Dear Mr Debus,

Thank you for your letter of 1.9.00 replying to mine of 31.7.00 and mine to the Premier, on the matter of vehicle driving on beaches. I have re-read your letter, and also that from the Premier (26.7.00), and have concluded that a further letter is warranted ...

You assure me that, "the NPWS will … ensure that threats to conservation values are minimised." NPA will always place conservation first. A gathering of research results may well present evidence strong enough to warrant a general ban of vehicles, at least on national park and nature reserve beaches. There is no doubt, even now, that vehicles cause serious disturbance to shore birds and can ... threaten their nests, eggs and fledglings. The often illegal use of vehicles can also threaten the integrity of the backshores and dunes and their vegetation.

However, at the present time, our concern is centred mainly on the social impact of vehicles on beaches ... We who wish to use the national parks in non-intrusive, low-impact ways are disadvantaged by the presence and activities of vehicles. Our experience of this special and precious natural environment is spoiled by them.

I understand where you and the Premier are coming from: you see the need to satisfy all interests, thus avoiding the alienation of vocal interest groups. As a matter of democratic principle, this seems fair enough, at least from the standpoint of vehicle drivers. But how about the passive beach users? The same principle does not seem to be applied to interest groups concerned with preserving one of the last havens from mechanised intrusion. NPA, with probably the strongest concern of all for national parks and their management, is far from happy about this apparent lack of consideration of its concerns ... whilst the wishes of high-impact groups are gratified.

In matters of dispute between low-impact and high-impact users of national parks, it seems reasonable and in conformity with the principles of best management that low-impact use should be given preference, yet the reverse seems to be the case here in NSW. (Beach driving is not permitted in Victoria.)

Have you considered the effect the policy of catering for all interests, whether appropriate or otherwise, in national parks has upon the authority of the NPWS? I venture to suggest that public respect for that body, given the chance to manage national parks as national parks, not as free-for-all playgrounds, would increase, and that a major complication would be removed from its harried existence. It requires only a degree of firmness on the part of the Government to enable the Service to do the job required of it by the international concept of what a national park is ...

The Premier, in his letter, promises to maintain the Government’s "commitment to conserving the natural and cultural resources of NSW". I believe this is a sincere commitment, as witness the dramatic increase in the NPWS Estate and the much-repeated statement of dedication to the conservation of biodiversity and cultural heritage. But "cultural resources" should include our beaches, the traditional use of which has long been an important part of our way of life. This use does not include using our beaches as roads, a comparatively recent phenomenon. NPA policy remains opposed to motor vehicles being driven on any beach.

Of course I realise that we are dealing with what has become an entrenched use. I realise that, as we have both pointed out, not all beaches associated with the NPWS Estate are within that estate. I appreciate that senior-level discussions are taking place between NPWS and Fisheries, "to progress the reservation of intertidal zones". This is good, but should not have been necessary, given the unequivocal pre-election commitment to reserving the whole of the ITZ adjacent to the NPWS Estate as part of that estate, an undertaking which we still urge this Government to implement, even if compromise is considered necessary elsewhere.

Alan Catford is 
Convenor of the NPA Park Management Committee..