SMH EDITORIAL 22 Feb 2001
Kosciuszko for all
There is a fundamental and
disturbing flaw in the report commissioned on the recommendation
of the State Coroner after the Thredbo landslide. The report, by
Mr Bret Walker, SC, deals with questions of future authority and
responsibility in the Kosciuszko National Park. It recommends two
main changes to the powers of the National Parks and Wildlife
Service: to end its road maintenance function and to diminish its
urban planning role.
The first of these changes, to transfer responsibility for the
Alpine Way and the Kosciuszko Road from the NPWS to the Roads and
Traffic Authority, is welcome. It should help meet concerns
arising from the Thredbo landslide about the inadequate
construction and maintenance of the Alpine Way. The Coroner, Mr
Derrick Hand, found that the landslide was triggered when water
from a leaking water main saturated part of the fill embankment
of the Alpine Way. But he also criticised the failure to
construct and maintain the Alpine Way to a sufficient standard.
Mr Walker's recommendation that RTA be made solely responsible
for the roads in the national park should therefore be
uncontroversial. The same cannot be said for Mr Walker's other
main recommendations - that the Department of Urban Affairs and
Planning develop a regional environment plan covering all
Kosciuszko ski resorts and that the Minister for Urban Affairs
and Planning become the consent authority for future major
developments exceeding $2 million. These will be controversial,
not because the changes would reduce the role of the NPWS by
restricting its planning powers to minor developments in the
villages, but for more fundamental reasons.
In his report Mr Walker notes, correctly, that the terms of
reference of his inquiry did not include consideration of the
"radical and highly controversial expedient of removing ski
resort villages from KNP". And, in announcing Mr Walker's
review on Tuesday, the Environment Minister, Mr Debus, emphasised
that the first recommendation was "to retain the ski resorts
within Kosciuszko National Park, under the management of the
National Parks and Wildlife Service". Of course, there was
never any thought that the removal of ski resort villages was an
option. But the future development of existing resorts and the
possible construction of new resorts is very much a live issue.
Mr Walker says he has "taken account of the scope for
tension between conservation values, which are primary in the
mission of the NPWS, and commercial development, which also
involves some measure of trade-off against the conservation of
wilderness or other sensitive land". But in recommending a
new balance of power and responsibilities for Kosciuszko National
Park he has proposed an arrangement which many will see as
ignoring the possibility of restricting future development and
instead favouring further commercial development.
His proposal to have the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning
become the consent authority for future major developments does
not make clear whether Mr Walker has in mind major upgrading and
redevelopment of existing facilities or completely new
facilities. That will concern those who fear that Kosciuszko
National Park will suffer from any significant new development.
Mr Walker says that putting future planning and development under
the Parts 3 and 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act will make the process "subject to the merits appeal and
judicial review jurisdiction of the Land and Environment
Court". He adds that in his opinion "the thorough
accountability brought to planning decisions by this means should
go a long way to allaying the concerns expressed to this inquiry
by persons disgruntled about particular planning decisions".
What does Mr Walker means by this? He surely cannot be seriously
suggesting that those with environmental concerns will be
reassured by seeing the future of the national park placed in the
hands of the Land and Environment Court. The court has become an
embarrassment. It is widely seen as ineffective as an arbiter
between commercial interests and those who might oppose them on
environmental grounds. Too often, determined developers with the
resources to exhaust those who oppose them in proceedings before
it will win in this court, often seemingly regardless of the
merits.