Bushwalk Australia

Breaking news from The Mercury: http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... -news.html

Not sure what it means for us or the parks we walk in.

Typical govt policy, fill in a hole by making a hole elsewhere.
Ridiculous & nonsensical.

That is a little concerning.
Still, knowing the mercury I will wait for formal word before I start to get too worried.

Can't be Parks.
Says it will save them "tens of millions". They can't be spending that much on Parks now, so they must be talking about something other than Parks

Can someone translate this to English please?

Ms O' Byrne said the announcement would changes to the administrative costs of the department.

I suppose peering through the foggy media-spin from the Mockery, its pretty obvious that you can't "not manage" the various natural, historical and cultural parts of this state currently under DEPHA - so surely it will mostly be re-absorbed by other departments (Maybe Parks + Enivornment will come back under DPIW... where it was until it became a trendy "tourisim" portfolio a few years back).

Think of all the $$$ that will be saved by the time the department reshuffle has printed off new letterheads, business cards, office signs, uniforms, bumper stickers, publications and the like (not to mention the re-assigning of various contracts and job-titles, office restucturing).... yep sounds like 10's of millions of dollars saved to me :p

Parks is not being abolished - the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts is being abolished.

The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, along with Arts Tasmania, will join the Department of Economic Development and Tourism.
The Parks and Environment divisions will relocate to the Department of Primary Industries and Water (back to where they were previously!).

From a Parks perspective (and I suspect Environment) this is nothing new - they always seem to be in the department that gets shuffled so most of them are used to it.

Ditto Tastrax. As a unit of government it will be business as usual for Parks, only now it reports to the the Department of Primary Industries and Water. It's the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts that Parks sits under that is being slashed.
Cheers
Andrew

tastrax wrote:Parks is not being abolished - the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts is being abolished.

The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, along with Arts Tasmania, will join the Department of Economic Development and Tourism.
The Parks and Environment divisions will relocate to the Department of Primary Industries and Water (back to where they were previously!).

From a Parks perspective (and I suspect Environment) this is nothing new - they always seem to be in the department that gets shuffled so most of them are used to it.

All this confidential info, and a day before it's announced publicly. What a scoop!
The media should give you story rights...

Does that mean we are going to have another DAPEEWEE or however it was spelt?

The biggest impact on PWS is that they will now fall under a Minister whose other portfolio areas conflict with their interests, and who has in the past shown himself to be markedly hostile to conservation ideology. Considering Bartlett's recent comments regarding the Tarkine, the current gov't doesn't have a clue what conservation is about anyway, so I predict days ahead for our parks.

Rant over

Got some mates in the Dept. (not parks). Trying to get some dirt on the situation now...

[EDIT] Looks like their unit is getting moved (back) to DPIW. They don't know much more.

Content removed by poster

Singe wrote:The biggest impact on PWS is that they will now fall under a Minister whose other portfolio areas conflict with their interests, and who has in the past shown himself to be markedly hostile to conservation ideology. Considering Bartlett's recent comments regarding the Tarkine, the current gov't doesn't have a clue what conservation is about anyway, so I predict days ahead for our parks.

Rant over

Mmmmm... maybe not - word is that Parks keeps their minister (Michelle O'Byrne) so the new super agency will have two ministers.

OK given the new mega department has..

parks, environment, heritage, primary industry, water, aboriginal heritage, fox team ...its time for a new name/acronym...let the fun begin!

tastrax wrote:parks, environment, heritage, primary industry, water, aboriginal heritage, fox team ...its time for a new name/acronym...let the fun begin!

Department of QWERTY
Covers all manner of sins.

tastrax wrote:

Singe wrote:The biggest impact on PWS is that they will now fall under a Minister whose other portfolio areas conflict with their interests, and who has in the past shown himself to be markedly hostile to conservation ideology. Considering Bartlett's recent comments regarding the Tarkine, the current gov't doesn't have a clue what conservation is about anyway, so I predict days ahead for our parks.

Rant over

Mmmmm... maybe not - word is that Parks keeps their minister (Michelle O'Byrne) so the new super agency will have two ministers.

OK given the new mega department has..

parks, environment, heritage, primary industry, water, aboriginal heritage, fox team ...its time for a new name/acronym...let the fun begin!

You didn't think they'd lose their minister, now did you?

Don't get me started on this stuff. I did part of Masters in Environmental Management at UQ on this sort of crap- the huge complexity of environmental departments and the lack of transparency and accountability that it creates.

The problem is, you are taking an agency that is essentially charged with protecting the Enivornment and abolishing it, and then welding the parts to an agency who's essential job is to exploit the Environment. Now I wonder which way of doing things will prevail........

In my opinion "Parks "will be the winners in this, removed from Tourism and other drains it can only be a plus for our playground and get some things done to protect tracks.
c

corvus wrote:In my opinion "Parks "will be the winners in this, removed from Tourism and other drains it can only be a plus for our playground and get some things done to protect tracks.
c

That would be nice. Tourism is great, but protection is better.

Packaging conservation with exploitation appears from this distance to be a retrograde step.

Jings crivens! in this debate who can win ?? I also know the need for tourists but do we really need a tourist department leeching Parks dollars to the extent that they have done since 1992 to the detriment of our Parks
c

Sure save the Parks and Wildlife.
So what can bushwalkers contribute? Maybe some volunteer work?

As for Tourism, it sucks. I know we 'need'' it to help the economy and probably is over-rated as an earner.
I see tourism more as an 'opportunistic industry. Sort of like visiting a peep show.

As for Tassie, if we were a municipality of anyone who might like us, we could be the greatest municipality in Australia with a saving of millions on deadwood like the Govnorship which costs this 500,000 folk here some 20 million a year.

Let's abolish the State.

'

muka wrote: <SNIP>As for Tassie, if we were a municipality of anyone who might like us, we could be the greatest municipality in Australia with a saving of millions on deadwood like the Govnorship which costs this 500,000 folk here some 20 million a year.

Let's abolish the State. '

. . . and make it one "Local Government" area. I remember being surprised at the myriad of local councils when moving to Tassie from Brissie 15 years ago. Quote from Wikipedia - "Unlike other Australian capital cities, a large portion of the greater metropolitan area of Brisbane is controlled by a single local government entity, the Brisbane City Council. The City of Brisbane is divided into 26 wards, with each ward electing a Councillor as their community representative. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane and Councillors are elected every four years by popular vote, in which all residents must participate. Brisbane City Council is the largest local government body (in terms of population and budget) in Australia. The Council, formed by the merger of twenty smaller councils in 1925, has jurisdiction over an area of 1,367 km2 (528 sq mi). The Council's annual budget is approximately $1.6 billion, and it has an asset base of $13 billion.[37]. . . with a population of 1,945,639 it is also the third most populous city in Australia, behind Sydney and Melbourne."

Just think of the potential savings in governance overheads for Tasmania!

I just hope they don't go through that crazy thing that has happened in the past, where everyone has reapply for their own jobs

Content removed by poster

Brett wrote: ...............A single person with a "right" cause can get the local council to act the way it should. A small group of dedicated individuals can get the same with the state government. ........

I agree about the smaller the body the easier and quicker it is to get something done. I think managing agencies ought to take a leaf out of the book from organisations such as Australian Wildlife Conservancy and Aus Bush Heritage and Tas Land Conservancy.

tastrax wrote:

Singe wrote:The biggest impact on PWS is that they will now fall under a Minister whose other portfolio areas conflict with their interests, and who has in the past shown himself to be markedly hostile to conservation ideology. Considering Bartlett's recent comments regarding the Tarkine, the current gov't doesn't have a clue what conservation is about anyway, so I predict days ahead for our parks.

Rant over

Mmmmm... maybe not - word is that Parks keeps their minister (Michelle O'Byrne) so the new super agency will have two ministers.

OK given the new mega department has..

parks, environment, heritage, primary industry, water, aboriginal heritage, fox team ...its time for a new name/acronym...let the fun begin!

Possibly good news, but the fact that O'Byrne was unaware of the closure until it was announced suggests to me that she is very much on the outer and will struggle to assert her portfolio's interests where they clash with Llewellyn's. After his performance on MPAs, I shudder to think of what he'll do to our national parks if given the chance. As the_camera_poser suggested, exploitation will always be more politically palatable than conservation - all the more so during a recession. Bringing the two under one umbrella is like giving the kids the key to the cookie jar.

Singe wrote:exploitation will always be more politically palatable than conservation - all the more so during a recession.

Sadly I think economic circumstances will mean that conservation will take a back seat to opportunistic money grabbing for a long time to come. We seem to be heading that way in NSW (and that started even before the GFC).

Singe wrote:Bringing the two under one umbrella is like giving the kids the key to the cookie jar.

...or giving Dracula the keys to the blood bank.

johnw wrote:...or giving Dracula the keys to the blood bank.

I heard "President" Bartlett on the radio along with Ms O'Byrne,and he really didn't give any logical justification for merging the departments, and kept blaming the liberal/green government of how many years ago for the state of the state's finances. Actually, I'm a bit confused, wasn't it a labor/green coalition?
He's enough to make one nostalgic for Jim Bacon.

We do live in interesting times. Only time will tell where these changes will lead.

As this is a very political topic (and therefore confined to the Controversy Corner forum), it has the potential to get fiery, so please keep in mind that the forum rules about being polite and friendly, and avoiding abuse of people still apply here, even when discussing politicians. Eg, "I think that Mr X, the minister for Y, was very short sighted in regards to decision Z because..." is just fine, but "Mr X has the decision-making capabilities of an amoeba..." is not OK (just an example not aimed at anyone in particular).

Content removed by poster

johnw wrote:

Singe wrote:exploitation will always be more politically palatable than conservation - all the more so during a recession.

Sadly I think economic circumstances will mean that conservation will take a back seat to opportunistic money grabbing for a long time to come. We seem to be heading that way in NSW (and that started even before the GFC).

Yep - for some reason I get a mental image of deck-hands on the Titanic saying "yes, yes - we know about the iceberg but it really is very important for us to get on with rearranging these deck chairs..."