Transcript of media conference with Tom Allen, Campaign Manager Wilderness Society lutruwita, Parliament Lawns, Hobart, 1 June 2021.

Tom Allen

So here we are. Seven years after the parks privatisation push began in Tasmania, we now have a tourism master plan. Yesterday we saw a national Roy Morgan poll released that showed overwhelmingly strong support across the political spectrum of people for wanting to protect wilderness and opposing parks privatisation. Today, we have a tourism master plan that looks pretty, is full of warm and fluffy statements, and is completely divorced from reality. In reality, this tourism master plan is little more than lipstick on the parks privatisation pig.

When you read it, is so divorced from reality. Some of the statements in there are downright surreal. For example, all the way through it talks up Aboriginal values. And yet the Aboriginal community, the palawa people, have been routinely ignored by state governments on Lake Malbena, including the Aboriginal land Council of Tasmania, as well as the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council and the Australian Heritage Council, all ignored on Lake Malbena. The plan talks up wilderness values all the way through, and yet, there are now two wilderness impact assessments, one from the Parks and Wildlife Service, both showing that if Lake Malbena proceeds, it would degrade about 5000 hectares of wilderness, the world’s highest rated World Heritage wilderness.

The plan also talks up regional communities and yet is regional communities who are opposing the parks privatisation push. When Central Highlands council rejected the Lake Malbena proposal, the government joined with the proponent to seek to overrule the local council’s decision. That’s what it thinks of local communities.

The tourism master plan talks about the importance of tranquillity, it says everywhere else is getting noisier. Therefore tranquillity within the World Heritage Area is even more important. It says that next to a photograph of a helicopter. It’s surreal. The government is the loudest supporter of helicopter tourism in the World Heritage Area.

The tourism master plan talks about the importance of self-reliant tourism in the self-reliant recreation zone. That’s the self-reliant recreation zone that was secretly changed from wilderness to self-reliant recreation zone to allow for the Lake Malbena proposal, which is a luxury tourism proposal, nothing to do with self-reliant tourism. It’s surreal. It’s divorced from reality.

What the government needs to do, if it’s serious about Tasmania being a global eco-tourism destination – something we welcome and support – it needs to stop privatising national parks and it needs to start listening to and working with local communities. The government also needs to stop subordinating conservation to tourism; that creates a downward spiral. Instead, what the government could do is get serious about conservation. That will carry tourism and everything else. That creates a rising tide, and that’s really the win-win that brand Tasmania is about. And really the essence of brand Tasmania, if we’re serious about it, is the ecological integrity. Taking conservation seriously with tourism is a way to realise the essence of brand Tasmania.

Journalist – Alexandra Humphries

It seems like what you’re saying is that essentially we’ve been waiting about seven years for a report that doesn’t go anywhere near far enough for what we should be seeing in terms of regulation?

Tom Allen

Well, that’s correct. And let’s not forget, there was a number of conservation and environment groups that boycotted the consultation process for this plan, not least because instead of pausing tourist development in national parks in the World Heritage Area, the government, you know, proceeded with the parks privatisation push while consulting on the tourism master plan; it’s completely back to front. The second issue groups (why) boycotted the process is because the government routinely ignores the consultation process anyway. It’s more about box ticking than actually collaborating with local communities as the Lake Malbena proposal shows.

Journalist – Alexandra Humphries

Is this tourism master plan exercise about box ticking rather than really planning out the future?

Tom Allen

This tourism master plan could have been an opportunity to really leverage the ecological integrity of brand Tasmania. It could have been far more serious about conservation, working with tourism; that’s how you create a rising tide that carries tourism and the rest of the state. But instead, increasingly it’s hard not to view this tourism master plan as an exercise in marketing, and little else. Brand Tasmania, such that it is, is increasingly becoming something that’s more about marketing than ecological integrity.

Journalist – Alexandra Humphries

It does talk about the need to develop an aircraft strategy. What do you make of that?

Tom Allen

Yeah, it does talk about the need to develop an aircraft strategy. Meanwhile, the government is actively supporting at least one maybe more helicopter tourism proposals in the World Heritage Area, which is kind of back to front. It talks about a lot of things in the master plan. It talks about working with Aboriginal community, but land justice, and land returns to the first peoples of the island, fundamentally, that’s what we’ve got to have, if you’re serious about really reconciling, and this is Reconciliation Week. But, you know, it seems more about marketing Aboriginal cultural heritage values, rather than seriously engaging with the Aboriginal community. So the master plan says a lot, it looks pretty, but you know, is divorced from reality, because it talks up wilderness values, World Heritage values, natural values, Aboriginal cultural heritage values. Meanwhile it’s privatising, we’re seeing the privatisation of national parks, which is excluding Aboriginal people and the rest of the community

Journalist – Alexandra Humphries

(inaudible)

Tom Allen

I think if you’re going to look at the full picture of developments in national parks, you need to obviously, to put conservation values and natural values front and centre. You need to listen and collaborate with the Aboriginal community, with local communities. But the Lake Malbena farrago has shown that the government is not serious about doing those fully-rounded environmental impact assessments. Yes, it sounds good. But again, it’s divorced from reality. This could have been an opportunity to really put Tasmania closer to the island being a global ecotourism destination. But it’s hard to see more than just marketing brand Tasmania, and that’s why we’ve called it lipstick on the parks privatisation pig.

Tasmanian Times

Do you see any parallels between what tourism is becoming – like the classic extractive industries in Tasmania, the mining and forestry and salmon farming, increasingly, they’re big, corporatised and destructive- is that the model now for tourism in Tasmania?

Tom Allen

Well, I’d say there’s there’s real similarities between the good aspects of tourism, the good aspects of forestry, and the good aspects of some other kind of industries, compared to the downsides. And so we’re seeing with big salmon, big tourism, big logging, they all depend on secrecy, on public land handouts, on weak regulation, and on planning exemptions. And yet, in all those cases, there are all upsides to those industries. There’s genuinely sustainable tourism in this state. There’s genuinely sustainable forestry in this state. There’s genuinely the possibility of sustainable agriculture in this state. All those upsides, if we’re serious about brand Tasmania, are things that the government should really be far more serious about. Instead, we’re still messing around with the downsides of those extractive industries. And, you know, what does that mean for brand Tasmania?

TAS GOVT: TWWHA Tourism Master Plan.

WILDERNESS GUIDES ASSOCIATION: Wilderness Guides Respond to Tourism Master Plan.