So caravan parks think they have won the battle to more or less eliminate free camping in tassie, then they are sadly mistaken as they will lose the war.

I call for a boycott of Tasmanian caravan parks.

If a boycott means that caravan parks go out of business, well so be it. They are the ones who have bought this to a head in Tassie, so they should  be held to account. Its our money and we will bloody well spend it where we choose and I no longer choose Tasmania.

Unfortunately there will be casualties along the way, the general traders, small shop keepers and the like. I call upon them all to  join in the growing chorus to condemn this very short sited decision by the government, led by the CPs.

if a call to boycott the Tasmanian CPs also means boycotting Tasmania then unfortunately until this decision is reversed, then everybody concerned will need to do it tough.

Comments welcome.

From the GN web site: 

FEBRUARY 11, 2019

New rules handed down by the Tasmanian Government could see councils around the state reconsidering their free camping offerings.
After a long and arduous investigation into the issue, a final report from the Department of Treasury and Finance has moved to ensure that all local authorities involved in providing campsites, are competing on fair and equal terms with private sector businesses.

The Heaths and Kebbin, would you please expand on your view point.  Or are you just being contrary and looking for a bite?

Kebbin, i totally agree; the tassie govt has been ruling on this for some time, but do you really think that they (the govt) are behind the push, they were probably totally unaware of the situation/issue until a ruling was requested by various parties, mainly the councils, who were being pushed by other stakeholders (aka CPs).

Gday...

As posted by Kebbin ... these are the pertinent websites and documents -

https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/economy/economic-policy-and-reform/public-camping-competitive-neutrality-policy

Read this site for the Finance & Treasury Policy

Read this site for the 'fact sheet'

The writing has been on the wall for over three year regarding the implementation of the Tasmanian Competitive Neutrality Policy. There have been a number of 'free/low cost' overnight spots that have been closed or restricted.

It is more than just regarding 'free camping' and any 'impact it may have on caravan parks' - it means that ALL businesses are to not undermine other businesses by not adhering to the same rules and regulations for the provision of that service - eg gaining a commercial advantage through failure to comply.

Given the outcome of the Caravan Association's court ruling late last year regarding the free camp at Kershaw Gardens in Rockhampton - it is inevitable that changes will happen sooner rather than later.

[EDIT: https://www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au/other-industries/competitive-neutrality which says, in part, .....

Essentially the competitive neutrality principles, under the National Competition Policy, require that all significant government business activities should be corporatised or, if full corporatisation is not feasible, a 'full costing' model must be applied to offset any competitive advantage arising from public ownership.

Shire Councils are "government business activities" and therefore need to comply under the Neutral Competitive Policy.]

Cheers - John

Not just being contrary nor looking for a bite at all MSG. Neither am I apathetic about the issue Goldman. 

I am simply saying I disagree with the OP and his point of view, and trying to do so in a pleasant and non confrontational manner, unlike many threads about this issue.

I have gone through my life believing that if you cannot afford something, then save up for it, or forego it. That is plain and simple. Not everyone gets to do or see everything equally. That is the way of the world.Please don't expect others to subsidise it unless they want to.

I want a Landcruiser 200 series. Should I demand it be subsidised (with free or low cost diesel) because I cannot afford it? Of course not. So what is different about this? No need to answer because I have heard all the reasons before such as "sharing the spending", "spending more when camping is free", "I couldn't afford to travel", "people who don't complain about lack of free camping must have lots of money to waste" and the like. I disagree with that as well.

What the OP has stated is that because the government has decided to apply certain commercial principles to the provision by councils of free or low cost camping when within a certain distance of commercial accommodation, he wants everyone to boycott Tasmanian tourism, and impact all business. He wants to do this to force them to let people camp for free or low cost or suffer the consequences. I repeat that I disagree with that position for the reason stated, and think it unfair to demand that places that do not provide an acceptable low cost facility be "black balled" and penalised for daring to exert their own freedom of choice opposite to that of the campers wanting such facilities.

My approach to free or low cost camping is simply if it is available and suits our travel at the time, we will gratefully use it. I do not expect places to provide it, but if they do I am happy to use it, and if requested donate for its use. Simple.

So, that is my position, which the OP asked for. I do not expect those who disagree with me to defend their position nor question mine. Just accept that not all are on the same side of the argument.

PS. Black balling places seems to be a bad case of cutting ones nose off to spite ones face. I want to see everywhere I can, despite higher costs to see some places.

TheHeaths wrote:

---

SNIP~~~ My approach to free or low cost camping is simply if it is available and suits our travel at the time, we will gratefully use it. I do not expect places to provide it, but if they do I am happy to use it, and if requested donate for its use. Simple.

~~~SNIP~~~

PS. Black balling places seems to be a bad case of cutting ones nose off to spite ones face. I want to see everywhere I can, despite higher costs to see some places. 

---

Gday...

I agree with your comment Ian, particularly regarding low cost/free camps.

If they fit with my travel plans I love to camp off the grid - although I have an aversion to car parks/rest areas/patches of dirt.

I certainly do not expect anywhere to provide sites for free .... and If not provided I wouldn't consider boycotting them.

cheers - John

Unfortunately the writing is on the wall for free and low cost camping nationally.
Competitive Neutrality will be adopted by authorities to level the playing field.
In reality, you can't have a local authority collecting rates and taxes and imposing regulatory requirements on CP's and totally ignoring all of that themselves to give them a commercial advantage whilst also running non compliant free campsites in urban areas.
The precedent has been set in the courts in Rockhampton so it would be unwise for any authority to spend ratepayers money fighting this in court.

Authorities will now be forced to compete on a level playing field by offering campsites that meet all the regulatory requirements that CP's are required to do.

Boycotting Tasmania or CP''s will not make one ounce of difference.

-- Edited by montie on Wednesday 13th of February 2019 07:41:36 AM

-- Edited by montie on Wednesday 13th of February 2019 07:43:36 AM

Gday...

Bob, even coming from Victoria the cost of the SOT ($2,000+) to get to Tassie is a big consideration when making the decision to visit there or not.

However, I think your point is a little misplaced as on the basis of your argument, you would never travel to any of the eastern states from the 'west'.

The costs you detail are the same as what it will cost you to travel to VIC, NSW, QLD and NT from the west - except you can remove the $2,500 you have allocated to the Spirit of Tasmania ferry.

From reports of travellers to Tasmania it seems that, at the moment, there are more lowcost/free camping spots around Tasmania per Km than on the mainland.

Even if these are halved, given Tasmania's size it would not be difficult to base at one camp and travel around on day trips.

I guess you are not likely to venture too far from 'the west'.

Cheers - John

rockylizard wrote:

---

Gday...

Bob, even coming from Victoria the cost of the SOT ($2,000+) to get to Tassie is a big consideration when making the decision to visit there or not.

However, I think your point is a little misplaced as on the basis of your argument, you would never travel to any of the eastern states from the 'west'.

The costs you detail are the same as what it will cost you to travel to VIC, NSW, QLD and NT from the west - except you can remove the $2,500 you have allocated to the Spirit of Tasmania ferry.

From reports of travellers to Tasmania it seems that, at the moment, there are more lowcost/free camping spots around Tasmania per Km than on the mainland.

Even if these are halved, given Tasmania's size it would not be difficult to base at one camp and travel around on day trips.

I guess you are not likely to venture too far from 'the west'.

Cheers - John

 

-- Edited by rockylizard on Wednesday 13th of February 2019 08:29:13 AM

---

Hi John, 

I have been to Vic, NSW, SA and NT on many trips from the West, the difference is there plenty of Free camps to keep the cost down, in 12 weeks on the road one trip we only stayed 5 nights in CP's and 8 nights in donation sites, showgrounds etc.

Tasmania was supposed to be Free Camp friendly and Dog friendly all over, according to RV'ers we have met on the road, which IF it changes will make GN's stop and think twice about forking out for the SOT ferry, which will a shame for all concerned. I also included 60 x $30 pn if one had to pay for a park every night plus the $2500 for the Ferry, a total of $4300 extra than say going to Vic.

Free camps are part of most RV'ers planning these days, progressive councils see the benefits of them to their towns.

Cheers Bob

This discussion is not any different to the free camping debate we've had except SOT costs on top. 

 We are on the lowest end of the earnings scale and on DSPension. Gee, if we've wanted a nice van with ensuite we've had to build it ourselves regardless of medical restrictions. But, we are happy.

So, taking our rig to Tassy is out of the question, just as it is for us to use CP's more than 4 times a fortnight plus costs for low priced camping, showgrounds and the like.

To mix that up with zero cost camping for 3-4 nights a fortnight means we can afford the odd pub meal or river cruise or takeaway.

My point is that if the priority of our trip itinerary is to choose towns with low cost camping (usually out of town which is fine and preferred ) then so be it. Reality is this- that free or low cost camping will never be eliminated as some councils acknowledge the income to businesses that download to jobs and keeping their town alive. 

One prime example was Premere NSW. $10 powered site at the Apex park, take away hamburgers at the pub Friday night, counter meal Saturday night and we were the only patrons there.

Things usually go in circles. Tassy is largely a tourist state. It depends on mainlander and international visitors. For whatever political reasons free/low cost camps are removed that error will come home to roost as many vanners find cunning ways to avoid CP's. In fact CP's will be the biggest loser as van owners also will realise that a fly drive/bus organised tour for 10 days works out cheaper in hotels.

In time those councils that shut down low cost/free camps will have meetings about reintroducing them as their nearby towns prosper. That full circle would be complete.

Gday...

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, Tony.

However, and I hate to call it 'progress', but the passage of time means the 'good ole days' are fast being overtaken.

What is happening in Tasmania, and to some extent in other areas - eg Rockhampton - is that a 'council' is fast being brought to account in the provision of areas for the use of travellers for overnight (or two) stays.

Other business enterprises in the town - obviously van parks - are no different to all other enterprises in this day and age. They too are struggling to maintain a living from their investment into their business. They, generally speaking, are no longer willing to sit back and see councils allow travellers to stay in a car park/rest area/patch of dirt that is not in the slightest way 'compliant to regulations' that applied to their caravan park. Add to that potential loss of business the fact that caravan parks MUST invest considerable monies to ensure their business complies, and that the compliance is maintained.

The statement from the website I quoted earlier  - "Essentially the competitive neutrality principles, under the National Competition Policy, require that all significant government business activities should be corporatised or, if full corporatisation is not feasible, a 'full costing' model must be applied to offset any competitive advantage arising from public ownership." sums it up. Councils are "significant government business activities".

Apart from the activity being driven by the National Competition Policy that is being used by caravan parks in Tasmania, the recent court case brought against the Rockhampton council regarding their allowing a patch of dirt (Kershaw Gardens), with absolutely no amenities nor the slightest effort to be compliant to Council's regulations for a 'low-impact camping area', is a case in point. And quite probably may lead to similar action by caravan parks in other states.

I agree that there is every chance that when a council, either through community pressure or their own actions, remove traveller access to a car park/rest area/patch of dirt for overnight (or two) stays, neighbouring towns are likely to prosper at their expense. However, a wise council would perhaps install some amenity, and maintenance regime and perhaps charge a fee (donations do NOT work ). The attraction of 'drive-through' travellers might continue.

It would seem that lowcost/free camping spots, away from towns and caravan parks, do not attract the same angst from the townfolk or van parks and continue to provide a service to the travelling public. Anecdotal evidence suggests Tasmania has a considerable number of such lowcost/free spots which very likely will continue to service the travelling public.

My experience in my 10 years on the road, is that applies to the other mainland states as well. There are literally 1,000's of actual lowcost/free camping spots around this wide, brown and exciting land that are unlikely to be curtailed.

Cheers - stay well and travel safely - John

[EDIT: Rocky can't spell ]

We are all on a similar page here on this topic.

However, the view that rate payers/tax payers are paying for facilities like free camps for travellers is a case in point.

If I flew from Vic to Devonport and took a walk I'd be walking on footpaths, in gardens and using public toilets that I contributed zero towards. The same here in Euroa and anywhere else on the mainland for Tasweigans. For that matter truckies stop at designated truck stops without charge as do car drivers, cyclists and hikers. We all share.

On that note councils have a duty to provide for all of the public including the travellers.  To take that to the extreme, imagine if a council decided to rip up all public toilets on the basis that their ratepayers have their own toilet at home, or stop supplying toilet paper as non ratepayers use it more than locals?

Hence the "someone has to pay" has a limit of relevance. I'm happy my rates go toward free camps in my Shire, toilets and footpaths I may not use.

It should be no different in Tassy and as stated there will still be free or low cost camps in that holiday state available so seek them out.

Tony

Eaglemax wrote:

---

We are all on a similar page here on this topic.

However, the view that rate payers/tax payers are paying for facilities like free camps for travellers is a case in point. 

If I flew from Vic to Devonport and took a walk I'd be walking on footpaths, in gardens and using public toilets that I contributed zero towards. The same here in Euroa and anywhere else on the mainland for Tasweigans. For that matter truckies stop at designated truck stops without charge as do car drivers, cyclists and hikers. We all share. 

On that note councils have a duty to provide for all of the public including the travellers.  To take that to the extreme, imagine if a council decided to rip up all public toilets on the basis that their ratepayers have their own toilet at home, or stop supplying toilet paper as non ratepayers use it more than locals? 

Hence the "someone has to pay" has a limit of relevance. I'm happy my rates go toward free camps in my Shire, toilets and footpaths I may not use. 

It should be no different in Tassy and as stated there will still be free or low cost camps in that holiday state available so seek them out.

Tony 

---

Gday...

Again, I fully understand what you are saying, Tony. However, it is not "....the view that rate payers/tax payers are paying for facilities like free camps for travellers" that is NOT the issue in Tasmania.

It is the instances where councils (significant government business activities) allow to be used (provide?) car parks and/or patches of dirt for the use of the travelling public at no (or low) cost within a town. This, under the National Competition Policy, means that those councils have a competitive advantage over caravan parks that MUST comply with regulations to allow them to provide a resting place for travellers - that the council is not complying with. It is that which the caravan parks are agitating against.

Regarding "....truckies stop at designated truck stops without charge as do car drivers, cyclists and hikers. We all share".

This is a completely different kettle of fish. Truck stops, highway rest stops, are NOT the issue with caravan parks. These facilities are provided by various government entities as places for travellers to rest during their journey. Very few are provided by Councils but rather the various state or federal roads departments and very few are within the boundaries of a town, near a caravan park.

Again, the issue in Tasmania, and increasingly in other states, is travellers being allowed to overnight (or two) at areas that are within boundaries of towns that are drawing potential clientele from caravan parks - with councils having a competitive advantage, by not complying with their own regulations, over the caravan park that must provide facilities, at their cost, to allow their business to continue to attract clientele and prosper.

Indulge me, this is what I said before, it is very pertinent -

It would seem that lowcost/free camping spots, away from towns and caravan parks, do not attract the same angst from the townfolk or van parks and continue to provide a service to the travelling public. Anecdotal evidence suggests Tasmania has a considerable number of such lowcost/free spots which very likely will continue to service the travelling public.

My experience in my 10 years on the road, is that applies to the other mainland states as well. There are literally 1,000's of actual lowcost/free camping spots around this wide, brown and exciting land that are unlikely to be curtailed.

I too prefer to camp off the grid and hopefully will continue to do so. Like you I would spend perhaps two nights out of fourteen connected to town water and 240v - showgrounds mainly, but often van parks.

The ability to continue to live this lifestyle is not under any particular threat as I would never make use of a patch of dirt within the boundaries of a town - free/low cost or otherwise. If I really need a town to re-stock or re-fuel, I do so while passing through. If I need the facilities or attractions of a town/city for more than an overnight then I stay in a van park. I have an aversion to patches of dirt in the middle of a town for free.

Cheers - stay well and travel safely and frugally - John

Gday...

I certainly understand your stance Goldman, and it is quite probably the attitude of many on this and other forums.

However, the places I choose to visit are definitely not determined by whether it has a free/low cost camp within the town or very close.

I choose my destinations for what I can gain from the visit - sights, nature, architecture, history and sometimes just to meet some of the locals while there.

I do understand that I am quite probably in the minority, but I think it is quite sad that travellers are only motivated to visit somewhere if there is a free or low cost overnighter etc.

There must be quite a lot of travellers that are missing out on some of the most attractive places in this wide, brown and exciting land. 

Cheers - stay well and travel safely - John