Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.


Further implications

The need to balance potentially conflicting objectives has long been a feature of Victoria's national park management goals and the strategies intended to give them effect.
As early as 1991, the then state government noted that it had developed 'three major strategies - the Conservation Strategy, the Economic Strategy and the Social Justice Strategy - to help achieve the interrelated major goals of environmental conservation, economic development and social justice.' That is, the government was seeking to retain the conservation values of Victoria's national parks in line with their role in preserving unique flora and fauna and environmentally and culturally significant landscapes. The government was also seeking to achieve some economic advantage to the state through the exploitation of its national parks and, finally, it was seeking to achieve a social justice outcome by facilitating access to these parks for as wide-ranging a group of Victorians as possible.
In the twenty-two years since this statement was made the competing objectives have not altered and the challenge has remained to strike a balance between them.
The guidelines under which private development will now be allowed in Victoria's national parks refer to the need to demonstrate 'a net public benefit for the community use of the park'. The problem becomes determining what 'a net public benefit' is. Does the provision of top-end accommodation, a restaurant or a golf course constitute 'a net public benefit'? Certainly there would be members of the public who would benefit from such facilities. However, does their enjoyment of the park come at the cost of those who believe that the very purpose of a national park is to provide visitors with a less commercialised experience? There are those who have argued that certain types of land use are not compatible and thus that if one element is allowed it will be at the expense of another.
Dr Kevin Tolhurst, an expert witness at the Royal Commission into the Black Saturday bushfires, has stated, 'We need to come to a clear decision as to why we have national parks, and how much we expect to be able to develop those areas to improve our economic return...'
It would appear that the current Victorian government has made a decision that gives greater importance than has previously been the case to gaining an economic return from the state's parks.
This change of emphasis is in line with the Victorian government's attempts to allow cattle to graze in the Alpine National Park and to grant prospectors' licences within the parks. It can also be seen as in accord with the government's decision to extend the Victorian duck season to three months and to give provisional licences to young shooters and to foreign national tourists who have not passed a duck recognition test.
There are those who argue that all these developments represent a desire to exploit the state's environmental resources for economic advantage.
It will be interesting to see whether this change in emphasis is endorsed at the next state election. If it is not, some of the changes may prove difficult to undo.
Concern has been expressed that the developments allowed under the new regulations will have irreversible effects on Victoria's national parks, impacting on their unspoilt nature. Of particular concern is the fact that those private individuals or corporations that win approval to develop accommodation or other facilities within the parks will be granted 99 year leases on the areas they develop.