SMH 25-1-00

The purported 'secret plan' for National Parks in NSW is centrally flawed when the reported new definition of a national park (SMH, 24-1-2000, p.4) omits any reference to what should be its main purpose: the preservation of at least some remnants of biodiversity in Australia.

It is true that the current National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) prescribes no specific obligations for managing protected areas for landscape conservation, let alone biodiversity.

But one would have expected that some awareness of the real issues on this planet might since have percolated even into the brains of at least some of our politicians. Excuse my ignorance - as a superannuated former foreign journalist and NSW resident of nearly 30 years - but where did Mr Carr obtain his badge of 'environmental Premier'?

The prevailing almost pathological enthusiasm for all things tourismy was ably conveyed to a so-called Citizens' Jury on Managing National Parks in Canberra last October 5-7 by Mr Grant Jay of the University of Canberra's Centre for Tourism and Leisure Policy Research. Noting that "the environment is the core product of tourism, particularly in Australia", this 'expert witness' told the 13 'jurors' that between 27 and 32 million visitors could be expected to flock to NSW conservation reserves by 2005. Even Mr Jay conceded that there could be a need to "harden the environment" - presumably by the wide-area application of concrete...

In this context it may be worth pointing out that both weed competition and road works rank equally as a "present and future threat" to 57 endangered native species each, according to evidence provided by another 'expert witness', the CSIRO's Dr. Richard Groves.

The intriguing Canberra conclave - a promised draft final report of which has so far failed to reach at least this 'juror' for comments - was funded by a "Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation", was conducted by a team of ANU researchers and was ostensibly "aimed at exploring methods of public involvement in making decisions about the environment".

To this innately sceptical participant, at least one of its unstated aims appeared to be something of a market research 'focus group' probing just what type of changes to the NSWPWS might 'fly' with the public of this state. The leaked cabinet submission now reported by SMH Environment Writer James Woodford only seems to confirm this view.

Without pre-empting any possible scientific denouement that might yet appear, one could crudely sum up the outcome of the Canberra Citizens' Jury as confirming (10 to 3) the general apathy towards the needs of national parks. As an afterthought, the jury agreed there just might be some justification in striking some kind of a general levy to help with the upkeep of the about five million hectares in the state's 479 parks and reserves.

NB: My wife and I had been considering for some time entrusting 'our' piece of mid-north coastal bushland - some 20ha that are home to at least 25 species of birds, from black cockatoos and frog-mouthed owls to swamp pheasants and scarlet honey-eaters, to name but the airborne inhabitants - to the NSWPS for safe-keeping. With the latest revelations from Macquarie St, we are no longer sure that this is such a good idea...