State Government actions to encourage commercial development in national parks based on long term privatisation leases have attracted opposition from the community and Greens MP Michael Berkman.
Commercial development plans for national parks
Last year the Labor State government invited expressions of interest for exclusive 60-year leases to conduct commercial “eco-tourism” activities at three national parks in Queensland: Hinchinbrook Island, Whitsunday Island and Great Sandy National Parks.
The proposal was rushed through parliament without adequate consultation. Many people are concerned about how it will impact the parks’ existing tourism industries and the natural environment.
The sweetheart deal offers successful developers options like:
- State-owned national park land for private eco-accommodation development;
- exclusive ground leases for a term of up to 30 years plus one up to 30 year option to operate the private eco-accommodation;
- assistance during the approvals process;
- a coordinated “one government” approach to comply with other government requirements; and
- a contribution of up to $5 million for eco-accommodation built along the Whitsunday Island Trail.
More than three thousand people signed a petition to Parliament opposing the Government’s plans for private sector development in national parks.
60 year lease is a de facto sale
In the property world a 60 year lease is near enough to freehold, effectively sale of the land. Once entrenched, it is hard to see a developer being evicted. Compare this arrangement with that of a business trying to secure a long term lease in a major shopping centre where 10 or 20 years are considered long term commercial arrangements.
A 60 year term invites lobbying for extensions and expansion of leases well before the term expires on grounds of securing finance, renewal of assets and even the decline of assets (before the term expires). Experienced land managers know that options for extension will be canvassed well before the term expires. And on the past performance of Government land managers dealing with vested commercial interests, these options will be exercised and almost certainly approved.
But even more fundamental is the question of asset life. Lease terms should be aligned with the life of an asset. What sort of assets are to be constructed that require a lease of 60 years?
At most, leases should be attuned to the life of the investment and not an open door for privatisation of leases.
Public interest v. developer interest in Moreton Bay
The effective sale of national park land requires genuine consultation. A park or part of a park should only be revoked, cancelled or privatised in extreme circumstances, and only with Parliament’s consent. The public interest should dictate the outcome, not the whim of private developers.
Locally, the proposed Toondah Harbour residential project involving 3,600 apartments to be built on wetlands would require parts of the Moreton Bay Marine Park to be privatised.
The State Government has been very quiet on this matter, probably to avoid having to disclose too many of the protection mechanisms that would need to be undone before construction work could commence in what is currently zoned as a Marine Park.
Cardinal principle trashed
The cardinal principle for management of national parks, as espoused by the Nature Conservation Act, calls for national parks to be managed in such a way as: to provide, to the greatest possible extent, for the permanent preservation of the area’s natural condition and the protection of the area’s cultural resources and values. Natural condition means protection from human interference—allowing natural processes to proceed. Protecting a park’s natural condition can require considerable action.
This is what national park management is all about.
Take action now
The Government’s park privatisation plans are being opposed by:
- North Queensland Conservation Council who have initiated a petition, Hands off our National Parks
- The National Parks Association of Queensland which is running a campaign:
- Our national parks are not for sale
You could also contact Tourism Minister Kate Jones and ask her to scrap plans for park privatisation.
Redlands2030 – 18 February 2019
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
3 Comments
The abuse of National Parks by way of long term lease is so wrong…ethically, morally and in the past legally. The National Park network across the State is in adequate for the protection of biodiversity (about 30 % of the landscape is needed to do that!)
In life we see Governments using national parks (about 92% of the landscape to do what can’t be done in the other 92%…makes no sense, except in the mind of some obsessed Treasury boffin (and the Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad…it seems.
The Toondah example is among the worst examples…if it proceeds it will be the biggest alienation of public land in SEQ in over 25 years (at least). What a milestone to occur under the watch of Don Brown and Kim Richards! Overall performance of that pair “DISMAL”
Growing up and through my younger adult years I strongly believed in Labor values, and was a union member for 48 years. Sadly, because of the many irresponsible actions and poor decisions over time by Governments and unions, we have seen a significant decline in manufacturing which was a major employer and formulator of labor policy.
As I see it today, the predominant Labor platform has moved from concentrating on the welfare and working conditions of the Australian population, to a more outward focus on things such as the rights of illegal immigrants and the like.
Their aspirations also mirror a needy society in so much as “I want it, and I want it now”, which is why basically, all Governments, Federal, State and Local are broke and borrowed to the hilt. They are void of patience and restraint, borrowing hundreds of billions to fast track ideological agenda which is exacerbated by an insistence Australia must grow at an unsustainable rate, essentially leaving future generations, our grandchildren and their grandchildren to clean up the mess.
In the mean time, Labors failed policies still require funding from somewhere, which leads to such things as tampering with superannuation, having a bipartisan approach to a resource sapping BIG
Australia, as well as other revenue raising avenues such as allowing private enterprise to get their grubby hands on OUR National Parks. This is just the thin edge of the wedge.
It is a mystery as to why governments believe that property development drives economic prosperity. It is an even greater mystery why governments are willing to make exceptions to the normal rules of public land administration in order to accommodate developers.
As a general principle, property development funnels investment, construction jobs and ongoing jobs to a particular location rather than some other location, but it doesn’t create them any more than expenditure anywhere creates jobs.
Expressed in other words, if investment capital is available to build a tourist resort in a national park, a similar quantum of investment capital must be available to build a tourist resort somewhere else. The investment potential doesn’t evaporate when government steers development to better locations without the site constraints that a proposal within a national park would inevitably suffer.
This is not to argue against some developments within parks; recreation is a thoroughly legitimate purpose of parks, but 30+30 year leases indicate an intensity of development that is more efficiently served within or adjacent to township infrastructure.
If the above argument doesn’t convince the authorities, then they should ponder the sorry history of grand tourist projects along the Queensland coast. Project after project has failed to deliver the profit that the optimists predicted. In fact so frequent has been financial failure that one can expect most modern project developers to put forward sales of real estate as necessary to underpin the viability of the tourist enterprise. One simply can’t make an attractive return on a multi-million dollar tourist development by selling ice creams to bushwalkers.
Government trap themselves by being convinced by proponents’ optimistic usage and financial projections that in due course are not met and lead to pressure to relax the conditions, to allow forward sales of real estate for cash flow or to allow on-selling of the permit. Proponents also commonly underestimate the costs of development in biophysically difficult environments; Magnetic Quays being perhaps the best-known example.
We elect governments and pay the salaries of officials and elected members so that they can protect the public interest. They betray that trust when they side with developers against community sentiment or against the integrity of public reserves.