Seeing Ayres Rock (Uluru)

David, if coming from the East if you show your permits for the GCR, no payment required. As you say, from the West is easy, LOL.

Ron, we've been through there several times in last five years. On westbound entry at the ranger station, if you have the proper (paper) transit permit at hand you do not pay an entry fee. (But you do have to queue up behind the paying tourists, which can easily waste a good 20 minutes).

Unless it has changed in the last 12 months ...

Zippo - Yes, sorry, my memory cells aren't what they used to be. You're correct, I do recall now, the transit permit does get you past the Ranger station, without paying the Park entry fee.

But the silly part is, once you're past the Ranger station, you're in the Park anyway? - and I don't know who or what stops you, from driving up to the Rock?

I last went through in 2014, I got my transit permit at the office in Yulara, I was merely transiting the area to take a vehicle I bought, from Alice Springs to Perth.

Cheers, Ron.

Ron, once past the entry station there is nothing physically preventing you exploring the Rock.

We've already "done" the Rock dating back decades, laps since then, and SWMBO did the "legs-crossed" walk around the base a couple of years back. And for us, to do a lap when transiting just delays getting to the day's destination.

And...the permits cost you nothing. Once you have a permit you aren't really obliged to travel the road to WA anyway. I will just leave this here, lol. I did travel the GCR last year though, and I did pay my Parks pass, and I DIDN'T climb the rock.

Rocco, you can get your GCR transit permit for the NT section, from the Central Land Council office in Yulara - or you can get it online in the link below.

I have no idea how fast the CLC is at issuing permits online, but they appear to be fairly well organised, from my dealings with them at the Yulara office.

NT CLC transit permit

But you need to apply online for the W.A. ones. I seem to recall they were pretty fast, I got mine within a few hours, and they claim they issue them within 24hrs at the most.

Outback Way - Permits

Cheers, Ron.

When we applied for our GCR Permits on line back in 2017, they came within 2 weeks. Also, as others have stated, if you have the GCR Travel Permits, you do not need to pay the park entry fee.

Macca.

And to add......unless he has a GCR permit, it will cost him $75 to enter for the 3 adults.

Even with a GCR permit, you need to pay the fee if you wish to site see within the park.
The GCR permit only allows you to transit the park.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

So if you don't pay the fee you'd best keep your eyes shut while passing the rock?

You can be as smart as you wish, but you can't get closer to Uluru than about 5km without leaving the Lasseter Highway and once you do that you are not "transiting" any more.

Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

Nah Terry, you just got lost aka took a wrong turn ...

If they REALLY had any brains they'd move the park entrance station 4km to south, past the junction. The bonus for transiters is we wouldn't have to queue up behind the "fare-fumblers" for 20 minutes or more just to get on our way. The bonus for officialdom would be no "free-loaders" coming in from the west getting access to the Rock.

Nobody has mentioned the staggrering penalties if your caught at the rock without a permit. $5000.00 was mentioned by staff at the tourist info centre when we were there.

Yep, but for some, the rules don't apply unless they reckon they might get caught. Sad really.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

Zippo,

The reason the park entrance gate is where it is, is that Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) is also part of the park. If they moved the gate to where you suggested, then they would not be collecting any money from tourists wishing to see Kata Tjuta.

Macca.

I always find it disconcerting that people meekly accept the fact that they have to pay for a permit and abide by a set of regulations ( time limits etc) to travel
on a major public highway payed for and maintained by the tax payer.
Dave.

Lot of money to be scammed out of just to look at a rock up close it's cheaper and more entertaining to watch a video like The Leyland Brothers.

It's not public land and the road in question is a private road, not a public road. The Federal government contributes to its upkeep because the road is a valuable resource to all Australians. The permit is free so not a money making exercise. The land owners obviously don't want people having free range on it, something I can understand these days.

As Micheal said, if you go onto a pastoral lease you ask for the owners permission, it is the same for Aboriginal lands, you ask permission. I never had a problem getting a free permit.

I can cope with a properly-regulated and efficiently-distributed fee to enter a National Park, because I know it goes towards Park maintenance, rubbish removal, and wages of Rangers.

But $38 per person is starting to become a major rort level to visit a Park - no matter how spectacular it is.

As to the transit permit, I'm just waiting for some aggrieved individual with money, to launch a lawsuit against transit permits through Aboriginal Lands.

It's claimed the permit is due to these Lands being freehold Aboriginal Lands, and they have the right to charge entry or govern passage through their properties, and exclude those they regard as undesirable from Aboriginal Lands.

But if the reverse was applied, and whites excluded Aboriginals from white-owned land, such as our cities, I'm sure the ALS would be straight into the High Court, with a claim for racial discrimination.

As to "private road" - unless a road is signposted as private, has no gates, and is closed on at least one day of the year, it is regarded as a "public road".

"Public roads" have already been classified in previous lawsuits as "roads and associated areas where the general public has access to them".

I wonder what happens when someone has an accident on these "private Aboriginal roads", due to poor construction or design faults in the road layout?
It seems to me, they could quite likely sue the relevant Aboriginal body for damages.

Cheers, Ron.

P&M: obviously sarcasm is lost on you.

Macca: Fair point about the Olgas, although I'm not sure there would be many toursists out there who would be there just for them.

And if you want to take the strict interpretation of the transit permit, you aren't allowed to stop in the Olgas car park to use the toilet. Ah, OK then ...

I also wonder if the people that support the dividing of the nation by race realise that they could be part of the Aborigines problems. Like to see Jacinta Price have more of a say in their future.
Pastoral leases still belong to Australians.
"The Federal government contributes to its upkeep" No, they pay it. :)
Dave.

Zippo,

I think you would be surprised how many people spend at least a day at Kata Tjuta on its own. That is the reason why the Park Permit is a three day pass.

I also think that the entrance fee is a bit steep, particularly as the climb is no longer permitted. Although, at $38 per adult for a three day pass, (which as far as I know is the new fee), it is still only $12:67 per day.

Macca.

Who are the land owners it couldn't be aboriginals as that would be strictly going against their own traditional beliefs that they belong to the land and own nothing not even a spear they made. I'm sure they wouldn't be part of profiting from something they can't actually own.

Anyway I'll never pay to look at it up close as it's worse than tax payers paying toll to drive over a bridge etc which is crimial.

Come to W.A., Batts - we don't have privately-financed roads, or road rolls - and it's going to stay that way for the long-term!

All W.A. Govts, and the people of W.A. are implacably opposed to private highways and road tolls, and it's been that way forever.

In the same vein, we are implacably opposed to pokies in every club and pub throughout W.A. - for good reason - despite the enormous pressure placed on the Govt by liquor associations, hotel groups and other lobbyists.

Pokies are a blight on the nation, and I'll be burning tyres on the steps of W.A. Parliament House if any politician tries to bring them in to W.A., wholesale.
The problem is these things tend to sneak in by stealth, by surreptitious means.

Cheers, Ron.

Apart from being a wonderful place to visit and , I’m sure a great place to live,
WA has the benefit of the royalties from it’s abundant resources so as to allow it the luxury of toll less freeways and few poker machines. Long may it last.
Ross

Friday, 31 March 2017 The West Australian

"WA lost almost every cent it raised in iron ore royalties over the past decade as the Commonwealth Grants Commission redistributed the benefits of the mining boom to the rest of the nation.

A breakdown of the commission’s rulings since 2006 and the State’s mining royalties reveals $39 billion that swelled WA coffers was lost in the annual GST carve-up.

Victoria has been the biggest winner from the WA mining boom, prompting calls from the mining sector to change the grants commission process."

Still don't have tolls and poker machines :-)

Ron N I lived in Perth for 3yrs with my wife, daughter we left in 2005 nice state travelled around saw a fair bit while there liked Coral Bay a lot and the surrounding areas. Lots of nice places to visit in W.A. we were always looking around can't believe how many trips we done in 3yrs looking forward to travelling around there again. I worked on conveyor belts as well all over the place from the grain belt, gold mines to the pilbra one thing though is you can keep your flies.

Here you go Ron et al, a breakdown of fees and where they go.
https://parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/plan/passes/
While I have your attention I'm interested in reading the legal determinations of what constitutes public and private roads (presumably WA-based?) and what that means for access. Doubt what you suggest applies in other states although it may to some extent depend on expenditure of public funds.

Btw, I agree with your assessment of poker machines. They're a blight on civil society and more power to the States which ban them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's a "scam" to charge fees Batt's then the custodians (ever heard of that concept?) are in good company. Plenty of non-indigenous owners were charging fees for accessing their facilities and sights when I last looked, and plenty have had government subsidies and grants to provide roads etc. Not sure why but you seem to have a particular problem with aborigines using Australia's laws and adopting non-traditional business practices and the like for their advantage. Must have missed your outrage at millions being put into privately-owned football teams (Broncos and Panthers are just 2 cases which come to mind), or being used to subsidise massively wealthy multinational mining and petro companies for example. Plenty more examples if you open your eyes. To ease your pain you could try to think of the fees as a small token towards compensation for a couple of centuries of abuse and disenfranchisement.

Bazooka, here's the guidelines for the definitions of public roads in NSW ...

NSW Roads - General principles

Each State has its own Road or Traffic Act, generally put into being in the early 1900's, and usually re-formed multiple times, up to the latest version.

W.A. has the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 as its current defining legislation relating to all things associated with the administration of roads and traffic.
This legislation operates in conjunction with the W.A. Road Traffic Act 1974, the W.A. Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008, and the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Act 2012.

Under Part 1, Sect 4 (Page 8), of the first-mentioned Act, we find the listed definition of a road in W.A. ....

"... 'road' means any highway, road or street open to, or used by, the public, and includes every carriageway, footway, reservation, median strip and traffic island on it;"

W.A. Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008

The definition of a road in W.A. is further enhanced by the fact that Police patrol public roads, issue infringement notices for those disobeying laws relating to public roads and highways - and this happens on all public roads, that are on Aboriginal Lands.

If these roads were private roads, the Police would have no power to enforce Traffic Laws on them.

Cheers, Ron.

Ron, the police can and do charge people for being drunk and in charge of a motor vehicle on private property, wether it is a house block or a station.

Not long ago here, there was a farmer who was arrested, charged and found guilty of drink driving on his property.

This also goes fro WA.

In Western Australia, there is no exception for drivers from whom a breath test is requested by police where the driver is on private property under the Road Traffic Act 1974.

Eagle, your reference is specifically to drunk driving, and no other traffic laws. In every State, drunk driving and breath testing laws apply on every type of property.

But no other road laws or regulations apply to private property - i.e., you cannot be charged for speeding, overloading, road damage, failure to indicate, etc, etc., on private property.

A fatal crash on a private road is not counted as part of the road toll, and insurance law often differentiates between private and public roads - i.e., some forms of insurance are void on private roads or private properties.

Car parks are private property, but deemed to be a "public road area", and traffic laws are enforceable there.

The definition of a public road is not linked to the “ownership” or maintenance of a road, parking area, etc. but to the common use, or right of use, by the public, of a road area.

Cheers, Ron.

Thanks Ron, I'll wade through it at my leisure. Been a while since I had to study the basic principles of NSW laws and property regs. I guess my point is that "private" access roads exist and unless you have reason to be on them or have obtained permission you will soon be given the the right royal invitation to leave, depending on the owner/manager's demeanour. It's a few decades back now but I know of a handful of such cases in NSW and experienced one first hand, although thankfully the law subsequently dealt that fella and his shotgun. Some may have heard of his exploits around Bendethera, we had a close up encounter. Also heard of a "reverse" situation - the landholder had a public access road (gazetted) running through his property but turned back some scouts and their adult leader when they tried to use it by foot to get access into public lands (forestry or NP, can't recall which).

Good luck to anyone attempting to sue for substandard roads. They will need VERY deep pockets, a very clever beak, and a lot of evidence to say that the hazards were unreasonable and unexpected, had existed for some time, and those responsible (not necessarily the land owners) knew that and failed to provide proper signage etc or improve the road.

I did think that the ARRs had homogenised rules re car parks etc but I guess unless existing laws were repealed (highly unlikely) or were deemed to have been superseded (equally unlikely) then that may not be (is not) the case. Besides road rules there are intersecting liability laws which will be considered depending on the case and how far it goes. There are plenty of examples around from Appeal Courts which show the folly of broad-brush generalisations re liability and "public roads".

Just found these interesting Appeals cases, which show what a minefield "public roads" can be :
Is a public car park a public road?

Statutory defences a win for public authorities

Bazooka - You can definitely spend a lot of money on lawyers arguing about "reasonable exercise of power/s".

In W.A., a road is Proclaimed by being declared such, in the W.A. Govt Gazette ("gazetted").

There are numerous roads in W.A. that have been surveyed, but have never been proclaimed as roads, because they were planned, but never installed (formed up).

These un-gazetted roads are relatively common in agricultural and pastoral areas. They are often used to access farm paddocks via a track along the road reserve survey.

All surveyed roads in W.A. are shown on the LandGate Map Viewer Plus, which shows all land titles in W.A., as well as railway reserves and road reserves. Each road reserve has a land title.

The earliest road reserves (1800's to early 1900's) were surveyed at a nominal 1 chain wide (20 metres) for most roads.
Roads deemed to become major thoroughfares (highways) were surveyed at greater widths.

Later on, regular road reserves were surveyed at a nominal 2 chains wide (40 metres), as the realisation struck home, with increasing traffic speeds and larger vehicles, that the nominal 1 chain width roads were inadequate.

In the 1960's with the release of blocks of land in the W.A. wheatbelt for farming, that were formerly treated as "marginal land", there were numerous new roads surveyed (and installed and gazetted) at 5 chains and 10 chains wide.

All roads are under the control of the local council, except where a road has been declared a Main Road or Freeway, whereby it then comes under the control of Main Roads W.A. (formerly the Dept of Main Roads W.A.)

The public roads through Aboriginal Lands are under the control of the local councils (which are usually Aboriginal-run councils).
These councils receive Govt grants and other specific road monies, to maintain and upgrade the roads within their jurisdiction.

The entire road reserve is treated as a public road, even when there is no road formation on it.
I was involved in much Shire Council contracting work in the 1960's, clearing road reserves for road widening purposes, and stockpiling road base for same.

I had the interesting exercise, whereby when clearing for road widening in that era, the road was left open to traffic, and I operated the dozer on the (gravel) road formation, knocking down roadside trees and pushing them along the road, to a suitable position for piling up and burning.

Vehicles were merely stopped while I was on the road with the dozer, and I then cleared a path for traffic to continue on their way.

Then the local lawman started showing interest in what we were doing, and advised that the dozer was required to be licenced to be on the road reserve!
Inquiries revealed he was correct, it was deemed necessary to have the dozer registered for 3rd party insurance cover, in case someone collided with it.

The licence (registration) issued was a "plant and equipment" 3rd party licence only - which meant the dozer could not meet regular road vehicle registration requirements, but it was still road-registered, and became recognised as a road vehicle under 3rd party insurance law.

I got a number plate for each dozer working on the roads when doing this construction work, and then I could let the licence lapse for any period when the dozer wasn't working on the roads (which was about 7 to 8 mths of the year).
I could renew the 3rd party plant licence for operating on roads, any time I wanted, with no inspection of the dozer needed, just the issuing of a new plate, and paying the small licence fee.

Since that time, all plant working on road and road reserves is now required to have a plant and equipment registration and number plate, even though traffic may be diverted away from the road, due to road works.

Cheers, Ron.

Ron, you might have to think about this again.

Driving private property

Eagle, it appears that there are differences in the application of traffic laws from State to State.

Here are the Victorian traffic laws ....

Traffic Law (VIC) and your rights

I understand that W.A. traffic laws are pretty much identical to the Victorian traffic laws.

NSW Road Rules 2014 appears to make "adjacent land" next to roads, included in the definitions of a road. That's a pretty wide-ranging definition.

The ARR's only apply to defined roads - but road accident laws, and drink-driving laws, are separated from ARR's and have major extensions in their legislation, that extends their powers onto private property.

I could not imagine where an infringement notice issued for not wearing a seatbelt on private property would be successful - whereas a DUI prosecution would be.

But the seatbelt infringement notice would stand, if you were driving on a track that is generally open and accessible to the public.

Cheers, Ron.

West Australian Road Traffic Act 1974

Division 3 — General matters as to driving offences [Heading inserted: No. 10 of 2004 s. 10.]
73. Certain offences extend to driving or attempting to drive in public places In sections 54, 55 and 56 and in sections 59 to 72 inclusive, but not in section 62A, a reference, however expressed, to the driving of or attempting to drive a motor vehicle shall be construed as a reference to the driving of or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or in any place to which the public is permitted, whether on payment of a fee or otherwise, to have access, and a reference to a driver shall be construed accordingly.

The sections referred to Dangerous, Reckless Driving, Property Damage, DUI etc
Road in WA would normally be the Road Reserve from property line to property line.

I've been aware of what custodians are for qiite a few decades and they're not land owners just caretakers who own nothing and have no claim to anything which was their belief. There are some that have morals and follow that and make a living for themselves then there are the ones with no morals who take handouts, make claims that don't exist and complain their hard done by nothing wrong about speaking the truth instead of turning your back as lots do and hiding from it because the racist word is always ready to be used by those who don't understand it's real meaning. I just have a problem with lazy bludgers of any kind Bazooka.

The inconsistencies and contradictions in comments on these topics are stark Batt's. You and others whinge loudly that some aborigines haven't moved on and adopted our customs but when they do take advantage of their legal rights you whinge even louder. You also appear to be completely ignorant of the rulings of the highest court in this land wrt land rights. From personal experience I can say that the whole Uluru setup and experience is a thousand times better now than it was when I first visited, even with the ban on climbing.

Irrespective, I don't understand your link between morals and "hand outs", perhaps you can elaborate. Pretty much every person and family in this nation has had very large handouts from governments in one way or another, which makes us all immoral apparently. If you have a problem wth "lazy bludgers of any kind" then I'll look forward to your regular criticism's of your fellow "white" citizens with relish. You can start with anyone charging a fee to enter or camp on their land. Or perhaps you'd prefer to lay into the thousands of bludging companies and wealthy individuals who pay zero or minimal tax? How about farmers and wealthy families and their tax-avoiding trusts? Or perhaps religions and "charities" and their tax-free status?

It's always worth keeping in mind that not everyone has had the same advantages or opportunities as you and I from birth though adulthood. Certainly very few have been subject to the sort of ignorant abuse and discrimination as our indigenous population has. That doesn't mean some aren't open to valid criticism but it does mean we should have a heightened understanding and empathy for those people.