BushwalkBushwalk
In BWA December 2016 I wrote about the proposed Falls Creek to Mount Hotham track, Falls Hotham Alpine Crossing (FHAC). Briefly, the Victorian Government is looking at significantly upgrading some walking tracks, including going up Diamantina Spur, new campsites established, current users denied access, and what very much seems to be lodges in a number of places, including near the top of Diamantina Spur. The target market is relatively inexperienced walkers, commercial groups or both, all with more money than current walkers. In late 2016 there was a Draft Master Plan (DMP). Public comments were sought on this.
Falls Creek to Mount Hotham Track Proposal
Stephen Lake
Federation Hut campsite and The Razorback at duskStephen Lake
60 | BWA December 2017
In October 2017 I became aware that Parks Victoria (PV) released the Summary Report of community response to Draft Master Plan (Summary Report). As before there are serious shortcomings. Many objected to the DMP on environmental and economic grounds.
PV did not advise those who made submissions that the Summary Report was available. When there is public input then it's customary to advise people and entities who made submissions about further reports. I cannot understand why this was not done, and have asked PV for the reasons.
Normally a summary Report like this would list submissions and make them available. This too was not done, and again I cannot understand why. I've asked PV for a list and access to the submissions. There may be valid reasons for keeping part or all of some submissions private, such as commercial in confidence or if this is a requirement of the person or entity making the submission. However, my very long experience is that all or nearly all submissions are or should be made available. I cannot find any PV information that submissions would be confidential or that they would not be released with the next report. The default is release and have a list of submissions in the Summary Report.
On 19 October 2017 I asked PV:
Why were people and entities who made submissions not advised of the summary?
Can a list of submissions can be provided to me, and if not, why not?
PV did not reply by 30 November. I've made a Freedom of Information application.
Like the DMP, the form of the Summary Report leaves a great deal to be desired. There's no date, no name of the person authorising the Summary Report, and no signature. However, page two says that it was checked on 11 August 2017 by MW and CB. The latter appears to be Christian Borchert. The Summary Report can only be viewed two pages at a time, which makes it harder to read than if it could be viewed
one page at a time. I do not know if this was deliberate or if it was not realised that the format is poor. Neither reflects well on those involved. It would have been very easy to have hyperlinks in the contents, but this was not done. The intent seems to be to make the report hard to read. Again there are typos and poor forms of words.
Page 6 says “The purpose of this document is to summarise the key findings taken from community consultation workshops and community response submissions to the Falls to Hotham Alpine crossing Draft Master Plan (the draft plan).” This purpose has not been achieved. The Summary Report glosses over a huge number of major objections by many people. Some main objections are:
The quality of the Draft Master Plan is abysmal.
There's no easy way to access references.
Figures are demonstrably false, out by 3-1000 times.
In a total DMP expenditure of $22 million, expenditure of $15-20 million for a road was missed. Some $9 million for maintenance and management costs was not cited. The total cost over 10 years is $59 million, far more than that cited in the DMP, with an annual shortfall of $3-4 million.
The economic case is false. Jobs are massively subsidised, $3-400,000 a year each.
The methodology is questionable.
There are adverse environmental impacts.
If adopted, the DMP will push existing bushwalkers out; expose people enticed by questionable and spurious advertising into danger, up to and including death; breach zoning requirements of the Greater Alpine National Parks Management Plan; change the character of the region; waste up to $80 million in
After the fireDoogs
“Many objected to the DMP on environmental and economic grounds.
BWA December 2017 | 61
public funds for minimal return, probably a $60 million loss; and cause long-term damage to the reputation of Victoria and the region.
The route via Dibbins Hut suggested to PV is much easier, much less expensive, would attract more people, complies with the zones, and is safer. This should have been the route.
PV has had this information since January 2017, and has not denied any of it.
Page 6 says “Overall there was a positive response to the plan and its potential positive impact to the region.” This does not work – for a consultation the number of votes do not count. The quality of the information in the submissions is what counts. As PV did not release the submissions or even a list of all the submissions the quoted PV assertion above needs to be backed up numbers and how PV weighted them. The submissions that I have seen are all strongly against the proposal, with views based on solid factual, environmental, economic and safety reasons. PV has not denied any of these aspects, or even cited them. Over a year, repeated requests to PV for information have not led to any response.
Instead, the Summary Report underplays the negatives. For example, page 87 of the DMP says "There are an estimated 17,000 walker nights per year on the trail", demonstrably false. This falseness is at odds with hut log books and bushwalker observations, and it's supported by closely reasoned logic. Page 17 of the Summary Report says “The numbers of existing and proposed walkers should be double-checked and sources should be provided.” There is no transparency. It is difficult to trust the Summary Report as it does not match what I have seen, and they have not provided their methodology or evidence.
Page 22 of the Summary Report says “The engagement program provided an opportunity for the community and all stakeholders to meaningfully contribute to the development of the final master plan. All comments and feedback will be considered
in the preparation of the final master plan.” I challenge the “meaningfully contribute” aspect. Considering a submission is not the same as acting on it. The Summary Report seems to be just a marker, a further step towards economic, aesthetic, recreational and environmental and destruction of a region as we know it. I'm very happy to be proved wrong if sanity prevails.
I could go on but I think that the point has been made. The Summary Report does not list all the main issues (some of which are cited above), does not show the passion of those who love the mountains, and has in effect dismissed most or all of their concerns, which have not been made available. All hard criticisms have been watered down to the point where they are sorely muted. As the submissions are not public documents (yet – there's always FOI), criticisms identifying the extraordinarily low standard of the DMP cannot be seen. Why is PV hiding information? Are the submissions contrary to the FHAC proposal? Too accurate? Do the submissions cast doubt on the competence of those who prepared the DMP? I think so.
If this ill-advised proposal is adopted then it will be interesting to see who takes responsibility if things do not turn out as envisaged in the PV reports. It will be interesting to see who takes responsibility if there is a fatality or injury due to novice walkers being where they should not be. It will be interesting to see who takes responsibility if there is environmental damage. It will be interesting to see who takes responsibility if the walk runs at a loss. It's likely that the proponents will deny responsibility, and adopt the Men at work view:
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?You better run, you better take cover.
“The Summary Report does not list all the main issues (some of which are cited above), does not show the passion of those who love the mountains, and has in effect dismissed most or all of their concerns ...
62 | BWA December 2017