are concerned that the $6 million is inadequate and that more
investment will be needed to fund the refurbishment of the infrastructure and
the facilities. Following a recent meeting I had with the CEO of Parks Victoria,
it was revealed that the government has promised $10 million for the
redevelopment of the facilities. When we had asked that question previously at
the bill briefing, the $6 million was asserted and the $10 million was denied.
Clearly this additional $4 million is not yet committed, and it will have to go
through an economic review committee process in future. I look forward to it
appearing in future budgets to support the development of this important chalet.
However, the reality is that an estimated investment of at least $20 million is
needed to fully refurbish the chalet.
Rob Anderson, the chairman of the Alpine Resorts Working Group, is concerned
that there is no intention to restore the lift infrastructure after it was
destroyed by bushfire. He believes the government's decision to stop downhill
skiing at the fields is:
... short-sighted, and not in the interests of introducing entry level skiers
to the sport. What has become of the money has not been satisfactorily
explained. It seems that this is a grab by Parks Victoria at the expense of a
sustainable ski industry.
Hartley Higgins, vice-president of the Victorian Snowsports Association, has
expressed similar concerns that the chalet may not be successful without
operational ski runs. He said:
The loss of this important Victorian entry resort has impacted on the growth
of the sport and other resorts visitation; it offered a low cost 'come and
try' experience as well as a budget level regional family winter destination,
with related business benefits to the other resorts and local towns of
Myrtleford and Bright. Without the winter attraction of a ski area, I believe
visitation will not be adequate and ultimately the cost of running the chalet
will be prohibitive.
The government's decision not to rebuild the Mount Buffalo ski field is based on
a 2009 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation climate
prediction assessment, which reveals a rising snowline and a reduction in
snowfall. CSIRO projections show that under a high-impact scenario Mount Buffalo
will receive just over 10 centimetres of snow cover in peak season -- clearly
not enough, if that is the case, to sustain a long-term ski industry.
The absence of downhill skiing at the Cresta site in Mount Buffalo National Park
will have a consequence for future commercial investment. A changing climate and
greenhouse warming will affect the operation of Victoria's alpine ski resorts
across the board, but clearly -- if we can believe the CSIRO's predictions -- it
will particularly affect Mount Buffalo.
The coalition supports proposals for commercial development which will support a
local economy, grow tourism and ensure the protection of our natural assets.
Obviously this needs to be done in close consultation with local communities
that have become disaffected by being ignored by this government in planning for
the future of the Mount Buffalo Chalet. The local community and the economy in
the Mount Buffalo area have suffered a number of blows in recent years. A
combination of drought, bushfire and poor snowfall has placed considerable
pressure on the local community. The restoration of the chalet will rejuvenate
the local.
I have to spend a few minutes on what must be seen as a significant backflip by
this government. Who would have thought that the party that was hell-bent on
stopping commercial development and private investment in national parks would
be the very same party that has extended public land leases to encourage greater
commercialisation? When in opposition the Labor Party was vehemently opposed to
tourist development in iconic destinations such as Wilsons Promontory and the
Twelve Apostles, but now in government it is encouraging such developments.
Labor's 1999 environment policy document, Our Natural Assets -- Valuing
Victoria's Natural Environment, says:
Labor will be vigilant in defending and conserving our precious network of
national parks rather than opening them up to commercial exploitation.
This bill, like others before it, shows Labor hypocrisy at its highest. I must
say I welcome the change of view from the government. Private investment on
public land, provided it is sustainable and does not jeopardise the ongoing
protection of our natural assets, can be extremely valuable, both for our local
communities and for our environment. I am very pleased the Brumby government has
now come to that long-held coalition view.
The coalition does support this bill, because it puts on a sound footing the
prospects of the Mount Buffalo Chalet in terms of attracting a commercial
investor to redevelop the chalet for the benefit of Victorians across the board
and because it extends the potential lease that is available to those commercial
investors.
But, as I have said, the bill does raise some concerns about the discretion of
the minister in that decision-making process, and we would very much like to see
a rigorous, transparent and accountable process in relation to any decision
making involved in determining how long a lease is granted and to whom it is
granted.
The bill also contains a number of subsequent amendments that we support,
including ones which extend the areas of national parks, which involve the
revocation of some land and which also firm up some enforcement provisions in
our marine parks. We support this bill particularly because we believe it is
good for the environment and encourages and promotes tourism in an area that
contains some of our most remarkable assets. We also support it because it
strengthens local communities and the economy in the Mount Buffalo region. For
all of these reasons, I commend the bill to the house, and the coalition looks
forward to its speedy passage.
|
