NSW government dumps wilderness promise

September 21, 1994
Issue 

The NSW government decided on September 9 to reduce by 60% proposed wilderness areas announced with much fanfare last December. This will leave less than 5% of the state as wilderness, and even that is fragmented to accommodate off-road vehicles, stock routes and horse riding. The decision came after intense lobbying by National Party MPs and anti-wilderness groups, and was based on a report by the surveyor general which will not be made public. FRANCES KELLY spoke to KEITH MUIR, director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness.

In view of Fahey's sudden turnaround on wilderness, why do you think he initially announced the wilderness areas as a "Christmas gift" to the community?

He wanted to gain some green credentials, and to declare wilderness areas in national parks was seen to be an easy and achievable goal. Obviously he did not anticipate a revolt by the backbench, especially considering that the wilderness subcommittee had two National Party MPs on it.

What is the new version?

The new revised edition is only 113,000 hectares of the 800,000 initially recommended by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. His initial promise was 350,000 hectares. So now we have got something like an eighth of the original proposal by the NPWS.

It's an appalling non-achievement in terms of wilderness dedication and demonstrates this government's inability to protect wilderness.

He claims to have consulted the community. This is one of the main reasons put forward for changing his original decision.

The initial community assessment was by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. They received 16,000 submissions over the 10 wilderness proposals put forward in wilderness assessment reports by them. 75% of those submissions were strongly in favour of protection.

The government overrode that by installing the surveyor general, who knows nothing about wilderness management or national park management, to prepare advice from interviews with what were essentially anti-wilderness and anti-conservationists.

The conservation groups boycotted this process. We did not accept that a surveyor general who was ignorant of park management should recommend anything within national parks, let alone be the basis of government decision-making on wilderness areas — which in effect is what has happened.

So the community consultation has basically been the surveyor general's report?

Yes. The report is a secret report. It hasn't been revealed by the government, and yet they have claimed this is a public process.

When Fahey first announced the 350,000 hectares back in December, there was a big outcry from so-called wilderness users such as 4WD clubs, horse riders and farmers who wanted to graze cattle in the parks. Fahey has said there needs to be a balance achieved. What is meant by balance?

In this case balance happens to be further exploitation of national parks, because these wilderness areas that were recommended by the NPWS were essentially within the parks and they were compromised by the 4WD users.

I can't understand how the four-wheel-drivers who can go anywhere within this state should have to go in the last fragment. We are talking about 500,000 hectares of declared wilderness and another 113,000 now promised. There are 800,000 square kilometres of NSW, and these areas represent far less than 5% of the state; yet the 4WD and horse-riding lobbies claim they must have access to all of NSW.

What will be the likely implications of these reduced wilderness areas for the environment?

There are a number of issues raised here. One is, will they even declare them, because they are so embarrassing.

The second point is, if they do declare them, they will lay themselves open to legal action because these may not be legally valid wilderness areas. That is, they might be so small and so fragmented and cut up to accommodate existing users and stock routes and grazing in national parks that they will just be thrown out of court.

The third point is that the government intends to establish wilderness trusts. Trusts have power to control finances and determine what sort of activities occur in wilderness areas. So these areas are not only small and fragmented; they may end up being Clayton's wilderness areas because the government is almost sure to appoint anti-wilderness people to manage the areas in national parks. I am talking about National Party appointees managing wilderness areas here, and what will happen when that arises is that you will find all sorts of inappropriate management will be enforced upon the parks service.

For instance?

Further fire trails, excessive over-burning, weed-invasion, allowing stock to travel through the wilderness areas. For example, in the Guy Fawkes area there are three travelling stock routes; these will probably be laid open and the effect of the wilderness and the national park nullified by rednecks on wilderness trust management committees.

There should be a requirement by anyone involved in advice or in a trust to the parks service that they agree to uphold the principles of the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Wilderness Act. This isn't happening, and what we're finding is that our national parks are being gradually eroded by people who hate national parks. I am talking about people who are ideologically opposed to wilderness areas providing advice about wilderness management. That's what this government intends to implement.

What do the Colong Foundation for Wilderness and other environment groups plan to do about this?

The Colong Foundation for Wilderness and the Wilderness Society in NSW are already working towards a marginal electorate strategy, by informing voters in NSW of these decisions by the Fahey government to reject proper wilderness protection in NSW.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.