The Theft of Public Land for the Profit of a Few

2.7K

On August 26, 2024, Victorian Labor Premier Jacinta Allen attended the Herald Sun ‘Bush Summit’ in Bendigo. Clearly feeling the pressure from recent widespread community protests against the establishment of the proposed extensive High Country ‘Great Forest National Park’, the Premier proudly made the following statement to the assembled audience, and on national television:

“I want to be very clear as Premier, and as a proud country Victorian, I won’t be putting a padlock on our public forests – it’s not who I am, it’s not what I believe in.”¹

It immediately appeared that the Premier was being, at best, disingenuous, and certainly not believable. Subsequent events less than three months later proved this assumption correct. In early November the Government (through Parks Victoria) announced the ‘locking up’ of over half of the internationally famous Mt Arapiles rock climbing site. This follows on from earlier 2019 bans on 80% of rock climbing in the Grampians National Park on the basis of ‘threats to cultural heritage’. One climbing group notes:

“The recent announcements lock in a ban of 63% of Arapiles rock climbing routes on day 1, and moves to apermanent ban of more than 54% of the rock climbing routes … these banned areas consist of the greatest loss to the rock climbing global community ever recorded.”²

Further advice from Members of Parliament suggests that the Victorian Government, after the Covid-19 hiatus of 2020-22, intends to create new National Parks in the Wombat State Forest, Lerderderg and Mt Buangor areas of Central West Victoria, along with additions to already existing National Parks, ³ before the end of 2024.

In additon, as shown in Figure 1 below, the Government is pressing ahead with its ‘investigations’ into the creation of both the proposed High Country ‘Great Forest National Park’ and a further massive extension of National Parks, State Parks, Reserves and Conservation Areas covering much of the entire area of East Gippsland. It appears the obsession for creating an ever increasing number of new National Parks is never ending.

Once gazetted as National Parks, this land will be locked up in perpetuity, denying existing users access and opportunities to enjoy the bush as they have done for decades earlier. Large areas become ‘out of bounds’, tracks are closed, activities restricted or outlawed and free camping areas bulldozed and blocked by boulders.

Activities typically prevented or severely curtailed by the creation of new parks include four wheel driving, trail bike riding, horse riding, prospecting, hunting, fishing, open campfires, dog walking, firewood collection, and rock climbing. Even ‘bushwalking’ is restricted to the designated and approved ‘legal’ tracks. Rather than free-camping in a site of one’s choice, campers are herded into small designated campsites which must be pre-booked and paid for on-line, creating a great deal of anxiety for recreationalists. So much for the freedom of the bush! Indeed, apart from camping in one’s allotted small site, what is there left to do except go for short walks, without your dog!

These restrictions are also very discriminatory towards disabled and elderly people. Track closures mean they are unable to get to many significant areas because of the long walking distances that are now required.

And yet no credible evidence has ever been presented that changing the name of a State forest to a National Park provides any appreciable conservation benefits to that area. Instead, the widely derided ‘lock it up and leave it’ approach simply means that many recreational users – tax-paying citizens of the State of Victoria – are locked out of what was once their public land and are no longer permitted unfettered access to these new parks. This now overgrown and weed infested unmanaged and unvisited landscape becomes a massive fire hazard just waiting to burn.

Figure 1: The area of the affected Wombat/Lerderderg/Mt Buangor proposed parks is shown in pink, the proposed ‘Great Forest National Park’ is shown in red, and the current East Gippsland investigation area is shown in orange. ⁴

State forests are already free and anyone can go and enjoy them at any time. Yet proponents for more parks inevitably claim numerous benefits derived from converting free forests into controlled parks. However, it’s illogical to claim that by locking up a currently free area, more people will go there when it’s clearly shown that the opposite is the case. The same is true for the claimed economic benefits, ‘more people = better for businesses’ but again, this is demonstrably untrue; it’s not what happens. Fewer visitors mean businesses collapse, hence the cry from the Natimuk community that the Arapiles climbing bans will destroy their town.⁵

Of greater concern is the clear inability of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA), (often deridingly referred to as the ‘Department of Constant Name Changes’) and Parks Victoria (PV) to manage what they already have in their care. The last forty-four years has seen the removal of local forestry and road crews, the practical expertise of country people replaced by inexperienced university bureaucrats, prohibitions on private land management, a continued reduction in field staff funding, more lock-outs with closed gates and seasonal road closures (posing as ‘management’) many of which become permanent, free camping areas disappearing, replaced by ‘on-line booking’ systems for cramped allocated spaces, ever-expanding and uncontrolled weeds and feral pests and an explosion in the numbers of office based bureaucrats to the detriment of field staff.

In June 2024 Nationals MP Melina Bath asked Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos for the employment statistics for both DEECA and PV. Minister Dimopoulos reported that as of the 18th of June 2024 DEECA had 6,405 employees, with 5,559 being office staff (87%) and 846 being field staff (13%).⁶ Yet in September 2024 the Allen government announced that 400 DEECA staff based in regional Victoria would be sacked, most of whom will likely be field staff. Indeed, DEECA should immediately re-assign half of the 5,559 office staff to work in the bush, but apparently no-one wants to do that any more – it’s too much like hard work!

At the same time, Minister Dimopoulos reported that Parks Victoria had 1,265 employees, with 739 being office staff (58%) and 526 being field staff (42%).⁶ Yet in October 2024 the Allen government announced that it would be slashing $95 million from the PV budget and sacking 100 staff (now delayed until 2025), all the while looking at adding a further 440,000 hectares to the National Parks estate. ⁶ It seems obvious that parks and forests will continue to be neglected and mismanaged well into the future. Clearly, there are way too many ‘suits in offices’ and nowhere near enough ‘boots on the ground’. In a situation such as this, to create even more parks is simply absurd.

Despite the above inconvenient funding and staffing truths, the government persists with the creation of more parks. There are now three government quangos⁷ (in essence government organisations giving the illusion of independence without actually being independent) working towards more land assessments with the intention of more control and restrictions over what is currently public land.

To achieve its aims the Victorian government’s three allegedly objective and impartial ‘investigative panels’ are to consider the issues involved, but these panels are anything but impartial. They include the Victorian Environment Assessment Council (VEAC) which claims to be an independent organisation conducting objective ‘scientific’ assessments, but this of course is not true. VEAC is merely a government agency that has for decades been responsible for biased and inaccurate ‘assessments’ to provide ‘evidence’ to confirm the government’s intentions and policies. VEAC should have been disbanded years ago.

Then comes the recently established so-called ‘Eminent Panel for Community Engagement’ (EPfCE) made up of five bureaucrats, three of whom are there to represent ‘Aboriginal interests’.⁸ Whoever named this panel as ‘eminent’ has no idea what the word means. Indeed, the use of the word is an affront to people who actually are ‘eminent’ in this field. The EPfCE is essentially doing an investigation into the future of the Central Highlands region now that the logging industry has been eliminated.

“The EPfCE panel will consider:

• the future use of State forests in eastern Victoria, including Immediate Protection Areas in [the] Central Highlands;
• land classification of State forest;
• permissible uses in those areas;
• findings of scientific assessments of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council;
• opportunities for the management of public land by Traditional Owners and [for] managing cultural values;
• environmental protections, including protecting habitat and for biodiversity;
• the potential for [Aboriginal] cultural overlays.” ⁸

The above list heralds numerous red flags of which citizens should be gravely concerned. The Panel’s final report was originally due by July 31, 2024; however, due to widespread protests about the panel’s poor community consultations, more consultations are to be held, with the final report now due in May, 2025.

What must be noted in all of the Victorian Government’s propaganda about the Eminent Panel and its concern for ‘cultural values’ is that it’s all based on deception. This process has little to do with the environment, Aboriginal ‘culture’ or land conservation; its real agenda is about the transfer of ownership and control of public (Crown) land to Aboriginal organisations.

Then there’s the recently created ‘Great Outdoors Taskforce’ (GOT), allocated $11 million for its activities which include:

• consideration of opportunities to protect the environment and support recreational, social and commercial opportunities;
• opportunities for Traditional Owner management;
• identifying areas of state forest where some decisions can be made now, and;
• advising on where more partnership and engagement work needs to be done.⁹

The GOT will be working in partnership with VEAC and the EPfCE essentially doing an ‘investigation’ into the future of the forests in East and Far East Gippsland.

One must wonder at the duplication between these three entities and the enormous cost of them to the taxpayer, all in an effort to justify what is clearly a pre-determined Government policy, plan and outcome. All of the above quangos are Government funded, they are all stacked with vested interest and pro-park ‘environmentalists’, and they all seem to have precious little interest in the wishes of the wider community or of the effect more parks will have on current users or local businesses. It should also be noted that there is never any government funding provided for community groups opposed to what the government is attempting to do. Worse still, in years gone by, some community groups have been ‘bought off’ with promises of government grants in exchange for their silence on controversial ‘environmental’ matters.

It’s clear that the Victorian Labor government, in its obsession with all things ‘Aboriginal’, wants to transfer ownership and management of all public (Crown) land and all National and State Parks to people who identify as ‘Aborigines’ (who are in fact no different to any of the rest of us) and their now massively wealthy publicly-funded elitist and race-based private Aboriginal corporations. The Victorian Government is in the process of re-writing the Public Lands Act, the Forests Act and amending the National Parks Act, amongst other Acts as well. It’s clear the Government intends that all public (Crown) land, National and State Parks will disappear and become land held under freehold ‘Aboriginal Title’ in the hands of essentially private ‘Aboriginal’ corporations.

But it gets much worse. This is the forerunner to a much more insidious and greater agenda. To understand this, we must consider the current ‘presumptive use’ of public (Crown) land. Currently, State forests in Victoria are open to all people. Citizens are free to visit a State forest and do whatever they please, as long as they do not indulge in clearly illegal activities. There is great freedom for everyone in this historic and traditional use of public (Crown) land. However, the Victorian Government seeks to eliminate this long-standing right.

By changing a number of Acts of Parliament (as currently underway) and introducing new ‘rights’ for Aboriginal organisations (currently also being justified and enabled through the Yoorrook Justice Commission) the Victorian Government intends to move from ‘presumptive use’ to ‘permissive use’. In effect, that means that public (Crown) land will disappear and, in the main, be handed over to ‘Aboriginal’ corporations in ‘Aboriginal (freehold) Title’. This has been happening in Victoria for some years, although most people are completely unaware of it. For example, the Taungurung Land and Waters Council (TLaWC) has already been given ‘Aboriginal (freehold) Title’ over the Lake Eildon National Park and the Cathedral Range State Park, amongst many others (see below).

As ‘Aboriginal (freehold) Title’ land, presumptive use is eliminated. Australian citizens will now need the ‘permission’ of the new landowners (Aboriginal corporations) to access these lands. In addition, the new ‘owners’ will be able to charge fees for access and dictate any terms and conditions they like for anyone to access ‘their’ land. This includes restricting access to certain areas and prohibiting certain activities on ‘their’ land, including photography! The freedoms we now all enjoy and share on public (Crown) land will be gone! However, as the landowners, they will be free to do whatever they like on ‘their’ land.

By way of example, currently anyone can go into a State forest (public Crown land) and have a picnic. Under ‘Aboriginal (freehold) Title’ that will no longer be possible. To go and have a picnic on what will become ‘Aboriginal land’ you will need to get their permission. Look at what is happening with the Taungurung Land and Waters’ Corporation (with only about 3,500 members):

On 26 October 2018 the Victorian Government, the Taungurung Land and Waters Council Aboriginal Corporation (TLaWCAC), and the Taungurung Traditional Owner group signed a suite of agreements under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic), and related legislation.

“The following areas will be granted to the TLaWCAC as Aboriginal title:

• Alpine National Park (the part of the Park situated within the Taungurung Agreement Area)
• Heathcote-Graytown National Park
• Kinglake National Park (the part of the Park situated within the Taungurung Agreement Area)
• Lake Eildon National Park
• Mt Buffalo National Park
• Mt Samaria State Park
• Cathedral Range State Park
• Wandong Regional Park
• Mount Wombat-Garden Range Flora and Fauna Reserve.

The TLaWCAC will have the option of being granted any or all of the following surplus public land properties:

• A former DELWP depot at 23 Nihil Street, Alexandra
• A former DELWP office at 44-46 Aitken Street, Alexandra
• A former DELWP office at 30-32 Pinniger St, Broadford
• A former police station and residence at 14 Hurley St, Woods Point
• Two allotments at 533 Zanelli Road, Nagambie.

The value of any properties not granted to TLaWCAC will be provided to the corporation.”¹⁰

All of these land and property grants have now taken place. Many public National, State and Regional Parks are no longer owned by the public (ie: are no longer Crown land), and are now owned by what are in essence ‘private Aboriginal corporations’ to benefit their members (and supposedly the public). The same is true of the above-listed properties, which, if genuinely surplus to requirements, should have been sold at public auction, with the funds raised returned to the State. There was no reason whatsoever to generously ‘gift’ them to a private Aboriginal organisation for their exclusive use. The same has happened with the Dja Dja Wurrung in Central Victoria, and is happening right across the State, yet the public is not being told anything about it, or given any opportunity to object! Why has this happened, and in secret as well?

By 2020 the Taungurung Land and Waters’ Corporation had received over $75 million dollars in Victorian State Government Grants and gifts. What is occurring is clearly contrary to both State and Federal ‘anti-discrimination’ legislation, yet no-one is challenging it. It is also of great concern that these well-funded ‘corporations’ now represent a very real challenge and threat to the work and authority of local Councils and Shires. Indeed, it is entirely possible that these corporations are slated to one day displace and supplant local Councils and Shires.

Despite the 60-40 ‘NO’ vote in the 2023 ‘Voice’ Referendum, Federal, State and Territory Governments are pushing ahead with their rapidly accelerating ‘Aboriginalisation’ of Australia. One element of many is that in 2009 then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed Australia up to the ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’¹¹ (UNDRIP – co-authored by Labor’s Senator Pat Dodson). This irrational document, which if implemented in full would divide and bankrupt any country, is instructive as to the madness now gripping Australia today.

It is Article 26 that demonstrates the key to what is now happening Australia-wide:

Article 26:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

This is precisely what the Victorian Government is currently putting into place, and with it, the presumptive right to free access of public (Crown) land will cease to exist. This transfer of public land to ‘Aborigines’ is being done by stealth, bypassing any semblance of democratic process, let alone any public consultation or agreement. Constitutionally, can this even happen? No-one even seems to be asking that question.

During Victorian Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos’s appearance at the Melbourne Yoorrook Justice Commission hearings, The Australian newspaper reported on the 16^th of April, 2024, that Dimopoulos seeks to “reform the state’s public land act to allow for First People’s to have more joint and sole management of land”. ¹² The newspaper quotes the Minister as saying:

“What I accept is the best for conservation is First Peoples-led custodianship over public lands for the benefit of all Victorians … to find as many opportunities for First Peoples-led management of public lands that I can … We are effectively trying to retrofit what is and always should have been traditional owner-led management of country within the constraints of a colonial legislative framework.”¹²

This is of course simply New Age fairytale Gaia mumbo jumbo. So-called ‘First Peoples’ are essentially the same as every other citizen. The people who identify as ‘Aborigines’ often live in the same street, have similar jobs and lead the same lives as everyone else. Their heritage is by and large majority European. More often than not they have no more ‘special connection’ to the land than any other citizen born and raised in Australia. They are not special, and have no greater understanding of ‘country’ than any other person who has lived, worked and studied the land. There is no ‘ooky-spooky’ spiritual dimension to this ‘connection’ to the land. Nevertheless, this new segregation extends to separate and exclusive use of certain areas, including separate camping areas for ‘Aboriginal people only’, and hunting and collection of firewood in National Parks for Aboriginal people only.

It’s important to recognise that the vast array of new Aboriginal organisations are essentially private corporations structured along the lines of any Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) registered company, ie: they are not traditional Aboriginal clan structures. Private Aboriginal corporations already receive millions of dollars in taxpayer funding and have received grants of land and buildings formally owned by the State. In Victoria, private Aboriginal corporations are also set to receive a large percentage of the State’s resources income¹³ and a new ‘Treaty’ is now also on the way, to be determined in private and confidential talks.¹⁴

In summary, private Aboriginal corporations already receive millions of dollars in taxpayer funding; the financial beneficiaries are only people who identify as ‘Aboriginal’ and are members of that private Aboriginal corporation; these arrangements are State and Federally backed, despite the resounding NO to the ‘Voice’ referendum, and the new landowners will be able to implement their own rules and regulations, along with ‘commercial enterprises’ on ‘their’ land, the only caveat over their freehold title being that they are not permitted to sell the land. It is likely that under the current regimes, what was once ‘public land’ will completely disappear and become a thing of the past.

Worse still, the new apartheid of ‘Aboriginal culture’ has already made substantial in-roads into the closure of many areas and significant natural attractions. Climbs are now banned at Ayers Rock (Uluru), Mt Gillen (Alhekulyele at Alice Springs Mparntwe), Mt Warning (Wollumbin, northern NSW), and now of course in the Grampians (Gariwerd) and at Mt Arapiles (Dyurrite). Beaches are also being closed or new fees being charged for access. Many European names are being changed to Aboriginal names, again without consultation or agreement from the population. Fraser Island is now known as K’gari, yet some of these new names are in dispute, even amongst ‘Aborigines’ themselves. Along with the continued demeaning of Australia’s British heritage comes a corresponding rise in the new Aboriginal ‘culture’, much of it invented on the back of western heritage, whilst real Aboriginal culture, much of it heinous in nature, is conveniently expunged from history. The continuing and unabated Aboriginalisation of Australia is becoming disturbingly divisive.

All of the above dovetails neatly into National and International programs for environmental ‘conservation’. In 2022, with apparently little if any consultation or public awareness, the Federal Government signed Australia up to the new ‘Nature Positive Plan’ also referred to as the ‘30 by 30 Program’, described as follows:

The Australian Government has set a national target to protect and conserve 30% of Australia’s landmass and 30% of Australia’s marine areas by 2030 (the ‘30 by 30’ target). This aligns with Target 3 of the ‘Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’ (GBF). In October 2022, Environment Ministers agreed to work together to reach the national 30 by 30 target.¹⁵

It’s worth noting that the ‘30 by 30’ targets are integral to the fraud that is ‘anthropomorphic climate change’. COP28 notes that:

“The 30 x 30 goal serves as a linchpin to enhance both biodiversity and climate change mitigation, offering a comprehensive approach to environmental sustainability”.¹⁶

The ‘30 by 30’ program targets will be achieved by increasing the National Reserve System (NRS) which is Australia’s ‘network of protected land areas’, currently covering more than 22% of Australia’s land mass (over 170 million hectares). To reach the 30% land target, an additional 60 million hectares (for context, Victoria is around 22 million hectares) will need to be added for protection or conservation. In addition to the protected land areas, new networks of Conserved Areas referred to as ‘Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures’ (OECMs) have been established.

The Convention on Biological Diversity defines an OECM as:

A geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in- situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values.There are four criteria for identifying OECM’s:

1. The area is not currently recognized as a protected area;
2. The area is governed and managed;
3. The area achieves sustained and effective contribution to in-situ conservation of biodiversity criterion;
4. Associated ecosystem functions and services and cultural, spiritual, socio-economic and other locally relevant values are conserved and respected.¹⁷ (Underling added)

Note the reference to cultural, spiritual and socio-economic values! The OECM’s will create new ‘offsets and conserved areas’ which can be recognised on private lands, public lands, or over inland waters – note the reference to ‘private lands’! Will OECM’s be voluntary or will they become mandatory?

It’s hard to keep track of all the conservation programs in place and the funding being directed to them, but wait, there’s more. Australia also has what is known as a ‘Nature Repair Market’ which is described as follows:

The Nature Repair Market scheme is a government initiative that incentivises actions to restore and protect the environment. It encourages nature positive land management practices that deliver improved biodiversity outcomes. The scheme establishes a marketplace where individuals and organisations can undertake nature repair projects to generate a tradable certificate.

These projects could include:

• re-establishing vegetation along waterways
• keeping pests and feral species from destroying native species and ecosystems.

Those eligible to take part include:

• First Nations people and organisations
• conservation groups
• farmers.

Biodiversity certificates

Nature Repair Market project participants can apply for a biodiversity certificate which can be sold to generate income. A single certificate could be issued for each project.

Market demand

We’re seeing growing demand for businesses to invest in nature-related projects that deliver environmental benefits. This is part of a widely recognised global trend.

We expect demand for certificates to grow over time and come from several sources, including:

• investment driven by reporting and disclosure requirements such as the ‘Taskforce for Nature Related Financial Disclosures Framework’
• philanthropic, Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) motivated investment
• carbon market participants seeking projects which also benefit nature.

Aligning carbon and biodiversity markets

The Nature Repair Market will allow for alignment with the Australian Carbon Credits Unit (ACCU) Scheme. This will provide opportunities for improved outcomes for nature in both the carbon and biodiversity markets.¹⁸ (Underlining added.)

The ‘Nature Repair Market’ is described as ‘nature repair projects’ that will generate ‘tradable biodiversity certificates’ (akin to ‘carbon credits’) which can be sold to “environmental charities, non-governmental organizations, donors, governments, development banks and private investors”¹⁹ to generate income for the landholder. Participation in the market is restricted to “First Nations people and organisations” [but not ordinary people or organisations], “conservation groups and farmers”. ¹⁹

Biodiversity certificates, or credits “work much like carbon credits, and are generated through conservation and restoration, with each credit assigned a value equivalent to a certain area of land conserved or restored for a given length of time. Private companies can then buy these credits to meet their own biodiversity commitments”.¹⁹

Given that Aboriginal organisations are now landowners of vast tracts (over 56%) of Australia, they stand to make millions of dollars from this scheme; dollars that will be unavailable to the vast majority of other Australians. Private Aboriginal Corporations will run and no doubt benefit from these schemes, as the Government’s own document says:

A new National Environmental Standard for First Nations Engagement and Participation in Decision-Making will be developed as a priority to enable First Nations views and knowledge to be considered in all project approvals and planning decisions under national environmental law.²⁰

The Government claims the ‘Nature Repair Market’ will also “protect, restore and manage native forests, and control pest animals and weeds”.²¹ This remains to be seen, and is in any event highly unlikely, as the cost to ‘control pest animals and weeds’ alone is astronomical. It would seem likely that our public forests are to be ‘monetised’ by climate change carbon credit accumulators for little practical benefit.

Integrated into the National Reserve System sits the Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) program (as shown in Figure 2 below) which was established in 1997. The IPA’s are described as follows:

The areas may comprise land and sea, and are managed by Indigenous groups for the conservation of biodiversity. Managing IPA’s also helps to protect the cultural values of their country for future generations, and has benefits for Indigenous health, education, economic and social cohesion.

As of 2020, there were 78 IPA’s, covering around 46.53% of the National Reserve System. In September 2021, a further seven IPA’s were declared, which will lead to IPA’s comprising more than half of Australia’s National Reserve System. IPA’s are employed in restoring the landscape to its former natural and cultural value.

In May 2022, the incoming Labor government under Anthony Albanese committed to boosting the funding for managing the IPA’s to the tune of A$10 million annually; also to doubling the number of Indigenous rangers to 38,000 by 2030, and also to improving gender diversity in employment.²² (Underlining’s added.)

The IPA’s already comprise more than half of Australia’s National Reserve System and it is unstated what commercial activities (if any) may take place within the IPA’s. It looks as if Victoria’s state forests are set to become part of the National Reserve System or as an IPA, Either way, it’s almost guaranteed that the ordinary citizens of Victoria will no longer have ‘free and unfettered access’ to the State forests that were once theirs to roam.

Figure 2: Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA’s) showing the growing geographical area of Australia being placed under ‘Indigenous Protection’. ²³

Is it possible that in the near future the very concept of ‘public land’ might well disappear forever? Is this the intention? The more State forests that are renamed as National (or other) Parks means the more land that will eventually be handed over in freehold ‘Aboriginal Title’ to private Aboriginal Corporations and thereby lost to the public of Victoria forever. This must not be allowed to happen!

Currently, permission is not required from anyone to access our State forests. All of this could change very soon. Areas may well be placed ‘under conservation’ and have a range of caveats and restrictions placed over them. It was not that long ago that anyone could collect firewood from a State forest, an activity that now can attract “penalties of up to $9,246 or a year in prison”²⁴

But in reality, what has changed in the two decades since firewood collection was permitted in State forests to now being illegal? Arguably not much at all. The real issue was not private collection, but people removing large quantities of firewood for resale to others. Couldn’t that simply have been licensed and regulated rather than a blanket ban on everyone? Even so, the forests have never been threatened with irreparable damage from firewood collectors (as opposed to firestorms, weeds and feral animals) and now most firewood must be sourced from private land, thereby becoming very expensive. Meanwhile, yet another valuable forest resource rots away unused.

And why are so many tracks around Victoria (and Australia) being closed? Arguably, most are unnecessary closures. Again, it would seem to be more ideologically driven than because of real practical concerns. Unfortunately, more closures are due to new Aboriginal ownership and for ‘cultural reasons’, many of which appear to be quite spurious. The closures force more and more people to use fewer and fewer tracks creating congestion and further track wear and tear. Many 4WD tracks are being upgraded to almost 2WD standard, thereby removing the challenge that many adventurers seek. Over-regulation, control and ‘management’ by bureaucrats are all rapidly destroying the bush experience.

Finally, it would appear that the Allen Labor government is worried. Friendly approaches have recently been made to encourage further dialogue (in contrast to the appalling efforts made at ‘consultation’ in early 2024) with VEAC, the EPfCE and the GOT reports no longer due in July 2024, having now been delayed until May 2025. Nevertheless, these delays and postponements are likely designed to dissipate community outrage, weaken responses and distract and divert attention. It’s always been clear that VEAC, the EPfCE and the GOT, along with government socialist politicians and bureaucrats, have no intention of changing any of their longer-term strategy or plans.

Under the guise of ‘conservation’, there are massive Federal and State government programs well underway to lock up both private and public land and to hand most of it over to private Aboriginal corporations, enriching many individuals along the way. Much of the land being sequestered will no longer be productive, and all of this is being funded by the long-suffering taxpayer. When the Allen Labor government finally releases its reports, strong community action will be required in response to whatever determinations they have made.

To summarise, what can be concluded from the Victorian Allen government’s current proposals regarding access to public land and State forests?

1. It should be remembered that State forests are already free and accessible for almost all activities – “State Forests are Great Forests” – no material change is needed and they do not need ‘protecting’. They’ve managed just fine for decades, despite ongoing government neglect. The real enemy of the forests are bushfires, weeds and feral animals, which are not being seriously addressed at all. The creation of more National Parks does not in any way remedy these problems, it simply exacerbates them!
2. The public are constantly being subjected to deceitful campaigns to convince them of the ‘benefits’ of more Parks. How can closing access and removing or restricting currently legal forest activities be of benefit to anyone, or increase visitor numbers? It isn’t and it doesn’t!
3. Real ‘consultation’ appears to be dead in the water. Meaningful public community consultations have not been carried out now for decades.
4. ‘Investigations’ and ‘assessments’ have long been known to be biased, heavily weighted in favour of more parks and reserves, full of obviously erroneous economic assessments, and carried out by partisan contractors.
5. The growing movement by government and bureaucrats towards complete control over public and private land is gathering pace.
6. It is clear that more land is to be locked up and more people kept out of the bush.
7. It is clear there will be increasing ‘Aboriginal’ ownership, management, control and authority over what was once public land.
8. There will now be an increasing horse-trading market with ‘Biodiversity Certificates’ in the international world of Carbon Credits.

What can be done to stem the tide?

1.   We, the people, must take back control.

2.   Contact your local State and Federal MP’s NOW and talk with them about your concerns.

3.   Personal contact is best (make an appointment) and express your displeasure.

4.   Send in an individual hard copy letter, or at least an email letter.

5.   Join your local political party of choice and start to have your say and exert your influence.

6.   Join a community-based activist or lobby group and Get Active!

Remember – If YOU Do Not Speak Up Now – All Of This Will Just Happen!

*        *        *        *        *        *

Sources:

¹ https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/597996602763738

² https://savegrampiansclimbing.org/2024/11/09/arapiles-climbing-bans-the-plan/

³ https://www.veac.vic.gov.au/investigations-assessments/current-investigations/investigation/central-west-investigation

⁴ https://www.forestsandreserves.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/420710/2018_Public-Land-Tenure.pdf

⁵ https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/natimuk-locals-furious-over-rock-climbing-bans-at-worldfamous-mount-arapiles/news-story/2d7a178e19bbc7b43adc92a9d1808da4

⁶ Melina Bath, MP, Personal Communication.

⁷ A ‘quango’ is an organization funded by the government but apparently operating independently. The term is an acronym for ‘quasi non-governmental organization’, yet they are often criticised as being undemocratic and seen as being politically aligned.

⁸ https://www.deeca.vic.gov.au/futureforests/future-forests/eminent-panel-for-community-engagement

⁹ https://www.deeca.vic.gov.au/futureforests/future-forests/great-outdoors-taskforce

¹⁰ https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/taungurung-recognition-and-settlement-agreement

^11.https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

¹² https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/victorian-environment-minister-steve-dimopoulos-idea-for-indigenous-land-management/news-story/1c74c70171596ac0a6b5ce9e7309697f

¹³ https://nit.com.au/14-05-2024/11390/dja-dja-wurrung-traditional-owners-strike-profit-sharing-deal-with-gold-mine

¹⁴  https://www.mailtimes.com.au/story/8820121/treaty-talks-to-start-but-will-need-parliament-tick/?src=rss

¹⁵ https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/land/achieving-30-by-30#:~:text=The%20Australian%20Government%20has%20set,Global%20Biodiversity%20Framework%20(GBF).

¹⁶ https://www.cop28.com/en/thought-leadership/The-30×30-Biodiversity-Goal-at-COP28#:~:text=This%20calls%20for%20the%20conservation,comprehensive%20approach%20to%20environmental%20sustainability

¹⁷ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_effective_area-based_conservation_measures

¹⁸ https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/environmental-markets/nature-repair-market

¹⁹ https://thinklandscape.globallandscapesforum.org/69913/what-are-biodiversity-credits-and-how-do-they-work/#:~:text=Much%20like%20carbon%20credits%2C%20biodiversity,meet%20their%20own%20biodiversity%20commitments

²⁰ https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/nature-positive-plan.pdf p14

²¹ https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/environmental-markets/nature-repair-market/methods-for-the-nature-repair-market

²² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Protected_Area

²³ https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/ipa-national-map.pdf

²⁴ https://www.vic.gov.au/fines-fines-fines-firewood-felons

See also:

Kellow, Aynsley. (2024) The Undemocratic Origins of the Nature Positive Plan. Melbourne, Vic.: Institute of Public Affairs.