Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:00
An emotive topic and one in which many of the facts and even the basis of the argument can be lost in the heat of the discussion.
So to be clear, I refer to “
free camping” as in close proximity to local communities; not in the wild blue yonder where many of us are happy to pull up under a tree, or by a billabong, with not another soul (or caravan park) in sight on the horizon and beyond!
This is an issue that will continue to fester until all parties can come to a reasonable position that looks at the issue with a very long term lens, and I’ll repeat that – with a long term lens!
Currently the vested interests are poles apart and concessions will need to be given by all parties before any progress will be made.
It is all too easy to view this issue through one’s own wallet, but that is short-sighted and will lead to outcomes that may not be best or even viable in the long term. Importantly, we need to be careful of what we wish for.
I have expanded my thoughts in a blog I wrote quite some time ago and for those with an interest it can be viewed in the
blogs section. Noting, that I also want to travel this great country of ours as cheaply as possible, but I also want to ensure a vibrant tourism industry that caters for all, and not just one section of the travelling and holidaying public in future years.
I highlight and put out there for consideration what I see as an important long-term implication that can easily be overlooked in this debate.
Private sector investment in short-term accommodation for the travelling public is already in a severe decline, we are already seeing this through the closure of caravan parks and also is one of the reasons many are not investing in upgrades to current facilities. Let’s face it, if the local government is going to compete with you and subsidise the real cost of providing the service via “
free camping” why would you invest more money in the facilities you provide? Noting this could be either a local caravan park, or motel for that matter…
A high
Australia dollar is already seeing many tourism enterprises cutting future investment due to reduced inbound tourists’ to
Australia and more Australian’s are taking advantage of this by travelling overseas.
There is no doubt the issue is a hot one in need of a fix and I readily acknowledge the caravan park model needs to change and adjust. However this will only occur in the private sector and only if it is profitable to do so, which means recognising the total cost of providing a service.
Government subsidies are not the answer, and it is arguable that “
free camping” is just that, a subsidy. There is also the issue of ‘Price Neutrality’ that needs to be taken into account, which in a nutshell requires (by law) that the commercial activities of councils are charged at a competitive rate, rather than a reduced priced based on subsidies and rate-payers money.
But here is the crunch for me…
Government subsidies generally lead to a fall-off in private sector investment; is very inefficient from a cost point of view and means that we become more reliant on the government to provide the facilities and
infrastructure we will need in the future. Not next week, or next year, but in 10-years’ time.
One only need look at the track record of all levels of government, Local, State and Federal, on
infrastructure investment in
Australia to see that the travelling public will be the loser in the long-
run if we continue to stifle private sector investment.
In many instances State and Local Government authorities can’t even provide basic health care facilities for its residents due to a lack of funding on
infrastructure investment. So how much do you think they might be willing to spend on tourism
infrastructure over the long-term?
You only need to stay at one of the “free camps” listed in the popular Camps
Australia book to form the view they are coming under increasing pressure from numbers, with the inevitable result of becoming unkempt and dirty – which highlights the old adage that give someone something for free and they won’t value it...
It isn’t sustainable.
Local government authorities are already taking action to restrict access in many instances. After all, if there is little or no return, but a cost to keeping it clean and tidy to a standard demanded by most, bearing in mind there are health implications that demand they do something, the easiest way to fix it is to close it…
And yes, in some communities, but not all, there may be a pay-off for local businesses or the council to providing some form of low cost camping – but for the most part the benefit is not transparent or quantifiable.
Of course, most who frequent this website are responsible campers – tragically that cannot always be said for the general
population.
So we could end up with a situation in the future that “paying” alternatives are not available due to declining private sector investment and councils and local government authorities restricting access to
free camping…
Where will that leave us?
There is little doubt the caravan park model needs to change, but be careful of demanding government subsidies to achieve it; one only needs to look at the most recent Federal Budget to realise that funding and subsidies can be erased at one stroke of the pen!
AnswerID:
533770
Follow Up By: Alan S (WA) - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:38
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:38
I think you could also further differentiate your definition of
Free Camping in to those communities where there is exisiting Caravan Park or similar against those communities where there is no paid accomodation.
In the later case anything the local council does to attract visitors is usually a positive, as it usually doesn't directly imapct any existing business.
In communities where there is exisiting facilties, not only has there been significant capital investment, and in a lot of cases that investment has been with in the local community, i.e tradesman etc. They also pay significant contribution to the community through rates and often provide employment to local people.
Once a council provides a low cost or free service to compete there is a impact on the local community to some degree.
How this is offset by trade as you have mentioned is very hard to quantify.
Maybe a
solution is to consider a loyalty point type system, where every dollar you spend in a town provides you with points, and these are redeemed by council to cover your cost in paid accommodation. This way the cost or benefit is spread across the entire community.
It also provides a real measure of exactly how much money is brought into the community.
FollowupID:
817196
Follow Up By: Ozrover - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:14
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:14
Landy,
Well put, as one of the Caravan Park operators that are trying to provide a service to the travelling public as well as making a dollar, it is extremely frustrating to have empty sites & then to hear people complain about there being no free camps nearby.
We also get the occasional traveler that comes in after dark, uses all of the Parks facilities, disrupting paying customers, then disappears in the morning before the office opens "forgetting" to pay their fees.
With the increase of fully self contained vans, motorhomes etc. there are less people visiting Caravan Parks, quite a lot of Parks are increasing their number of Cabins in the parks to the point where I have seen Parks where there where as few as six sites for Caravans.
I don't personally want to see any free camps shut down, but there must be a balance between the proximity of
free camping near to a town that has established Caravan Parks.
FollowupID:
817202
Follow Up By: Motherhen - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 13:10
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 13:10
They are different markets. While we go to caravan parks sometimes, preferably in small rural towns, we are caravanners so we can get away from it all. At home out nearest neighbour is out of earshot. We don't go on holidays to be packed in with twenty neighbours within easy hearing distance.
While it would have been cheaper for us to go to motels than to buy our caravan and tow vehicle, we did not want to stay in towns all the time when touring. Motels would give us far more privacy, and better amenities, than a caravan park, and cheaper in the long
run.
But we purchased a caravan; not to spend our time in caravan parks, but to get out and enjoy the bush, the outback, the wildlife, the environment, the views, and the
bright stars at night.
Also remember, apart from coastal holiday destinations where there were caravan parks, Australians went camping for generations. With the advent of people wanting the luxuries of home, serviced caravan parks with powered sites sprung up. They are the "new kid on the block". Suddenly they want us all.
But markets change; caravans are built to be independent and people invest big money in these for their own reasons. Getting away from the sardine can environment is one of the commonest reasons.
Nobody protected drive in theatres when home media came in, and there are so many more examples of changes in the commercial world. CPs have to stop grumbling, meet the modern market somehow, or walk away.
Mh
FollowupID:
817217
Follow Up By: Alloy c/t - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 13:30
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 13:30
Motherhen , just because you spend $$$$$ on a van and tow vehicle please explain how that "entitles" any one to park and camp for FREE ,
self contained ?? yeah of course you are , some one else is paying for your sewage disposal unit , your rubbish bin at the 'free' camp or the dump , your water that you fill up from a 'convenient' tap ….. and no point in saying you pay rates where you live covers it ,, it does not..
FollowupID:
817218
Follow Up By: Ozrover - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 13:47
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 13:47
MH,
So what is the problem? No one is denying your right to get out in the bush & go camping.
"new kid on the block". Really? this particular park has been operating since the early 70s.
What my particular problem is, is that rather than pay $20, $30 or $40 a night in one of the towns Caravan Parks, people would prefer to set up camp in a block of vacant land (10 the other night) where there are no facilities, no security. Then they leave, leaving a mess behind.
These are the ones causing problems, not the people who want to go bush camping, or decide to camp in a layby on the highway!
Caravan parks are meeting the "modern market" they are reducing the number of van sites & putting in Cabins. When there are No caravan Parks left, only Cabin parks, where will the Caravaners stay when they need to stop in a town to stock up on water, do their washing & so on?
I think you lot should "stop grumbling" & not expect everything for nothing!
FollowupID:
817221
Follow Up By: Motherhen - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 14:18
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 14:18
Thousands of caravanners are going touring with the ability to stop overnight cleaner than generations before who went camping. This wave will not stop. The use of a public toilet or a dump point is much the same for day travellers and caravanners. The use of water and rubbish disposal is similar. Will YOU pay to use the toilets, the bins, or the park water fountain, the street or council car park every time you visit another town Alloy?
The 1970's is recent times in the history of
Australia - thank you for pinning the date Ozrover.
Those that leave mess are deplorable, as are the many day visitors who leave rubbish around the bins and worse behind the bushes in
roadside rest areas. There seems no easy answer to this litter problem as there is always a minority who do not care.
So some CPs are meeting the modern market and continuing to take a living - I wish them success. Caravan parks are not a charity, and not in business to 'rip off' customers as they are so often accused on forums by those who have no idea about the costs they are up for. I fire up on those accusations too. If there are no caravan
places left, there was insufficient market to be met and that is progress.
The greater threat to the continuing availability of caravan parks is those in prime coastal areas who are sitting on a land value greater than what they can make from running a caravan park. Sell the land to a residential developer and retire sounds good. This loss of caravan parks has nothing to do with supply and demand but is a commercial decision.
Mh
FollowupID:
817225
Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 14:49
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 14:49
Mother Hen
As you know, we are not poles apart in our thinking.
Importantly, you currently have a choice of both worlds, to get out into the bush, far away from everyone (and caravan parks) or to stay in a caravan park.
The issue that I keep highlighting is in time, you may not have the choice of a caravan park, or “
free camping” close to a town or city, because neither may exist.
A key point that is lost in the debate of the provision of “
free camping” by local government in close proximity to caravan parks is that in many cases they operate outside the bounds of the regulations that caravan parks are required to comply with, whilst at the same time levying rates on the caravan park.
There is something very wrong with that notion; impose regulations that cost money to comply with, collect rates from caravan park owners, and then go into competition against those very ratepayers at a reduced rate.
Whilst I would consider myself a “free market” advocate and that over time caravan parks will need to either change and adjust the product they offer and this is already happening with more cabin accommodation, or market forces will potentially squeeze them out of business.
Taking an objective viewpoint it is actually the self-contained RV travellers, a group which is growing at a rate well beyond the ability of current accommodation providers or local governments are able to deal with, that is at the greatest risk.
And here is why…
The ability to camp in outback areas, well away from civilisation, will always exist in some form or another, but it is the self-contained RV Group that may very well
run out of options on where to stay in the small to medium sized towns, or towns along our coastal fringe.
There is plenty of opposition from many who are against their rates subsiding the travel of a select few. And whilst there are many self-contained RV travellers out there, it is still a minority group in the bigger scheme of both the travelling public, and the public at large.
I keep hammering away at it; and I’ll say it again, don’t rely on subsidies from local councils or other government agencies for the provision of low cost or
free camping infrastructure, changing community attitudes and other
infrastructure spending priorities may see the self-contained RV group left high and dry.
Be careful of what you wish for as the big risk is you will get it – and that will be to the detriment of the self-contained RV traveller as much as anyone else, perhaps more so!
FollowupID:
817232
Follow Up By: Bazooka - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 15:34
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 15:34
The reason SOME people free camp most of the time and a lot of people free camp some of the time is precisely because (some) parks are not meeting their needs - prices, animal restrictions etc. There are certainly strong arguments for businesses to want a level playing field should a council be thinking about establishing a cheap/free facility "in cpmpetition" but that falls away rapidly where the facility already exists or is not comparable.
I find the infrastructure/subsidisation argument quite hollow in general. Bigger councils and governments everywhere sponsor FAR more expensive things for particular interest groups, and the bigger those groups the bigger the welcome mat seems to be. The justification is generally that they are encouraging and enabling business, which is quite often correct. Clearly "remote" road travellers are not considered important enough for the same subsidisation at the moment. The attitude is they'll come anyway.
The problem with allowing business to essentially dictate can be seen in tourism. An area or activity is popular so government provides facilities, then private enterprise sees an opportunity, fees rise, and in doing so shut out some users. The worst examples are when exclusivity is given - often for the right reason (managing access, reducing the 'love to death' opportunity, controlling waste etc) but without provision for at least some control over prices.
There's a balance to be struck there somewhere.
FollowupID:
817236
Follow Up By: Motherhen - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 16:32
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 16:32
Hi The Landy
Why would anyone who needs power, toilet and shower choose a free camp over an unserviced campground or 24-72 hour parking area?
Why would someone who has purchased their own
solar power plant, toilet and shower want to pay for all these
services in a caravan park?
They are two different market with some crossovers each way.
Some communities successfully "advertise" by providing camping - and far more effective for them than any other media for advertising. This is a business choice of a town.
While my personal choice may be to get out into the bush far from towns, I stand up for freedom to choose for all. I also stand up for small rural towns, particularly those who know hard times from climate change or economic shifts, and look for a good outcome for those towns, their businesses and their communities.
With the value of land in larger towns I do not expect to find free camps in these towns, nor expect them to value the tourist dollars which are a drop in the ocean compared to the spending of their large populations.
Mh
FollowupID:
817245
Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 17:34
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 17:34
Motherhen
I'm hearing your points...
However, as more caravan parks close, are you that confident that local government authorities or other government agencies will fill the void through the provision of
infrastructure in the long term, or continue to make “
free camping” not only accessible, but make more available?
I'm not, and choice for all will be gone, and choice is something you favour.
I’m sure you are not advocating that outcome, but it could be a by-product of the impasse as it currently stands as the RV industry simply calls for the caravan park industry to either swim or sink, and the caravan park industry looks to regulation for protection.
If the self-contained RV industry continues to grow at the current rate we’ll fast
run out of “
free camping” areas, I have no doubt on that point and if more caravan parks sink then swim, who stands to lose the most? Those who want choice…
I certainly don’t have all the answers, but what I recognise is this will spiral out of control eventually to a point where the outcomes are less likely to be what most would hope for and we’ll be reliant on elected officials to find a
solution – heaven forbid, and God save us!
FollowupID:
817255
Follow Up By: Motherhen - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 18:41
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 18:41
Sorry Ozrover, I neglected to comment on
"We also get the occasional traveler that comes in after dark, uses all of the Parks facilities, disrupting paying customers, then disappears in the morning before the office opens "forgetting" to pay their fees."
Angy
This sort of calculated theft is akin to those who shoplift, and from working in a grocery store I was surprised to learnt how prevalent this was. In our store it was usually only small items, but they all added up and our profits took a hit.
Likewise to those who do not contribute the honesty box at the campground.
Mh
FollowupID:
817264
Follow Up By: Motherhen - Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 21:56
Thursday, Jun 05, 2014 at 21:56
Hi The Landy
This sentence in my post a few up the line got scrambled and came out wrong - sorry.
"Why would anyone who needs power, toilet and shower choose a free camp over an unserviced campground or 24-72 hour parking area?"
should have read
"Why would anyone who needs power, toilet and shower choose a free unserviced campground or 24-72 hour parking area over a powered and serviced caravan park site?"
Caravan parks are closing for two reasons
1. The ones I have heard of closed because their land was too valuable to want to continue - a business decision. These will be in areas where people take family holidays at the coast, and will rarely affect the tourer. Some are turning to accommodation units which is the same end result as selling to a developer, but they remain in business though a slightly different business.
2. If caravan parks are closing because they aren't viable, and many with low trade in small towns or those with seasonal trade only, must be running on a shoestring, we will see changes. That is the power of our free enterprise society that we all
run our businesses in. Likewise when there is sufficient demand to make it worthwhile, someone will seize the opportunity. The free campers have little effect.
Mh
FollowupID:
817283
Follow Up By: The Landy - Friday, Jun 06, 2014 at 15:02
Friday, Jun 06, 2014 at 15:02
Hi Motherhen
We are on the same page…in some respects!
Although to your first point, for many the rateable value of the land is such that they are actually forced to change the land use, rather than choose, because in its present form as a caravan park it can’t generate a sufficient return – but yes, a business decision none-the-less.
On point two, this is the area that most concerns me.
There are many caravan parks that simply are not viable and we will see changes, which actually means more closures unless they can morph into something else, which is generally not possible in a small community.
At a macro-level in
Australia we are seeing this currently as the economy moves further away from manufacturing, for example, because it is not viable. I accept the argument…
The edges are blurred when we speak about “free campers” having little effect. It is the move away from the need to have the traditional offering of full-facility caravan parks due to the increasingly popular self-contained RVs that, in part, has helped create the impasse we have today.
We should not be surprised a caravan park owner doing anything they can to protect the value of their investment. And they have a right to a voice, to articulate their argument without being denigrated and derided (by many) for highlighting that in many cases they have a valid argument.
But putting that aside.
My question and concern remains –who is going to fill the void left by the loss of caravan parks and at what cost?
And is there a way that we can preserve this current resource, private caravan parks, for the future, when it is most likely needed. Or do we simply let them fail now and worry about the problem of increasing demand for free or low cost camping options later…
I have serious doubts that the slack will be met by local authorities or other government agencies for a variety of reasons including the potential for changing community attitudes, or simply because the economics of providing the service versus the benefit don’t weight up – a business decision.
So where does that leave the RV community? Exposed to a long term problem that will become more acute over time…
Reading many of the viewpoints on the topic I am led to a conclusion that the biggest problem currently is that the RV community don’t actually recognise they have a problem in the making!
FollowupID:
817332
Follow Up By: Member - Andrew & Jen - Friday, Jun 06, 2014 at 17:59
Friday, Jun 06, 2014 at 17:59
Hullo The Landy
MH and I had a conversation some months back on this topic of competitive neutrality applied to CPs. My beef was that
Mudgee Council is now charging the same amount for their showground caravan parking area as the full facility CP in town, even though it had just the bare minimum of facilities. I have no problems with Councils charging, so long as they are priced according to the level of amenities provided.
Mudgee showgrounds used to be $20 - a fair price; they are now charging $32, the same as the commercial CP. So that is the last time I will be camping near
Mudgee!
I make a note of council CPs at reasonable prices in towns with no commercial CPs and on those occasions when we choose to stay in a CP (rather than
bush camp), those are where I head to if convenient.
BTW, when we were on a motor home holiday in Europe (back a few years now :-), it was allowable to stay overnight in Germany in a public place such as a supemarket carpark or a
roadside park for one night. I remember we parallel parked on a busy road within 400m of the Munich Science museum in the centre of the city. I must admit that it felt a bit weird in the morning having a shower with trucks, buses and car whizzing past within a metre :-)
Cheers
Andrew
FollowupID:
817338
Follow Up By: The Landy - Friday, Jun 06, 2014 at 18:29
Friday, Jun 06, 2014 at 18:29
Hi Andrew
I can't speak to the specifics of
Mudgee and will leave it for the council to do that.
But on competively neutral pricing I think one of the areas that councils were pricing differently was the insurance coverage for public liability. Seemingly many were pricing this based on the overall policy the council holds giving a substantial advantage over say the caravan park, who is priced specifically to its park.
Councils, as I understand it are now required to factor in an insurance cost on a standalone basis the same as a caravan park does.
Liability insurance is a major cost input and could possibly explain the increase...
I guess we could all scour the world and find many examples of things that are better, and worse than those we as travellers experience in
Australia...
For me, I'll leave Germany to others to enjoy,
Australia is the greatest country in the world to travel in...
Hopefully, with some sensible thinking and debate on this topic, it will remain accessible for all.
Good luck out there!
FollowupID:
817340