access to water). encourage tourism to the Reserve (such as improved amenity and educational information on site) as well as promoting the Reserve within a strategy that promotes the wider region. There were some concerns that the irregular opening hours of the café, and access through the racecourse, were adversely affecting enjoyment of the site. ratepayers, and therefore they should not have to pay to use the site. Who should be the committee of management? MRSC MRSC plus others Community-based Skills based Other entity Several stakeholders supported retaining MRSC as the committee of management. The reasons for this included: the ability to use council staff and assets to support the operations of the Reserve; the professional skills that already exist within council; and that, to date, management has been effective. Many people thought that the Reserve was run well. However, there was some concern that Reserve matters had merged too far into ordinary council business and should There was a small minority who suggested that the committee of management should comprise council plus a number of other selected members to jointly manage the Reserve. It was noted that this arrangement existed between 1959 and 1990 in relation to members of the Racing Club being formally part of the committee of management, which raised issues about individual liability of council members. It was acknowledged at that time that the Racing Club only reflected one aspect of the many uses of the Reserve, Some stakeholders were strongly in favour of installing a committee of management, as occurs in many other places throughout the state. There was concern by some groups, though, that a community-based committee would not have the capability and competency to find a balance across the complex range of activities at the site. Many stakeholders who supported a move away from MRSC as the committee of management acknowledged that the committee would need to have appropriate skills to run the Reserve successfully, including skills in finance and administration, environmental management, and tourism. A skills-based committee would also enable the Reserve to be managed with a state-wide focus, rather than a local focus. The Crown Land (Reserves) Act allows other public bodies or corporations to be appointed. These options were not raised as preferred options, although there was some mention of the possibility that Parks Victoria could manage the site.
Wilsons Promontory Parks Victoria National Parks Act 1975 and Regulations Crown Lands (Reserves) Act 1978 and Regulations Parks Victoria Act 1998 - with approval of the Minister, may also provide land management services to the owner of any other land used for public purposes Port Management Act 1995 Other legislation includes: Aboriginal Heritage Act 1996 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Forests Act 1958 and Regulations Heritage Act 1995 Land Conservations (Vehicle Control) Act 1972 and Regulations Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Local Indigenous communities are active in establishing cultural and spiritual links with the park and in undertaking park management activities. Also has an established Friends of the Prom group. Current campaign by the Friends of the Prom and Victorian National Parks Association against commercial development on Wilsons Prom. Royal Botanic Gardens Statutory body governed by the Royal Botanic Gardens Board Victoria Royal Botanic Gardens Act 1991 Governor-in-Council Friends of Botanic Gardens are integrated with the site and organise a number of volunteer activities Twelve Apostles Marine National Park Parks Victoria National Parks Act 1975 and Regulations Crown Lands (Reserves) Act 1978 and Regulations Parks Victoria Act 1998 - with approval of the Minister, may also provide land management services to the owner of any other land used for public purposes Port Management Act 1995 Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Listed as the second and only other 'natural wonder' on Heritage Victoria database. (Hanging Rock being the first 'natural wonder' on the database.)
Grampians Parks Victoria National Parks Act 1975 and Regulations Crown Lands (Reserves) Act 1978 and Regulations Parks Victoria Act 1998 - with approval of the Minister, may also provide land management services to the owner of any other land used for public purposes Port Management Act 1995 Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Victorian National Parks Association has opposed commercial development in National Parks. Philip Island Nature Parks Board of Management with two skills and community based committees reporting to it - Community Advisory and Environment Advisory. Committee meetings are chaired by members of the Nature Parks Board. Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 Crown Land Reserves (Philip Island Nature Park) Regulations 2010 DELWP and appointed by Minister for Environment, Land, Water and Planning Connections with a broad range of partners ranging from conservation to tourism. Development Advisory Committee Status quo Expanded membership Purpose of committee Name Abandon advisory committee A small number of participants on the Development Advisory Committee indicated it had worked well in general and should be continued. However, most participants acknowledged that there could be improvement in relation to the issues identified, and particularly in relation to membership / representation, and clarifying the advisory committee’s purpose. Despite a review of membership in late 2014, most people agreed that the membership could be expanded to include other interests, particularly environmental interests and traditional owners. There was a view by a few groups that the Advisory Committee did not in practice advise and influence Council’s management of the precinct, but was used predominantly for the council to advise the committee of matters affecting the Reserve. There was support for the committee as a body able to determine the issues it wanted to discuss and The name of the committee reflects that its purpose is to be engaged on any significant changes to the site (as opposed to day-to-day management issues). However, there was broad agreement the use of the word ‘development’ in the title was not appropriate, given other possible interpretations. There is no requirement to have an advisory committee, and ultimately council is accountable for all decisions made. Most people that considered the advisory committee ineffective provided views on how to improve the operation of the advisory committee; there was not a significant view that the model should be abandoned, although this would appear to be a relevant option if improvements cannot be
Land (Reserves) Act for the council to produce separate financial reports for the committee of management. was not possible to track financial information between different council publications (e.g. proposed and adopted budgets). Involvement of others Local community interests Environmental interests Traditional owners User/sports groups There was strong support for improved community input into the management and operations decisions that affect Hanging Rock. Most people with this view thought that this would be achieved through an enhanced advisory committee, or moving to a community-based committee of management. There was a view that environmental interests were not well managed by council. This is due to a number of perceptions: (a) that the Reserve is managed within the recreation division within council rather than the environmental division, (b) that the staff who work at the Reserve are not adequately trained in environmental skills, (c) that environmental interests are not adequately represented on the development advisory committee, (d) that there is not sufficient coordination across environmental planning, projects and activities on the site. MRSC noted that a site environmental management plan is under development that would better incorporate these interests. There was a consensus that more needs to be done to include traditional owners in the management of the Reserve. It was recognised that traditional owners’ interests are conceptually different to other interests (which focus on use of the site) while also needing to be embedded within all other activities. An example was the way in which council had involved traditional owners in the minor works done in the East Paddock to support concerts. It is not clear at this stage what type and extent of involvement of traditional owners is preferred. All stakeholders acknowledged that any options going forward would need to be able to incorporate this involvement, which could change over time. There was widespread support that better information about traditional owners was required on the Reserve. The various user groups consulted stated that their experience in dealing with MRSC as manager of the land was good. While some groups had been disappointed that more of their needs had not been met, they recognised that their needs are part of broader priorities within the Reserve, and were happy about the way they were able to engage with council, either through the Development Advisory Committee or directly with council staff.