100 businesses write to NSW Premier Chris Minns over Great Koala National Park
More than 100 businesses on the NSW Mid-North Coast have signed a letter to Premier Chris Minns, urging the Labor government to move forward with long-running plans for a massive koala sanctuary and tourism park.
The Great Koala National Park was an election promise for NSW Labor, but delivery of the animal sanctuary and what form it will ultimately take has been marred by setbacks, including continued logging at the proposed site.
In the letter, a coalition of businesses including from the adventure tourism and hospitality sectors, have called on the Premier to deliver the full 176,00ha park proposed, which they say will become a 'game-changing tourist destination.
Coffs Skydiver owner Steve Hill said his business relied on the sort of tourists the park would attract, saying 'people that are interested in little fluffy koalas are interested in being in the outdoors, adventures'.
'We've had natural disaster after natural disaster so economically, it's been really tough on the Mid North Coast. This region needs this kind of level of tourism,' Mr Hill said.
'If you bring in a park that goes global – something like the Great Barrier Reef – we all know it will give us the boost that we badly need.'
Matt Sparrius, owner of kayak and stand-up paddle board company C-Change, also backed the park as being 'great for our business'.
'For us, it's a no-brainer,' he said.
'The more koalas there are in the park, the more chances there are of seeing of them.
'For tourism, we will have more tourists, there will be more jobs, we can expand our business there will be other businesses that can move into that space. It will be wonderful.'
'Getting the full Great Koala National Park is really critical for us. If we don't get the full park, we won't get those corridors between areas.
'Apart from the koalas, having sugar gliders will also get people out in the park, into the environment.'
The NSW government committed $80m over four years in the 2023-24 state budget to support development of the park, including independent economic, social and environmental assessments, and industry and community panels.
But key questions remain.
Chief among them is the final size of the park, which proponents want to span a whopping 176,000ha. The final size is yet to be determined by the state government, with reports of logging still taking place at the proposed site.
If delivered as proposed, the park would span from Coffs Harbour to Woolgoolga.
Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation and Mid-North Coast resident, Ken Henry, said delivery of the full park would be a boon for businesses and a 'truly special destination that will put the region on the global tourism map'.
'The declaration can't come soon enough,' the former federal bureaucrat said.
'Every moment we hesitate means losing more koalas and missing crucial opportunities for regional tourism operators to create jobs.'
WWF Australia president Judy Slatyer said the 'bold and beautiful' park, if fully realised, would conserve and regenerate forests where not only 12,000 endangered koalas live, but also some 36,000 endangered greater gliders.
'Affected timber workers and regional communities need to be well supported to secure jobs, build their communities and create a future as the park is created,' she said.
Footage released earlier this year by the WWF showed logging heavily machinery continue to be operated within Sheas Nob State Forest, island from Coffs Harbour.
A previous analysis by the North East Forest Alliance claimed logging has already occurred across 7185ha within the assessment area since the state election, with another report by Wilderness Australia and the National Parks Association of NSW stating in March that a further 1924ha within the proposed park was then being logged.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
29 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
AI could kill WFH and send unemployment to 20pc. Are you really ready?
Vicki Brady thought she understood artificial intelligence. Three weeks ago, she realised she was wrong. The Telstra chief executive was one of several top Australian business leaders who travelled to the US in mid-May to attend Microsoft's annual CEO summit in the tech giant's hometown of Seattle.
ABC News
31 minutes ago
- ABC News
Pauline Hanson's One Nation doubles its Senate representation following federal election
Surprise Senate results will see Pauline Hanson's One Nation double its representation in the next parliament. Labor looked set to win a third Senate seat in both Western Australia and New South Wales but fell short with One Nation collecting each state's final seat in the upper house. It means One Nation will return to the record heights it reached after the 2016 double dissolution election. But, given Labor's victories in other states, the government will only need the Greens to pass legislation if it doesn't strike an agreement with the Coalition. With four senators, One Nation will have the same representation as the Nationals in the upper house. The final results see Labor increasing its fortunes in the Senate. The government will hold 28 seats, one more than the Coalition. The Greens retained 11 senators. The crossbench will have four One Nation senators, along with the ACT's David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie and Tammy Tyrrell from Tasmania, Victoria's Lidia Thorpe, and Ralph Babet and Fatima Payman from WA. For legislation to pass in the Senate, 39 votes are required. It means Labor and the Greens have the slimmest margin to pass bills. If Labor or the Greens were to lose a senator, the government would need support from a crossbencher, if the Coalition was opposing the legislation. Senator Hanson and Malcolm Roberts were the party's only senators in the last term. On Friday, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) declared Warwick Stacey had won NSW's final seat in the Senate. A day earlier, One Nation's Tyron Whitten won the final WA seat. In both cases, Labor was ahead in earlier counting and on track to win up to 30 seats. The last time One Nation had four senators, infighting and the citizenship saga led to the loss of members of the party besides Senator Hanson.
The Age
38 minutes ago
- The Age
Elon Musk is right about one thing – we're spiralling towards bankruptcy
Posting on his social media platform X, Musk has indicated his disappointment with the unwillingness of Republicans to carry out spending cuts, musing that the only way out of the 'bankruptcy of America' is to radically boost GDP growth. It's difficult to disagree with his assessment, or to find much reason for optimism in either Britain or America. Trump and Starmer are very different leaders leading very different countries, but they face the same core question: how do you keep the show on the road when your voters demand more spending? The demographic challenges facing both countries are well known: an older population has more voters who no longer work, who vote themselves a larger share of income, which increases fiscal pressure on the young and weighing on birth rates. Loading It's a doom-loop that the West's democracies have yet to find an escape from. Growing our way out of trouble would require a technological revolution. Older voters prioritise healthcare and pensions ahead of investment in infrastructure or education, which reduces the funds available for pro-growth policies. Worse still, redistribution requires taxation that directly weighs on economic activity. If Musk succeeds in solving AI, robotics and space exploration, then we might get the resources and growth we need to escape the spiral, just as the Industrial Revolution pulled us out of the Malthusian trap. If he doesn't, we'll need another way out of this mess. Solving demographics isn't the answer. Boosting birth rates is a necessary long-term fix, but doesn't address the more pressing present concerns. Short of drawing on Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal and rendering workers into Soylent Green at retirement age, there's no obvious policy that will. And if we're stuck with our inverted pyramid of people, that leaves us with 'democracy' as the factor most likely to give way. About 48 per cent of all UK public spending goes on welfare, health and social care and debt interest spending. These are the items of spending that are either too toxic to touch – imagine the outrage if Starmer stood up and announced an end to the triple lock, or swinging cuts to the bloated NHS – or would tip the country into a financial crisis via defaulting on our obligations. They're also some of the items with the most forecast growth, as today's young become tomorrow's old. The state pension is set to hit 8 per cent of GDP, health spending 15 per cent and adult social care somewhere about 2.5 per cent. A little over 25 pence in every pound earned in Britain will be earmarked for these line items alone. If we can't cut spending democratically, we'll be made to cut it. And cutting spending democratically is hard. Loading One implication of the median voter theorem – the observation that in a democratic system, the man in the middle tends to get his way – is that when median incomes are below the mean, the state will tend to engage in more redistribution. This is certainly true in Britain, where 53 per cent of the population lives in households that pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits, and it's likely to be true in the United States as well (where the top and bottom quintiles are net losers and net beneficiaries, respectively). In fact, 'democracies spend more' seems to be a good general rule. Match V-Dem democracy scores to IMF data and – with some caveats around matching names and entries – the general gist is that more democratic countries spend somewhere about 12-15 points of GDP more than their less democratic peers, with researchers emphasising spending on social protection and education. Combine this with the observation that it's entirely possible for older generations to burden their younger successors with debts, and you have a recipe for disaster. The incentives given to today's politicians are to spend to win today's votes. Unless voters today are altruistic about future generations – and when the population is ageing because fewer people have children, their motive to be so is greatly reduced – then you can end up in the sort of unsustainable spiral Britain and America have found themselves in. By 2055, the US national debt is expected to be 156 per cent of GDP, and deficits around 7 per cent. In Britain, it's for 130 per cent of GDP, and a deficit of 9 per cent. Project that out to 2073, and debt hits 274 per cent of GDP, with the deficit a healthy 21 per cent of national income. If politicians ignore the warning signs – or voters punish those who attempt to correct course – we could find the choice between debt and democracy made for us. These are ludicrous numbers. There is no prospect of funding that sort of deficit at that sort of debt. The question is what we'll get instead. The most likely answer seems to be some form of fiscal cliff-edge ending up with less democratic choice in government. This could take a 'soft' form, such as self-imposed restrictions on spending and debt which politicians agree to adhere to in order to restore market confidence. A souped-up form of the Office for Budget Responsibility and harsher fiscal rules would be one version of this. Government by bond market – where investors demand higher yields for risky policies, driving the state towards fiscal consolidation – would be another. Loading At the other end of the scale, a debt bailout would effectively cede a large degree of sovereignty to whichever institution sets the terms of the loan. Britain has been down this road before, in 1976, when the IMF imposed higher taxes and lower spending. This would be an extreme outcome. It is not entirely out of the range of possibilities. Cutting spending democratically is hard. Undermining institutions is relatively easy.
