Hansard debates

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:28): I rise today to speak in opposition to the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I will speak primarily to the contentious clause in the legislation, clause 49, which removes the prohibition on camping on licensed waterfrontages. I have received an enormous amount of correspondence from constituents who are deeply concerned about this provision, many of whom are farmers who have licensed Crown land waterfrontages for agricultural purposes. Their objections are well founded and indicative of the government’s failure to properly consult rural communities or the agricultural sector on this legislation.

Throughout my time in the Parliament, I have continuously advocated for the opening of state forests and Crown land, and the fact that many camping parks right now are being restricted over this forthcoming Christmas period to many regular campers due to COVID fear is a tragedy in itself. I reminded the house in March this year that public spaces belong to all Victorians, not Parks Victoria, not the government and not the Premier. Where possible we must always ensure that Crown land is accessible to all Victorians. The current Land Act 1958 provides that and appropriately balances it with the needs of farmers, whose properties often border or encompass this land.

Section 401A of the Land Act 1958 provides that on licensed waterfrontages, and I quote:

Any person may, subject to and in accordance with any regulations made for the purposes of this section, enter and remain for recreational purposes on a water frontage … but no person shall camp thereon.

Of course fishers and walkers should be allowed to access licensed waterfrontages for recreational purposes, and the fencing off of these areas by farmers is a repudiation of the licence itself. If they want or need exclusive access, they should obtain a lease of the Crown land rather than a licence. However, removing the prohibition on camping under section 401A, as clause 49 of the bill does, will not solve any of these issues.

Illegally fenced off waterfrontages will not suddenly become open to the public because camping becomes permitted. Instead, law-abiding—which is the vast majority—agricultural enterprises that have licensed these waterfrontages will be substantially burdened by the consequences of camping. As Annetta Paterson of Tongio wrote to me:

I have always been perfectly happy for fishers and walkers to access the river frontage adjacent to my property … and they have always done so without hindrance, however, camping as an entirely different matter?

She went on:

Fishers and walkers pass through quietly and peacefully and by the end of the day they have gone home and the river and surrounds is left to the wildlife, which in large part being nocturnal, can then feed and live their normal lives. The presence of campers will disrupt this.

I agree with Annetta and many others who express the same concerns. Camping has innumerable implications for the wildlife, amenity and environment of the affected land. Camping would lead to camp fires, human waste due to the obvious lack of toilet facilities and rubbish being left behind on the land. This would significantly burden farmers who may have licensed a considerable land mass on waterfrontages but have no enforcement mechanism to ensure campers clean up their own mess.

Camping also poses other risks, because it entails people staying in the area for the duration; a greater chance of trespassing on the land that farmers own, rather than just the licensed area; unrestrained pets chasing and killing livestock; theft of firewood; hooning of off-road vehicles, which can damage agricultural land; illegal fishing or swimming in nearby private dams; and illegal shooting on farmers’ properties. As Belinda Fraser wrote to me:

Much of this happens illegally now, What recourse will land managers have with unknown (or known) campers??

She noted:

There is no way that unknown, poorly regulated campers will be able to resist the temptation to curb their desires to gather, damage, fell, burn, take, remove, light, drive in and on in the absence of considerable monitoring on both licensed crown frontage and adjacent private property.

This is the unfortunate experience of many farmers, which has led to the illegal fencing off of licensed Crown land with signs wrongly claiming it is private property. The legal nuances of a licence versus a lease aside, the farmers that have licensed these waterfrontages manage and use the property for most of the year, raising stock, reducing fuel loads and managing vegetation. To them it is their property because they care for the land and they manage it, often at substantial cost. Mrs Margaret Hansford, who owns a property in north-east Victoria near Omeo, wrote and explained:

With our neighbour and with assistance from a grant from the NE Catchment Management Authority we recently spent approximately $25,000 (over half of this our own funds) fencing the creek frontage to protect it from the grazing animals and revegetating in the area. I am really concerned that this effort will be wasted.

There is also the issue, as I alluded to before, of trespassing on private land. As Alice Colclough, a dairy farmer in north-east Victoria, explained in correspondence to all members of this house:

There is no line on the ground for campers to know where the licensed crown frontage and adjacent private land interface is.

Allowing camping on licensed Crown land makes trespass an inevitability. Farmers should not be further burdened with the cost of having to clearly mark where the licensed land ends and the private land begins.

Even campers themselves see this legislation as plainly problematic. Martha Curry, from Ocean Grove in my electorate, wrote:

I am a camper and a responsible one, but I can see that the burden of policing actions of the broader community in a primitive camping situation where the campers would have to provide all their resources and sanitation will just not work. By all means open these areas to day use, but having people stay at length is a very dangerous situation for the lessee, the environment and the campers themselves.

The state government has ample avenues through which they can enable more camping for fishers, hunters and tourists. As Stewart Day, vice-president of Greta Valley Landcare Group, wrote to all of us:

There are 250 managed camping sites in Victoria’s state forests available for the public to use. 3.1 million hectares of state forest open to the public, and all this land can be used for camping by the public …

Finally, I would like to quote and echo the words of the Victorian Farmers Federation president, David Jochinke, who told the Stock & Land:

Farming land is invaluable and needs to stay just that, not be transformed into a camping spot for some campers who may have little—or even no—knowledge of farms or agriculture.

I would add that biodiversity in this space is also a major issue. I agree totally with David Jochinke.

These changes to the Land Act will only burden farmers and create innumerable unforeseen problems. This legislation, without amendment, is totally unacceptable to farmers, environmentalists and any sensible person who can easily see the problems associated with allowing camping on river areas without protection for the area, livestock and wildlife and without provision for the obvious needs of campers.

I know the opposition will be moving an amendment, and I urge the crossbench to support the opposition’s amendment—even the government should support it. I think we will be moving that it be referred to a committee. But also there may be an amendment which will require campers to obtain permission from the licensee.

There are solutions to this issue, and they should all be investigated. I think it is vitally important that we understand the needs of farmers, who manage this land so diligently. We need to work closely with the agricultural community to ensure we get the right outcome and not rush something like this through with these obvious repercussions.