L. Chalmers - Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism Submission Parliamentary Inquiry

This submission provides a perspective on tourism development and management from the south west of Victoria, and some insights about Glenelg Shire with its high- level heritage and environment assets.

GSC is now part of the Great South Coast Region. References to the Far South West in my submission generally relate to Glenelg and Southern Grampians Shires.

Some of my remarks may be applicable to other smaller regional municipalities with high level heritage and environmental assets, but Glenelg Shire’s are particularly noteworthy because of their high standard and potential to contribute much more to the State and south western regional economy, with proper management.

Thank you for the opportunity for input.

Introduction

My submission is based on experience as a tourism operator (Victoria House, Portland, 1990 – 98) and in heritage, cultural, environment and tourism organisations (including as Chair of South West Tourism Victoria, SWTV) at local, regional and state level. Over 40 years local organisations contributed to various Glenelg Shire Council (GSC) and Portland City Council consultations for Strategies for planning scheme, economic, tourism and cultural development. Members of community groups with conservation interests also gained much experience of municipal processes and operations, including through adversarial processes at VCAT, and I consider that the following are continuing issues.

Recommendations arising from this Inquiry -

I hope that recommendations from the present Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism in Victoria may - benefit communities looking after natural and cultural assets and the conservation of Victoria’s heritage and environment, - help to establish common municipal management principles for heritage and environment, and tourism based on them, across Victoria - assist tourism opportunities through giving visitors better interpretation and access, based on community as well as agency and municipal support.

For these benefits to be achieved I advocate that the Inquiry support some of the following  That government agencies supporting municipalities in heritage and environment areas, and with public education and arts programs, are better resourced in future - Heritage Victoria (HV); the Department of Environment and Primary Industry (DEPI); Parks Victoria (PV); Arts Victoria and Regional Arts Victoria. Their conservation programs support people’s engagement with their environment and heritage to the benefit of their communities and tourism (see p. 20).

1  That the government target resourcing for Arts Victoria and Regional Arts Victoria for events and activities aiming for community engagement with environment and cultural heritage through festivals, performances, exhibitions, and arts skills education and development. These programs contribute to wider education about cultural heritage and environment issues and appeal to many visitors (p. 22)

 That statutory bodies working to improve strategic environmental outcomes contributing to public and environmental amenity (and supporting assets contributing to tourism development) e.g. Catchment Management Authorities, the Victorian Coastal Council and Regional Coastal Boards, are better funded to ensure continued quality conservation and environmental strategies, policies and outcomes (p.19).

 That before considering industrial or other development in sensitive landscapes and environments, governments are required to include in decision-making the economic costs of loss of amenity and the region’s ability to produce income from existing assets, including through actual or potential tourism development based on the assets (p.28).

 Where a municipality is funded for work to improve its planning scheme e.g. Heritage Studies, or where work is done on its behalf as part of a State-wide project e.g. the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study (CSLAS), it is expected to implement the findings of any Review or Study in a timely manner into its planning scheme. (p. 20)

 That Ministerial authorization of planning scheme amendments through DEPI is reviewed to ensure that authorizations are only given when a proposed amendment clearly complies with the SPPFs and strategic advice given by reference documents in the Planning Scheme such as the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 and Heritage Studies (see p. 10 - 11)

 That programs to develop strategies for heritage, environment and tourism to adapt to global warming are funded and encouraged (p.13).

 That research is undertaken into cooperative use of the Internet for marketing that would be useful to all regional and local organizations contributing to the regional tourism industry (including volunteer groups supporting arts, community cultural development, Indigenous and European cultural heritage and environment) See pp. 12 & 31.

 That Tourism Victoria’s regional marketing campaigns and strategies are reviewed with the aims of - restoring to the regions more responsibility for promoting their own assets; - assisting regional tourism associations to better serve their communities through developing cooperative, comprehensive and accurate web site information (p. 13 & 31).

2  That not-for-profit organizations of all kinds and sizes supporting healthy cultural heritage and environments, and public access (from the National Trust and Birds Australia to local volunteers opening museums to the public and developing walking tracks), are better resourced through provision of modest administrative and promotional funds (p. 21).

 That NFP conservation groups have increased opportunities to bid for grants for works such as protection of sites of high biodiversity, e.g. in the Victorian Volcanic Plains; for the conservation of buildings, artifacts and records, and making them available to the public; for better interpretation of sites so that the public can understand their significance; and for development of interpretive materials including web sites (p.22).

 That the community, volunteer and not-for-profit conservation organizations have access to the National Broadband Network to improve their communication with one another and the general public (p.22).

• That ABS accommodation statistics are supplemented by regional surveys showing occupancy of accommodation with fewer than 15 rooms (p.40).

• That education providers are encouraged to expand hospitality training in the regions by increasing their budgets for this purpose (p.40).

I would also support that the following Recommendations of the Inquiry into Local Economic Development Initiatives in Victoria (July 2013) are endorsed by this Inquiry :-

1 … the government works with “local councils to produce an effective definition of economic development …” I consider that differing LG definitions of economic development result in a variety of responses to conservation issues – which underpin tourism – from hostility to strong support, and this results in uneven outcomes for potential tourism development across the state.

3 … the government should establish a financial commission to “investigate financial reform of the local government sector with a view to linking greater fiscal authority (and) prescribed economic development outcomes …” I support this as it may prevent waste of Government agency support for conservation strategies including Planning Scheme improvements, where a council resists change and apparently considers that only housing, industry and farming contribute to “economic development”.

6. The Local Government Act 1989 be amended to require local government authorities to prepare a separate economic development strategy that complements the Council Plan required under Section 125 and the Strategic Resource Plan required under section 126.

11 The Local Government Act 1989 be amended “to require councils to make available economic development strategies to their communities both in hardcopy and on council websites.”

3 Transparency is a broader issue than economic development strategies. GSC provides many important documents for “separate circulation” to councillors and managers at Council meetings; and only some of its strategic documents are available online at any one time.

12 … a “model of consultation (be developed) which would ensure that economic development strategies produced by local governments reflect priorities and challenges of local business, industry and the wider community”. It appears that use of “focus groups” and “stakeholder” consultations are increasing – which can have the effect of excluding the “wider community” in conservation / environmental consultations; where all may be stakeholders.

19 “ … the Victorian Government, with local government and the private sector, identifies local functional economies.” It is my view that, while Great Ocean Road marketing is very effective, this attenuated tourism “region” is not a “functional local economy”. In my view the GOR has disrupted several tourism “functional local economies” along its length, e.g. Colac-Otway, and the economic, historic and geographic linkages relevant to tourism between Hamilton and Portland in the Far South West.

30 “The Victorian Government works with local government and the Australian Government to identify key strategic areas for the rollout of the National Broadband Network to promote enterprise, innovation and jobs”.

31 The Victorian Government continues to explore and support innovative mechanisms for post-compulsory education including distance and online learning.

Background to submission; Personal perspectives on Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism.

I gained experience in heritage, environment, community cultural development and tourism and their management, as a resident of Portland from 1969 – 2007. Communities and local governments often cooperate in these areas, and in my view LG skills in managing both land and community influence district tourism success.

Tourism  I was a tourism operator and member of the Portland Tourism Association from 1990 to 1998.

 I chaired South West Tourism Victoria (SWTV) 1993-5, a regional association covering seven municipalities including the main centres of Hamilton and Portland which promoted the tourism assets of the South West where most tourism businesses are based on cultural heritage and environment. It succeeded because it covered a connected region with a common economy, history and geography.

I believe that the SWTV area was (from earliest settlement) and continues to be a “local functional economy” with hinterland areas and Portland depending on each another through transport, import and export connections. The environment in the Far South West created its cultural heritage.

4  In my view, Tourism Victoria central management and reliance on the “Jigsaw” from 1993 made promotion of south western tourism assets more difficult because they are perceived as being on the periphery of accessible regions.

Conservation

• Membership of the Western Coastal Board (WCB) 2006 – 12 added to my knowledge of land and coastal management issues, the variety of influences agencies, and the principles of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008. I consider the conservation of the coast, its varied geology and environments, and the character of its settlements vital to developing ecotourism and heritage tourism in Victoria.

• The WCB nominated me to represent “coasts” for 3 years on the Corangamite CMA’s Regional Implementation Committee (which allocated Federal Natural Resource Management grants to community projects supporting the environment).

• I have sought to protect Glenelg Shire’s heritage and environment from unnecessary development, and to encourage development that complements them, so that they continue to contribute to residents’ pride and the region’s economy.

• There is an economic value in re-cycling old buildings to retain embodied energy, and many restored buildings in the SW region now help to “export” its heritage and environment through tourism. In 1990 - 98 I experienced this through restoring (with partners) a run-down 1854 bluestone hotel to accommodation reflecting Portland’s heritage.

• I experienced positive economic effects on tourism when the Portland City Council supported conservation of its natural and cultural heritage 1980-941.

However from 1994 when Portland City Council amalgamated with two rural shires of Heywood and Glenelg to create the Glenelg Shire Council (GSC), impetus for heritage conservation ebbed. Community groups had to devote much energy in the early 2000s to opposing demolitions permitted under the Portland Heritage Overlay as well as permits for buildings which did not respect the city’s heritage character, despite HO protection; and opposing unsuitable subdivision permits for coastal and roadside land. This period in my view undermined community spirit.

1 Portland City Council prepared the Portland Urban Conservation Study (PUCS) 1981, appointed a Heritage Advisory Board in 1983, gained a Heritage Adviser supported by Heritage Victoria, developed a Heritage Overlay based on PUCS recommendations in 1992, and instituted a rolling fund for low-interest heritage loans. It also produced guidelines for owners of heritage buildings and ran information nights for builders.

In response, during the 1990s Portland invested millions of dollars in public and private heritage works – streetscapes, restorations, removing 1960s cantilevered verandahs from Georgian facades, developing an arts centre and workshops in the heritage precinct, and heritage accommodation upgrades. Portland’s heritage character was restored.

5 Community Cultural Development

I gained this experience through leadership roles in local arts organizations.

I was also elected to the Board of the Victorian Arts Council (now Regional Arts Victoria) for two terms in the 1970s and 80s, co-convened the Green Triangle Arts Network (SW Vic and SE S.A.) 1985-87, and chaired Portland’s Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts (CEMA) 1991 - 2001.

From my experience, celebrations, arts events, performances and exhibitions across Victoria are often based in environmental and heritage themes, and are well supported by the municipalities, Arts Victoria and Regional Arts Victoria. They are also a means of educating the public on issues and social impacts from e.g. global warming (wildfires, flood) to salinity of soils. Many provide tourism opportunities - for example, Portland’s Bonney Upwelling Festival, www.upwellingfestival.com.au/

I propose a recommendation from this Inquiry in support of arts agencies encouraging community cultural development, skills development and community engagement. Arts Victoria and Regional Arts Victoria support regional municipalities and organisations in opportunities for people to describe, celebrate and learn about their heritage and environment such as Dot Point 2, p. 2 of this submission.

Local government issues and conservation responsibilities

I consider the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a most valuable piece of legislation. Because GSC does not have adequate Local Policies for conservation of its heritage and environment, tribunals and panels rely on the SPPFs. See remarks below, Panel hearing for GSC Heritage Overlays (Amendment C 55 Part 1)2.

2 3.4 Amendment C 55 Part 1 HOs - Panel discussion and conclusion on planning context In reviewing the strategic context for this amendment, the Panel has noted that the Glenelg Planning Scheme provides limited strategic direction for heritage conservation. While there are multiple references to heritage in the MSS (quoted above in 3.1(ii) of this report) they are very general, very short and, apart from brief references to Portland as the ‘birthplace of Victoria’, do not relate specifically to the Shire of Glenelg. There is no relationship between these isolated references, and therefore no cohesive strategy or theme. Even Clause 21.09, which specifically addresses heritage, has much less content than the SPPF and is so general that it could apply to any municipality in Victoria. In short, the MSS contains general objectives but little local planning strategy or context to support its heritage controls. Furthermore, the MSS does not contain any description of the Shire’s history or geography, the two key elements that have formed the Shire as it is today. The inclusion of a brief thematic history would provide a context not only for strategies for heritage protection, but also to the protection and enhancement of Glenelg’s natural systems and landscapes, productive agricultural land, industry capacity, urban development, tourism and infrastructure. The Panel concludes that while the SPPF provides a general strategic basis for the Amendment C55 Part 1, it would be preferable for the MSS to include a section providing a thematic context for all its planning strategies, and to expand Clause 21.09 Objectives and strategies Heritage to provide a locally based strategy that addresses the nature and distribution of heritage assets in the Shire and their connection to other strategies such as tourism. The Panel understands that Council is undertaking a review of the MSS that will be exhibited as Amendment C75. The above comments should be incorporated into the review process. Panel Report, Amendment C55 Part 1 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme 15 May 2013

6 The Panel also pointed out – “The Glenelg MSS places considerable emphasis on strategies for economic development in the Shire, including tourism. It is generally accepted that heritage protection and conservation make a positive contribution to tourism.”3

Many other reports have recommended strengthening Local Policies for heritage and environment in the Glenelg Planning Scheme. The first was the New Format Planning Scheme Panel Report (1998); the most trenchant the Auditor-General’s Review of Community Planning in the Glenelg Shire 1998 – 2005, October 2005.

The Auditor General found that a pro-development culture in the Glenelg Shire mitigated against its high-level heritage and environment, and made many recommendations for improvement4.

Council responded, undertaking to improve “balance” in its Planning Scheme. It initiated the Glenelg Shire Strategic Futures Plan 2009 (GSFP) and the GS Heritage Study Stage 2 (a) 2006 which would lead to Heritage Overlays. At the same time DSE published its Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006 which would lead to Significant Landscape Overlays with consistency along the Victorian coast.

But GSC deferred both “conservation amendments”, C 52 for SLOs and C 55 for HOs. Staff and councillor turnover contributed to loss of impetus and corporate knowledge of their purpose. In 2012 it adopted only Part 1 of each, wasting government funding and agency effort to assist GS Planning Scheme improvements that would protect its heritage and environmental assets - to the benefit of the community and region through tourism development.

The C 55 Part 1 (HOs) Panel included the following recommendations –

6 Conclusions and recommendations The Panel is disappointed that the Part 2 of the amendment relating to precincts is not proceeding at this stage and considers that this is a critical element in protecting heritage values in the Shire. The Panel has recommended accordingly that this work be completed as soon as possible.

6.2 Recommendations … Adopt Amendment C55 Part 1 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme subject to recommendations

3 Panel Report, Amendment C55 Part 1 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme 15 May 2013 ( p. 7). 4 Foreword, Auditor General’s Report Planning for the future of a community is arguably a council’s most important responsibility. Planning decisions shape communities and impact on their quality of life and local environments…. This report sets out the results of our examination of Glenelg Shire Council’s community planning activities, following concerns … centered around the impact of council decisions on the conservation and protection of significant state and local cultural, historic and environmental assets. This is a story about … the management of competing priorities in developing communities, about effective due process, including community consultation, and about Government bodies maintaining effective oversight of council activities. …. Those councils who have experienced a strong push for increased development over recent years and lack adequate oversight of planning services put their historic, cultural or environmental assets at risk. Councils need to exercise special care to ensure these risks are identified and effectively managed for the long term benefit of future generations. State agencies as well as local governments have a particular responsibility to ensure this remains the case. (My emphasis) JW CAMERON, Auditor-General Report Community Planning in the Glenelg Shire Council 1998 – 2005, 5 October 2005

7 below: 1. That the Glenelg Heritage Study Part 2a and any earlier heritage studies on which the Council relies be listed as reference documents as part of Amendment C75.” My emphasis.5

In my view, • it remains to be seen whether Part 2 of Amendment C 55 for Heritage Overlays – precinct protection for over 600 properties – will ever proceed. This apparently depends on further HV funding according to an answer to a question at the July council meeting6.

• it also remains to be seen whether the Panel recommendation regarding heritage studies “on which the council relies” will be referred to Amendment C 75. GSC submitted to the New Format Planning Scheme Panel in 1998 that the Portland Urban Conservation Study 1981 was out of date and it was not made a Reference Document, pending an updated Portland Study – which will likely now not occur until matters surrounding C 55 Part 2 are resolved. So despite its quality and the fact that it is the only authoritative Study of the Portland area’s heritage to date, the GSC has never “relied” on it.

It is very disappointing that under Glenelg SC’s style of heritage management, despite Heritage Victoria’s best efforts and investment of $95,000 (to the council’s $50,000) in amendment C 55 for HOs over seven years, Part 1 has only provided protection for 87 properties.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 charges LGs with identifying heritage and environmental assets, and protecting them through Planning Schemes. Where this does not occur, I consider that a community is disadvantaged through - lack of certainty in their Planning Scheme - the constant risk of losing assets to unsympathetic development, and consequent community dissension until each matter is resolved - limits on communities promoting the area’s strengths to visitors with the backing of the council, e.g. interpretive signage and brochures.

Planning appeals –

As well as being a submitter to recent Planning Panels for amendments to the planning scheme supporting heritage and environment, I have participated in several successful planning appeals against demolitions and unsuitable development that would undermine Glenelg’s environment and heritage character – supported at VCAT because they were contrary to the SPPFs.

5 Panel Report, Amendment C55 Part 1 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme 15 May 2013 6 1. C55 Planning Amendment, Heritage Overlay Mr Gordon Stokes of Portland asked the following question: Is council intending to proceed with the panel recommendations with regards to the abandoned heritage precinct in a future amendment? Group Manager Planning and Economic Development, Mr Syd Deam advised that C55 took a considerable period to have approved and to investigate all of the sites, which was enabled through funding from Heritage Victoria. The various precincts were withdrawn from Amendment C55 on basis there was insufficient citation on those particular precincts. Council is intending on seeking further funding from Heritage Victoria to reinvestigate those particular sites including the heritage values. Council does intend on continuing with part 2 of the heritage amendment when funding becomes available. GSC Council meeting minutes 23/7/2013; Council web site www.glenelg.vic.gov.au

8 As a result I support retaining strong conservation provisions in Planning Schemes, and retaining Third Party rights to have input to Planning decisions.

I consider that Local Governments are stewards of their municipality’s heritage and environment, for benefit of their communities and amenity as well as for their potential economic contribution through “export” to visitors wishing to experience the environment and the past – both especially dependent on one another in Glenelg.

Economic development vs. tourism

I believe that these issues complement one another; they should not be adversarial, but they have been to a great extent in the Glenelg Shire. There were many planning improvements after the Auditor-General’s Report 2005; but then there was a long, costly (to local and state government, developers and the community) period of resolving issues arising from poor planning management 1998 - 2005.

It appears that Glenelg Shire Council’s definition of “economic development” is once again directed to attracting housing7 and industry, rather than supporting increases in employment through incremental tourism based on its natural and cultural assets8.

I believe that in this the GSC is out of step with its community, which strongly supports its heritage and environment. For example, there were - only 4 objections in total to Parts 1 and 2 of Amendment C52 for Significant Landscape Overlays, and there were 14 supportive responses; and - only 18 objections to Amendment C 55 for HOs, with 8 submissions in support and some neutral (32 responses) from 700 properties contacted by consultants in developing the Heritage Study and Amendment.

I therefore encourage this Inquiry to support the LEDI Inquiry Recommendation 1 (referred to on p. 3 of this submission) re a common municipal definition of economic development. I trust that this would include the role of natural and cultural heritage assets in contributing to a region’s underlying wealth, and lead to their proper protection so that they continue to contribute to a region’s amenity and income.

In the light of the above, I agree with the following recommendations of the Parliamentary Inquiry into local economic development initiatives in Victoria, Report

7 Coastal economic development is … something of an economic paradox. It has a great appetite for land development (in a narrow strip close by the water) and has delivered large amounts of new housing, sudden gains in population in small communities, and (recently) very rapid price increases in land and houses. Closer study of locations with these outcomes shows they have low incomes, high levels of welfare dependence, small shares of commercial investment and high unemployment rates. This paradox emerges from a misunderstanding that housing and population growth constitutes development, a misunderstanding that fails to recognise the difference between the forces that shape the distribution of population and housing and those that shape the distribution of jobs. That difference is sharpened by the special circumstances surrounding the creation of jobs in the many forms of the tourism industry and is honed by geography, as coastal development is much stronger in regions closer to metropolitan areas (my emphasis). Kevin O’Connor, Professor of Urban Planning, MU, Coastal Conference Paper “Understanding and Managing Coastal Economic Development”. 8 Tourism businesses - Motivations for establishing business – A large number of respondents indicated they had established their business because they were residents in the Shire (56%). Another 26 % were primarily attracted to the natural surroundings of the Shire, which provided tourism opportunities - Glenelg Shire Tourism Research Report 2011 p. 46

9 July 2013 - Recommendations 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 19, 30, 31; see p. 3-4 of this submission.

Authorisation of Amendments

I would also like this Inquiry to consider the quality of the process for Ministerial authorization of Amendments through DEPI where such amendments have the potential to affect regional and State environmental assets and advocate a recommendation such as

That Ministerial authorization of planning scheme amendments through DEPI is reviewed to ensure that authorizations are only given when a proposed amendment clearly complies with the SPPFs and strategic advice given by reference documents in the Planning Scheme such as the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 and Heritage Studies.

Reasons – I was a recent Submitter to a Planning Scheme Amendment in Glenelg Shire, Amendment C 73, to implement the Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2012 into the Glenelg Planning Scheme to allow re-zonings from Rural Conservation Zones to Farming, Rural Living and Township Zones.

In my view, the GS Amendment C 73 and its “foundation document” the Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2012 (GSSS) were always clearly divergent from strategic advice on coastal development - designed to protect coastal assets - as expressed in the SPPFs and the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008, a reference document in coastal planning schemes. Many Amendment C 73 recommendations also cover SLO areas.

I consider that Amendments should not be authorized to proceed where they are contrary to the SPPFs and strategic advice. I consider that if the DEPI process in reviewing council applications for authorization of Amendments were sufficiently rigorous, applications such as C 73 would have been denied Ministerial authorization and associated time and costs of preparation of the Amendment and setting up a Panel hearing. The Panel found in particular that e.g. allowing coastal village Structure Plan Maps to go forward with “Proposed township rezoning” was contrary to the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008; -

Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme Sec. 7 Conclusion and Recommendations Sec. 7.1 Conclusion Amendment C73 seeks to implement elements of the significant amount of strategic work undertaken by the Glenelg Council over the past decade. Council advised that this process will continue in the future as further amendments are prepared to implement other elements of this work. The amendment is largely based on the Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy, which in turn was based on various other reports, mainly the Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan. The amendment and Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy identify a range of future actions and investigations intended to underpin the preparation of further planning scheme amendments. The Panel supports this approach and encourages Council to progress and finalise these

10 further investigations. …. …. the Panel encourages Council to monitor and, where necessary, improve the performance of the planning scheme, particularly in relation to environmental protection and heritage conservation. The Panel has recommended a number of changes to the exhibited amendment, mainly to improve consistency within it and to confirm that further investigations are required in support of some of the proposed zone and overlay actions. More importantly, the Panel has expressed concerns about the possible expansion of Cape Bridgewater and Nelson in light of coastal settlement policy in the State Planning Policy Framework and the Victorian Coastal Strategy. The Panel was not presented with any material that convinced it that there was a strategic basis for expanding these settlements. Overall, the Panel commends Council for the extensive amount of strategic work that it has undertaken in recent years and for its commitment to current and future studies. The Panel also encourages Council to continue its implementation of this work, including the preparation of further amendments to its planning scheme.

Sec. 7.2 Recommendations For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme be adopted as exhibited subject to the following modifications: ….. 3 Replace the designation ‘Proposed Township Zone’ in the legend to the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 with: ‘Investigation area for possible rezoning’. 4 Reduce the area on the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 recommended for the designation ‘Investigation area for possible rezoning’ to reflect the area of existing development. 5 Replace the reference ‘Future investigation of Township Zone’ on the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 with: ‘Investigate the suitability of the existing Rural Conservation 2 Zone and assess alternative zones and the application of a coastal settlement boundary’. 6 Delete the reference on the Nelson Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 to ‘Investigate long term requirement for future expansion of Township Zone’ and the associated highlight on the map. ……… 12 Delete any references to the GSSS (or other background documents) from Clauses 21.09 and 22.01 where that reference provides for its use in the exercise of discretion or elevates it to the status of a policy.9

If DEPI had heeded objections to the flawed GSSS Draft “foundation document” in 2011, council could not have approved it to proceed to Amendment status. And if GSC funds had not been wasted on creating rather than constraining opportunities for coastal development, contrary to the SPPFs and the GS Planning Scheme MSS, perhaps GSC would have had funds to implement the “conservation amendments”; C 52 for SLOs and C 55 for HOs.

NB Panel reference above to …. the Panel encourages Council to monitor and, where necessary, improve the performance of the planning scheme, particularly in relation to environmental protection and heritage conservation,

Terms of Reference 1

9 Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme, | Report of the Panel | 24 May 2013 p. 43-44

11 a) Current scope of ecotourism and (cultural) heritage tourism in Victoria (and the Far South West) :-

This is developing – and now that information is disseminated by web sites such as Portland’s enthusiastic Wild Blue - http://www.wildblue.com.au/, demonstrating the passion that people have for their place and environment (it has had over 2,700,000 visitors), many more people appear to be gaining information outside the “processed” and mediated Tourism Victoria channels.

A recommendation from this inquiry such as the following would be welcomed by the industry.

 That research is undertaken into cooperative use of the Internet for marketing that would be useful to all regional and local organizations contributing to the regional tourism industry (including volunteer groups supporting arts, community cultural development, Indigenous and European cultural heritage and environment).

The role and influence of Tourism Victoria -

From evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry conducted into tourism in 2011, many places were unhappy that Jigsaw marketing did not assist them to promote themselves; “icon area” marketing relegated them to a perception that they were second-rate, while they often had high-level attractions of great interest to many people.

I consider that today, development of individual marketing through web sites could require adaptation of Tourism Victoria’s “branded” marketing of Victoria through its “Jigsaw” marketing campaigns.

Since the inception of the Jigsaw Marketing Campaigns for the regions, which I acknowledge have been highly successful for some, places between the “icons” have been stranded in a marketing sense and have struggled to gain tourism attention for their assets; while in the South West the Great Ocean Road is overloaded with traffic and people.

Dispersal of tourism patronage on the GOR is now a very real need. This is demonstrated by the Parks Victoria, Tourism Victoria, and the Shires of Corangamite and Lorne developing a “Shipwreck Coast Master Plan” to accommodate visitor pressure; up to six “key visitor sites” will, as well as supplying interpretation, hopefully supply toilets! – see parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/port-campbell- national-park/plans-and-projects/shipwreck-coast-master-plan. While I commend their efforts I consider it time that outlying areas had the opportunity to absorb some of the GOR’s over-supply of clients through strategies for dispersal; one strategy would be as simple as better promoting the assets of the Far South West and direct routes to access them.

Both Portland and Hamilton which have most tourism businesses in the south west of the region can absorb much more visitation with present facilities.

12 I support a recommendation that Tourism Victoria’s regional marketing strategies are reviewed, in the light of changing visitor access to information through the internet, and the need to assist communities to better inform the public of their assets; such as -

That Tourism Victoria’s regional marketing campaigns and strategies are reviewed with the aims of - restoring to the regions more responsibility for promoting their assets, and - assisting regional tourism associations to better serve their communities through developing cooperative, comprehensive and accurate web site information.

Global warming threats –

All levels of government support tourism as an economic driver, and important research is carried out at many levels. I consider that more is needed into the effects on tourism of global warming.

Both heritage and ecotourism in my view depend on adequate protection regimes, and both are threatened by development pressures and climate change – for example, important archaeological remains of 1830s to late 1840s whaling stations and the boat-building industry at the Convincing Ground (Portland Bay’s North Shore) are not protected by a HO in the Glenelg Shire Planning Scheme (not even included in its Heritage Study 2 (a) 2006). They are threatened with development, and with erosion or inundation from sea level rise.

There are also great biodiversity risks from climate change, exacerbated by uncontrolled development - species migrating to cooler coastal climates may find only houses on Victoria’s southern coastline.

Specific research on tourism impacts of climate change include the Western Coastal Board’s Framework for Climate Adaptation: Coastal Caravan and Camping Parks Case Study 2013, funded by the Federal government as a model for vulnerable caravan and camping parks to adapt to changing circumstances - see http://www.wcb.vic.gov.au/caravan.htm. Because “older caravan parks (are) closing at an alarming rate”, while numbers of caravans are increasing (Southern Cross University research, Age 24/8/13) I consider the WCB’s adaptation research is particularly valuable. It is designed to “model” adaptation outside the GOR region.

I consider that recommendations arising from this Inquiry should acknowledge global warming threats to Victoria’s heritage, environment and the dependent tourism industry, and that strategies should be developed to plan for global warming and to mitigate its effects on the assets where possible. I also consider that this Inquiry should make recommendations to this effect.

- That programs to develop strategies for heritage, environment and tourism to adapt to global warming are funded and encouraged. Background to Tourism Governance

1.1 Federal government tourism initiatives affecting the GOR

13 The Department of Heritage and Environment has assessed the GOR as of National Heritage significance (2011).

The Federal government’s World Class Tourism Investment Study 2011 for the GOR (under the auspices of the Tourism Ministers’ Council and part of its National Long- term Tourism Strategy, see www.tourism.australia.com/nl) provides excellent information.

Tourism Australia has adopted Tourism Victoria’s definition of Great Ocean Road as an area extending from Surf Coast Shire to the SA border, and acknowledges the area’s strong ecotourism and heritage.

“A number of strategic plans have been prepared by State, Local and Australian Governments which reference the Great Ocean Road Region. The region is one of twelve in Australia which has been identified as a nationally significant landscape and recognised for capturing the essence of Australia for visitors. All levels of strategic policy highlight the importance of the Great Ocean Road region as a nature based tourism destination, which provides iconic experiences directed to a number of experience seeker segments, both from domestic and international markets.

Existing literature, in particular State and Regional strategies, highlight product and infrastructure potential which leverages off natural attractions, the coast and touring. These projects were used as a starting point for further investigation …” (World Class Investment Study, Executive Summary p. ii-iii).

This Study ranks the following GOR projects that would enhance its viability as a tourism destination, according to weighted criteria; in the Far South West only the Budj Bim Aboriginal Heritage Landscape is a potential “hero” destination.

Port Campbell Precinct and Loch Ard Interpretive Centre; Great Ocean Walk; Great Ocean Road Signature Accommodation, Moonlight Head; Lake Condah/ Budj Bim National Heritage Landscape; Upgrade of Avalon Airport to International Standard; Great Ocean Road and Link Roads Upgrade; Great Ocean Road Integrated Resort, Port Campbell Area - Sec. 10.4, p. 99 .

I consider that the “weighting” in the above Study against distance from Melbourne has influenced choices, and question its relevance for tourism in the Far South West.

Information from the Glenelg Shire Tourism Research Report 2011 (GSTRR) shows that most visitors to Glenelg Shire originate in country Victoria and interstate; so due consideration needs to be given to the Portland and environs “drawing power” from the north and west rather than assuming that all visitation is from Melbourne.10

10 The Glenelg Shire Tourism Research Report (GSTRR, Aug. 2011) Origin of visitors Overnight visitors (200,000 in 2010) were “…from surrounding Victoria (57%), while interstate visitors (35%) were predominantly from South Australia. Germany and the UK provided the greatest proportion of international visitors” (p. 27). Day trip visitors (260,000 in 2010) – “Interstate visitors comprised the greatest proportion of day trip

14

While Tourism Victoria has always treated Glenelg’s remoteness as a disadvantage, its remoteness actually increases yield per visitor because many people stay longer than at other GOR destinations; they come to stay for several nights, or break their journey to Adelaide and stay overnight.

The GSTRR found that 73% of Glenelg visitors in 2010 stayed overnight, yielding better income from this relatively high proportion. Only 27% were day trippers (GSTRR Aug. 2011).

1.2 Joint Federal and State action through Regional Development Australia

The RDA divides Barwon South West Region into two sub-regions; - G 21 (municipalities - City of Greater Geelong, Surf Coast, Golden Plains, Borough of Queenscliffe, Colac Otway) and - Great South Coast or GSC (Glenelg, Southern Grampians, Warrnambool, Moyne, Corangamite). Both G 21 and GSC have identified “nature-based tourism” in the region as a strength; cultural heritage is acknowledged, but is not strongly emphasised.

They are developing Regional Growth Plans. G 21 has advocated strongly for a Great Ocean Road upgrade; travellers, Surf Coast, Colac Otway, and most South West municipalities would benefit. One Federal government party has included $25m for the GOR in its platform for election, to be matched by the State Government.

The Great South Coast Regional Strategic Plan (RSP) supports tourism as an economic contributor and sees “Our environment” and nature-based tourism as the main opportunities. The municipalities that make up the GSC Region have apparently not supported heritage tourism as a “strength”, and there are few references to heritage. To me this will lead to missed marketing opportunities.

The RSP refers to “diverse and vulnerable landscapes, including the Ramsar listed wetlands of the Corangamite area, the Grampians and the Otway Ranges, the western volcanic plains and the Glenelg river system.

Our environment also includes iconic destinations and experiences such as the Great ocean road, Port Campbell National Park (featuring the Twelve Apostles and Loch Ard Gorge), the Great South West Walk, Grampians National Park, the Kanawinka Geopatk and Geotrail, Lake Condah wetlands and unique Indigenous culture systems…..

These environmental assets are important components of the economic and liveability strengths of the region and they are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and population growth. The region’s biodiversity, in particular, is extremely vulnerable due to the

visitors to the Glenelg Shire, followed closely by visitors from country Victoria (35%). Overseas visitors comprised 25% of the respondents” (p. 20). Fishing trip visitors (60,000 in 2010) “…surrounding Victoria (74%) while interstate visitors (24% …)” were from SA, NSW and Qld.” (p. 38). GSTRR 2011. Note - The category of “fishing visitors” would have increased greatly since 2010 with greater awareness of tuna in “the season” being closer inshore than they were in earlier years.

15 highly modified and fragmented nature of our landscape (p. 6)……

The region aspires to be “internationally renowned for nature based tourism experiences” - “We will develop our significant nature based tourism assets and experiences to become Victoria’s number one tourist destination, renowned not only for the sustainable management of our environmental assets, but also for our focus on Indigenous culture and heritage tourism. We will increase the number and lengths of tourist visits and will more broadly disperse the growing tourism yield throughout the region.”11

1.3 State Government tourism support and agencies

Agencies with tourism interests include –

Tourism Victoria, Parks Victoria (PV), Heritage Victoria (HV), Regional Development Victoria (RDV), the former DSE, now part of the Department of Environment and Primary Industry (DEPI), and Committees of Management (CoMs).

Other agencies including Arts Victoria and Regional Arts Victoria www.rav.net.au/ assist community cultural and project development, celebrations of the environment and heritage, festivals, conservation of items and collections, and interpretation and signage. Spin-off includes proud communities, better amenity and information on an area – all of which benefit visitors and tourism development.

Cooperative agency efforts – Agencies, municipalities and organizations often cooperate on projects e.g. the Shipwreck Coast Master Plan parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/ parks/port-campbell- national-park/plans-and-projects/shipwreck-coast-master-plan12, and the Western Coastal Board’s Caravan and Camping Parks Project at www.wcb.vic.gov.au/caravan.htm (coastal adaptation to climate change).

This was developed with support from Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education; Deakin University; Bellarine Bayside Foreshore Committee; Barwon Coast Committee of Management; Otway Coast Committee; Warrnambool City Council; Coastal Camping Victoria; and Geelong Otway Tourism.

The Department of Environment and Primary Industry (DEPI)

is responsible for overseeing public land management (including PV) and consents for developments on public land, and carries out valuable environmental research at the Arthur Rylah Institute.

11 The Great South Coast Regional Strategic Plan (2010?), RDA and RDV Barwon SW p. 6 & 12, www.greatsouthcoast.com.au/images/stories/GSC_Regional_Strategic_Plan_Web.pdf 12 NB - Definition of the Shipwreck coast area is a problem - sometimes maps and the “idea” of Shipwreck Coast only extend around short sections of the GOR region, and from time to time tensions among Tourism Associations and funding considerations lead to a municipal segment of the Trail “dropping out” which can be disruptive. Normally however, the term ‘Shipwreck Coast’ in Western Victoria applies to the coast between Moonlight Head and the SA border – see www.flagstaffhill.com/media/uploads/ShipwreckTrail.pdf

16

Unfortunately research into climate change coastal effects (Future Coasts) appears to have been wound back; and I have not seen results from DSE work on valuing assets on the coast. These would be valuable tools for coastal managers.

DEPI has produced a tourism-relevant South Western Victoria Landscapes Assessment Study and other such Studies throughout Victoria. It will identify Significant Landscapes beyond the coast; it is modelled on the CSLAS 2006 (see below p. 18) and is intended to help municipalities effect SLO protection, which will be to the benefit of tourism development.

I consider that those municipalities which implement SLOs from this work will have a tourism advantage over those which do not.

Tourism Victoria

Tourism Victoria funds municipalities to provide a network of Visitor Information Centres and to employ staff to open them, and most municipalities contribute to tourism promotion (advertising) costs.

It runs the Jigsaw Regional Tourism campaign, with jigsaw-branded brochures for each region; municipalities and tourism operators buy advertising and Tourism Victoria matches these funds.

On the GOR, places with small populations and few large tourism operators, like Glenelg, cannot afford to buy much space in Jigsaw brochures. Many cultural and environmental tourism businesses are therefore not represented – especially where volunteers run and open attractions to visitors.

See also Appendix 1 p. 42-3.

Catchment Management Authorities

Are charged with maintaining catchment health; waterways are vital to environmental health, including for freshwater and marine organisms. Most Victorian rivers are degraded and CMAs have repaired some damage. The Glenelg Hopkins CMA has done particularly valuable work on estuaries and “took over” implementation of the Western Coastal Board’s Estuary Coastal Action Plan, developing an “Estuary Watch” program with the community monitoring water and oxygen levels to aid management. All such work is beneficial for dependent flora and fauna, educates the community – and in the end, it will support ecotourism.

Victorian Coastal Council and Regional Coastal Boards

Coastal environmental management is particularly important for future heritage tourism and ecotourism; Australians are in danger of “loving their coasts to death”. Because of this the Victorian Coastal Council (VCC) was set up in the mid 1990s to

17 prepare and implement a Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS); see vcc.vic.gov.au/page/victorian-coastal-strategy - in consultation with all stakeholders. The third iteration of the Strategy in 2008 is a comprehensive document internationally regarded as a benchmark in coastal planning and management.

The VCS Hierarchy of principles for coastal, estuarine and marine environment planning and management is as follows :

1. Provide for the protection of significant cultural and environmental values.

2. Undertake integrated planning and provide clear direction for the future

3. Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources.

4. Ensure suitable development on the coast.

Fulfilling the first VCS Principle

As housing development spread along coasts, the VCC and VCS 2002 identified a need for a State-wide approach to protecting high-value coastal land from inappropriate development.

In 2005 – 6 DSE developed the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study and Report 2006 (CSLAS). It identified Significant Landscapes along the coast, building on the work of the Town and Country Planning Board in the 1970s. It also developed Implementation Plans for each municipality to apply Significant Landscape Overlays. Municipalities were funded to effect the overlays. At this stage most SLOs have been implemented, but Glenelg’s has only resulted in Amendment Part 1 being approved by the council in Jan. 2012. It was forwarded to the Minister for approval, but has not yet been gazetted – leaving Glenelg doubly out of step with the rest of the coastal SLO protection regime. Even its limited response is not yet in force.

The Regional Coastal Boards

Three Regional Coastal Boards, Gippsland, Central and Western (Breamlea to the border), are charged with implementing the VCS. In conjunction with regional stakeholders (communities, agencies, municipalities) they seek to coordinate coastal management, e.g.  between 1998 and 2005 the Regional Boards prepared Coastal Action Plans (CAPS) in conjunction with places and municipalities along the Victorian coast. These have now largely been implemented; funding will be needed for “next generation” CAPS likely to be identifying regional needs, and developing responses to global warming.  all RCBs have prepared Boating Coastal Action Plans (WCB’s was launched in 2010) identifying safe harbours for recreational boaters, and those suitable to prioritise for infrastructure development (balancing physical constraints and population needs). These will underpin funding applications for recreational boating.

18  the Western Coastal Board runs 2-day Coastal Forums biannually attracting up to 200 coastal managers.  It seeks funding for projects such as the Caravan and Camping Park Climate Adaptation research (see p. 13 of this submission).

CAPS are relied on by governments, municipalities, PV, DSE / DEPI, CoMs and CMAs, in making decisions for appropriate coastal actions that have legislative approval; as CAPS are “signed off” by the Minister for Planning.

The VCC and RCBs are under-resourced, having been set up in the mid 1990s with a budget of $1 million. This nominal figure has not increased to reflect inflation to my knowledge - “It’s still the best $1m. the government has ever spent,” (VCC member) because the Boards gather expertise from a diverse range of skills. To my knowledge, the RCBs are finding it hard to function effectively. Travel costs for the WCB, for example, with 2 staff and 8-9 Board members serving 250 km of coastline, take a disproportionate amount of its funds, and an increase is overdue. Given the importance of their roles in supporting all agencies in making good planning decisions on the coast, better funding is essential for the Coastal Council and Boards to continue to work effectively and I trust that this Committee will seek to better resource the work of the VCC and RCBs. I would support the following Recommendation from this Inquiry -

- That statutory bodies working to improve strategic environmental outcomes contributing to public and environmental amenity (and supporting assets contributing to tourism development), e.g. Catchment Management Authorities, the Victorian Coastal Council and Regional Coastal Boards, are better funded to ensure continued quality conservation and environmental strategies, policies and outcomes.

Municipalities embrace tourism in varying degrees.

Managing Visitor Information Centres and Staff -

LG is funded to do this through Tourism Victoria, but is not always “engaged” as a stakeholder – to the detriment of tourism development in the municipality. See below.

Planning –

The role of municipalities in supporting tourism development through identifying and protecting assets in their Planning Schemes is not well understood by communities, and I consider that an education program for communities may make municipalities more accountable; together with many LEDI recommendations e.g. 6, 11 and 12. Municipalities are responsible for protecting heritage and environments through implementing the Victorian Planning and Environment Act 1985. Heritage Victoria and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE - now the Department of Environment and Primary Industry, DEPI) support councils to do this.

19 Success varies; while Glenelg Shire Council has only partially implemented its recent Significant Landscape and Heritage Overlays, Southern Grampians and Warrnambool in the Great South Coast RDA Region have recently adopted extensive HO amendments (including precincts) which will stand their communities and tourism operators in good stead in the future. I consider that they will provide certainty in their Planning Schemes and protect their heritage assets for the future and for tourism development.

On this pattern of South Western municipality “uptake” of conservation Planning Scheme improvements, I would suggest that SLOs recommended in the current South West Landscapes Study will also be well-supported by Southern Grampians and Warrnambool municipalities to the benefit of their communities.

There are currently so many threats from global warming and climate change that research and application of the findings to protect heritage and environment assets is becoming more urgent, yet most government agencies have had cut-backs and have cut their programs to support municipalities and their communities. Future assistance to councils for planning scheme improvements will likely be scarce.

I hope that recommendations can come forward from this inquiry such as –

 Where a municipality is funded for work to improve its planning scheme e.g. Heritage Studies, or where work is done on its behalf as part of a State-wide project e.g. the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study (CSLAS), it is expected to implement the findings of any Review or Study in a timely manner into its planning scheme.

Together with LEDI recommendations earlier supported (p. 2 - 3), timely application of planning scheme improvements funded by government should be achieved.

 That government agencies working in heritage and environment areas, and with public education programs, are better resourced e.g. Heritage Victoria (HV); the Department of Environment and Primary Industry (DEPI); Parks Victoria (PV).

Tourism organizations

These are local e. g. Portland Tourism Association; municipal-based, e.g. Glenelg Shire’s Discovery coast; and regional, e.g. Shipwreck Coast covering Glenelg, Moyne, Warrnambool, Colac- Otway – although Glenelg sometimes does not appear).

Purposes are mainly promotional. Local and regional organisations collaborate with tourism operators for joint publications based on membership fees and operator / business paid advertising. They also have a coordinating / communication role, and most tourism organisations seek to raise their members’ skill and business capacity.

20 Today, most regional tourism businesses cannot rely solely on promotion through such organizations but have to develop their own promotional material, now including the web and social media.

Web-based direct marketing is expanding their opportunities and, while making information more accessible to visitors, this may mean that fewer operators join tourism associations. Availability of education for using these tools is needed – see suggested recommendations 8 and 12, p. 2-3 of this submission.

Volunteer organizations in heritage and ecotourism –

Without their work many assets would have been lost; e.g. the Cobbobonee National Park west of Portland was recently gazetted after a sustained campaign by the Portland Field Naturalists over many years. People contribute their time and expertise supporting their passions through National Trusts, National Parks Associations, Landcare groups, Friends of (parks, buildings, places, landmarks), Birds Australia, Greening Australia, local support groups opening museums or building Walks such as the Great South West Walk (GSWW) - www.greatsouthwestwalk.com/intro/

All such organisations harness volunteer energy, passion and expertise to the benefit of their communities, the environment, and ecotourism and cultural heritage visitation. They are supported by many agencies including Arts Victoria and Regional Arts Victoria; an amazing number of community arts projects are based on celebrating an area’s heritage and environment; see www.rav.net.au/

For volunteer organizations, publicity and marketing is often a lower priority than caring for the assets ( and they lack expertise); local governments could, and some do, promote them in Tourism Victoria brochures and online.

I hope that this Inquiry will recommend that they receive better government recognition and support, e.g.

 That not-for-profit organizations of all kinds and sizes supporting healthy cultural heritage and environments, and public access (from the National Trust and Birds Australia to local volunteers opening museums to the public and developing walking tracks), are better resourced through provision of modest administrative and promotional funds.

Communities everywhere take pride in their environmental and cultural heritage assets, and seek to encourage visitation through volunteer efforts to maintain and open them to the public. Volunteer time is invaluable, e.g. Barwon Grange (NT property) near Geelong has one manager. Last year its volunteers contributed 3000 hours, enabling visits from 14,000 people.

Community efforts include festivals, mostly based on environmental and heritage assets and supported financially by the municipality, e.g. in the Glenelg Shire – Portland’s Bonney Upwelling Festival; Casterton’s Kelpie Festival; and Heywood’s Wood, Wine and Roses Festival.

21 In the arts, exhibitions, performances, and celebrations of heritage and environment are often drawcards for visitors as well as their communities, and educate as well as celebrate. They contribute to community spirit and resilience in stressful times such as floods, bushfires and drought. See the Regional Arts Victoria project “Home is Where the Hall Is, inspired during Victoria’s 2009 bushfires; http://www.rav.net.au/

Communities (volunteers) also initiate, help to develop and maintain drawcards such as Glenelg’s successful Great South West Walk (GSWW) – which was and is well supported by government agencies. GSC supports volunteers at Portland’s Water Tower lookout and World War 2 Museum, and at the city’s Cable Tram, Vintage Car Museum, Creative Spaces, and Maritime Discovery Centre.

Some attractions “fall by the wayside” when community interest wanes, e.g. Portland’s 1889 Battery (built to repel invading Russians) is no longer open to the public.

Some umbrella organizations such as the National Trust support e.g. Heritage Week throughout the state, but this relies on each locality having a strong National Trust group – not the case in many places with high-value heritage.

In the light of the enormous, largely unrecognized effort that communities, cultural and environmental organization provide in support of heritage and environment, I would like to see the following recommendations considered by the Inquiry –

 That the government target resourcing for Arts Victoria and Regional Arts Victoria for events and activities aiming for community engagement with environment and heritage through festivals, performances, exhibitions, and arts skills education and development. These programs contribute to wider education about cultural heritage and environment issues and appeal to many visitors.

 That NFP conservation groups have increased opportunities to bid for grants for works such as protection of sites of high biodiversity, e.g. in the Victorian Volcanic Plains; for the conservation of buildings, artifacts and records, and making them available to the public; for better interpretation of sites so that the public can understand their significance; and for development of interpretive materials including web sites.

 That the community, volunteer and not-for-profit conservation organizations have access to the National Broadband Network to improve their communication with one another and the general public.

Tourism operators are often entrepreneurs taking financial risks. Small operators open up niche markets, and if they succeed, competition will follow. Operator skills vary, especially in using the internet.Tourism Australia is working to expand their skills, aiming to – Build competitive digital capacity to attract more visitors and enable online transactions Recognising the growing power of social networks and the ‘word of mouse’ in the global marketing environment, Tourism Australia continued to build its knowledge

22 about how consumers use technology to share information, plan, research and book travel. Tourism Australia used insights from this research to develop and distribute inspirational content through the internet, mobile phones and tablet devices in 2011/12. Tourism Australia also launched a global insights web page and shared information via twitter@TourismAus, making information on digital trends and research readily available to industry. Tourism 2020 Progress Report 2011 / 12, Tourism Australia web site

Specific tourism issues; the Far South West.

During the 1960s while the port was developed, Portland and surrounds lost their “hero destination” status when regular holidaymakers arrived to find that Portland’s beaches were construction sites. They went to Robe, Port MacDonnell and Port Fairy instead.

Portland and (since 1994) the Glenelg Shire have struggled to regain tourism recognition. There is a lot of information in the media (about the live sheep trade, opposition to the smelter and wind “farms,” industries closing or at risk) re-inforcing a view that it is an industrial town.

Until recently Glenelg Shire has been one of Victorian tourism’s “stranded assets” as the Great Ocean Road Marketing campaigns, maps, trip recommendations and web sites have left it “at the end of the Road”.

However it retains most of the heritage and environmental attractions that made it so popular from the 1800s to the 1960s, and has gained some since the 1980s:-

Town beaches are smaller, but again family-friendly; it has now visitor infrastructure such as the Maritime Discovery Centre and Visitor Information Centre (VIC) on the foreshore, as well as VICs at Nelson and Casterton; there is now heritage, beach and farm boutique accommodation; walking networks have expanded, including coastal walks and the 250 km. Great South West Walk; the Budg Bim National Heritage Area at Lake Condah is now recognized and offers tours with Aboriginal guides; the Cobobbonee Forest near Portland has been added to a string of significant National Parks; tourism businesses (Seals by the Sea, South West Adventures, charter boats) now make the parks, walks, fishing and wildlife more accessible; accommodation options have increased; and nature-based tourism is aided by the wildlife itself, with the tuna fishery moving closer to the coast, Australia’s only mainland gannet rookery recently establishing at Point Danger, and vastly increased whale numbers visiting Portland Bay and Bridgewater Bay - especially this year.

I consider that the depth and breadth of the inter-related environment and heritage of the Glenelg Shire is unsurpassed in Victoria. Its combined Indigenous and European heritage (especially pre-gold rush) are compelling, and both are deeply influenced by the rich environment which attracted people. Glenelg is not unspoiled, but retains enough of its original landscapes, Indigenous cultural heritage, and European maritime, settlement, agricultural, pastoral and architectural heritage to justify the four-hour car trip by the most direct route.

23 The area’s fascinating volcanic geology and associated environments, and the history of the Portland Bay Settlement and its hinterland, including pastoral areas around Hamilton, are still waiting for people from outside the area to find them; while “locals” tend to take them for granted.

Terms of Reference 1 (b) Extent to which current arrangements maximize the benefits to the local industry –

I do not consider that “current arrangements” help to maximize the benefits to the local industry, but rather inhibit it.

I agree with the Great South Coast Regional Plan comments –

BroadenIng the tourism experIence and tourism yield – Factors which are limiting our ability to better develop and protect our nature based and Indigenous heritage tourism assets include: (lack of ) infrastructure development of State Marine Precincts as designated in the Draft Western Victoria Boating Coastal Action Plan; under valuing of our natural capital; the inability to incorporate nature based and Indigenous heritage tourism products into mainstream regional, national and international marketing systems; lack of medium to high capacity high quality accommodation options both in Apollo Bay and in proximity to the Twelve Apostles; and the lack of coordination within our tourism sector, across government departments and between local government jurisdictions13.

I think that there is local and regional willingness to incorporate nature based and Indigenous heritage tourism products into mainstream regional, national and international marketing systems; but the centralized Tourism Victoria prescriptive modes of marketing simply do not suit the Far South West region or its product. I consider that it is more suited to the Free Independent Travel (FIT) market and to attracting niche markets.

At this stage, it is very interesting to see Glenelg visitation increasing on the strength of more independent Web pages appealing to interest groups such as wildblue - www.wildblue.com.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=54 ; well-publicised whale sightings (the Whalemail from April to August this year reported more frequent sightings and numbers on the Glenelg coast, including many groups of 3 to 7 in Portland Bay) – see http://www.whalemail.com.au/whale_sightings.html); and more fishing action, possibly the result of changing ocean currents. The tuna fishery is apparently 20 km. closer inshore than previously, enabling more fishers to reach the shoals. This greatly increases visitation to Portland. There are also now several charter boats for hire.

The Federal Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism’s Guide to Best Practice Destination Management provides assistance “with industry’s understanding of the importance for communities and regional authorities to work collaboratively towards developing a planned sustainable future for destinations to meet the expectations of

13 Great South Coast regional Strategic Plan, RDA and RDV, (2010) p. 26

24 visitors and ensure continued growth within their regional tourism sector.” (my emphasis). See Foreword; www.ret.gov.au/tourism/policies/nltts/workinggrps/dest/Pages/default.aspx

In my view, Tourism Victoria marketing programs for the Far South West do not meet this DERT aim.

I define “current arrangements” in the regions and local government areas as  State Government support to maintain Tourism Victoria and its marketing programs;

 grants via Tourism Victoria to regional tourism associations focussed on the Jigsaw, which is a branded marketing campaign; and grants to LGAs to run Visitor Information Centres (VICs).

 Dependence (by State government and tourism organizations and operators) on local government authorities (LGAs) as the main “channel” for government funds directed to supporting local tourism.

 Operators of tourism businesses are expected to be members of local tourism bodies. Their membership fees, and (if they can afford it) advertising in the Tourism Victoria promotional booklets, the Jigsaw “Pieces of Victoria” promotions contribute to marketing the region. Today however many small operators are turning to Internet and regional outlet advertising.

 Importantly, many small businesses and volunteer organizations running attractions cannot afford to advertise except locally (although the municipality / regional association may pay for Jigsaw advertising for selected high-profile attractions). If a district has limited paid advertising, this usually reduces its space allocated in the brochure and “skews” perceptions of the extent of tourism accommodation and activities in some tourism regions; e.g. Glenelg Shire has most of the National Parks in the region, but Parks Victoria rarely advertises in Tourism Victoria travel brochures.

 It seems to me that most tourism organizations and studies (state, regional and local) are oriented towards mass rather than niche visitation. However in my view Glenelg Shire’s relatively sophisticated heritage attractions and styles of small-scale accommodation based on existing heritage mansions and hotels, cottage, beach and farm stay accommodation that reflect the character of the place, would respond better to niche marketing.

 Tourism Victoria encourages travel radiating from Melbourne, whereas Glenelg is attracting more country Victorians, South Australian, international and other visitors coming from the north and west,14 as shown by the GS Tourism Research Report 2011 (see above, Footnote 7, p. 7).

14 German visitors, armed with travel information supplied by their Munich travel organization, arrived at our establishment in Portland after travelling from Adelaide via the Riverland, Mildura, the Big and Little Deserts, the Grampians, and Coonawarra – all close to the SA

25

 The “Pieces of Victoria “ Jigsaw regions can become “silos” without much communication or mutual referral.

 Parochialism and competition in municipally-based tourism organizations, both within and outside the municipality, are also a drag on cooperation and mutual referral.

Effect of Current Arrangements – Glenelg

 Glenelg is already “remote” but current Jigsaw coastal marketing directs travel from Melbourne to Glenelg via the longest possible route – the Great Ocean Road takes at least a whole day, whereas residents travel directly from Melbourne (via the Hamilton highway to Mortlake, or the Princes Highway) in 4 ½ hours.  Glenelg is not suited to “Jigsaw” marketing. Its northern pastoral districts relate better to Southern Grampians Tourism and local highways. Hence some of Glenelg’s limited marketing budget “leaks” to SG Tourism.  Neither GOR nor Grampians “icons” represent Glenelg’s character or heritage and environment attractions (the Twelve Apostles are 200 km. east of Portland) making it more difficult to encourage people to extend their journey – Glenelg suffers the “end of the line” syndrome rather than being the point of the journey.  Tourism Victoria also promotes the Great Southern Touring Route (from the GOR at Allansford to the Grampians, returning to Melbourne via Ballarat) which excludes the option of travel to Portland; Hamilton sometimes gets “add-on” status with this route.  Great Ocean Road marketing purports to cover the coast to the SA border, and its published brochure does this, but web sites and maps often show only the GOR as far as Apollo Bay, Warrnambool or Port Fairy. This short-changes local Glenelg Shire operators. See http://www.visitgreatoceanroad.org.au/the-region, a link on Tourism Victoria’s web site, and Appendix 1.

However web information on the district, fishing, wildlife and flora put up by local enthusiasts appears to be overcoming lack of recognition for the Glenelg Shire (see Appendix 1).

Local governments and tourism –

Regional tourism operators depend on local government to  channel funds from Tourism Victoria to local use, e.g. VIC staff  manage Visitor Information Centres (VICs),  support local tourism organizations and operators, and  plan for and protect heritage and environment (Planning and Environment Act 1987) border, and all highly recommended and well-mapped destination points. From Portland their maps showed how to travel to Melbourne via either the Great Ocean Road Ballarat. However SA and Vic itineraries encourage relatively short loops from their cities.

26

In my view this model of delivering government support for regional tourism through LGAs is flawed, as  For some councils, tourism is not seen as “core business” or as a major component of “economic development” – except for investment in large tourism “developments”.  municipalities often do not realize that they are “stakeholders” in tourism – even though they are responsible for employing tourism officers and supporting local tourism groups, they are mostly not active participants in the industry and lack understanding of operator issues.  In the case of Glenelg Shire, its planning and land management does not respond to community priorities to protect its environment and heritage, or to tourism needs for them to be protected. This is shown in recent planning scheme amendments; “conservation” amendments (C 52 SLOs and C 55 HOs – parts 2 abandoned in June and August 2012) were only partly implemented due to lack of funds, while an amendment to enable re-zoning for housing development in sensitive coastal areas (C 73) was expedited and to be funded from the GSC Planning budget 2013/14 - $47,500 (council minutes June 2012).  Lay people, including tourism operators, do not understand the link between good land use management and the long-term viability of their business, so do not respond to poor land management that prejudices their interests.  Senior municipal staff often lack experience of and appreciation of tourism, organization and operator issues – including in land management.  It is often difficult to maintain tourism staff quality because of the above.  Glenelg Shire appears to overlook the benefits of small increments in tourism employment through small businesses such as cottage accommodation near beaches, in the town on farm properties, although they suit the Shire’s assets and character.  Anti-heritage (and anti-environment) thinking can lead to support for development which exploits the area’s attributes, but which may be long-term detrimental to its heritage and environment. Many municipalities encourage industrial installations in valuable landscapes, while most such developments could be located in less sensitive environments. Examples in Glenelg Shire include - the Alcoa smelter Portland Aluminium 1985 on Cape Sir William Grant, - feed lots on the fragile coastal environment of Cape Nelson, - Pacific Hydro’s Portland Wind Energy Project (PWEP), built on the Three Capes in 2006. Both the smelter and PWEP were attracted by Portland’s high winds – the smelter by “massive wind dispersion characteristics” for heavy atmospheric fallout (Alcoa executive pers. comm.); and the PWEP by the wind energy available. Other incentives for them to locate in high-level landscapes included government- subsidized energy for the smelter; Government subsidies for wind “farms” applied regardless of constraints such as high landscape values; and the municipality’s eagerness for development (“low-hanging fruit” – PWEP consultant pers. comm).

I consider that there may be conflict between municipalities’ interest in attracting “development” vs their responsibility for stewardship of heritage and environment assets, and that this needs to be resolved; perhaps the LEDI Recommendation 6

27 can help, together with Recommendation 1 encouraging a common definition of economic development –

Rec. 1 … the government works with “local councils to produce an effective definition of economic development …”

Rec. 6 The Local Government Act 1989 be amended to require local government authorities to prepare a separate economic development strategy that complements the Council Plan required under Section 125 and the Strategic Resource Plan required under section 126.

For example, the Federal Government’s Tourism Research Australia Report Tourism’s Contribution to the Australian Economy 1997-8 to 2011 – 12, July 2013, concludes that “tourism’s output multiplier for 2011–12 is valued at 1.88, which means for every dollar tourism earns directly in the Australian economy, it value adds an additional 88 cents to other parts of the economy. At 1.88, tourism‘s multiplier is larger than Mining (1.62), Retail trade (1.74) and Education and training (1.44)”. See web page tra.gov.au/publications-list-Tourisms-Contribution-to-the-Australian-Economy-1997– 98-to-2011–12.html

On these figures, investment in assets that are already there (environment and cultural heritage) must become more attractive. I would like this Inquiry to consider a recommendation - That before considering industrial or other development in sensitive landscapes, governments are required to include in its decision-making the economic costs of loss of amenity and the region’s ability to produce income from existing assets, including through actual or potential tourism development based on the assets.

Terms of Reference 3 Potential for the development of ecotourism and heritage tourism in Victoria

General - - Victoria’s tourism potential is very high, but I do not support development of tourism facilities on 99 year leases within National Parks as I consider that all necessary development can be achieved on private land. To me the risks of weed infestation, disruption of habitats and greater possibility of wildfire due to global warming are too great to allow development in National Parks. With regard to Glenelg’s National Parks, there are already nearby settlements giving access – Portland and Casterton are serviced and already have most of the accommodation in the Shire; Nelson is at the mouth of the Glenelg, and while it does not have waste disposal, has some services – and a great deal of character as an early recreational fishing village. There is plenty of opportunity for infill development, sensitively handled.

28 - Tourism Australia’s National Landscapes Program supports identifying and developing ecotourism and heritage tourism, and the Great Ocean Road Region will benefit; see http://www.tourism.australia.com/nl

“The economic value of heritage assets is significant. In 2008, 23 million people visited Australia‟s cultural and heritage locations, comprising 70 per cent of all international visitors and 27 per cent of domestic visitors. Heritage and cultural tourism is a growth market, contributing 37 per cent of world travel and growing by 15 per cent per annum. During the development of the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy, it was suggested that there may be opportunities to increase engagement of heritage places in the National Landscape Program.

The National Landscape Program is a partnership between tourism and conservation, managed by Tourism Australia and Parks Australia. It aims to identify and promote up to 15 of Australia's exceptional natural and cultural experiences to the international market and to achieve environmental, social and economic outcomes for each region…….

The Great Ocean Road National Landscape was selected for this pilot for its wealth of heritage assets and significant potential to benefit from improved linkages with the National Landscapes Program.” ….. Research for National Long-term Tourism Strategy GREAT OCEAN ROAD WORLD CLASS TOURISM INVESTMENT STUDY 2011

A Product Gap Audit Investment and Regulatory Reform Working Group STRATEGIC POLICY CONTEXT A number of strategic plans have been prepared by State, Local and Australian Governments which reference the Great Ocean Road Region. The region is one of twelve in Australia which has been identified as a nationally significant landscape and recognised for capturing the essence of Australia for visitors. All levels of strategic policy highlight the importance of the Great Ocean Road region as a nature based tourism. Existing literature, in particular State and Regional strategies, highlight product and infrastructure potential which leverages off natural attractions, the coast and touring. These projects were used as a starting point for further investigation (Executive Summary p.ii-iii) E These extracts underline that the tourism industry in the Far South West could become a major industry. Councils should take note.

But for example - It seems to me from my experience as a recent submitter to GSC Amendment consultations (C 52 SLOs; C 55 for HOs; and C 73 encouraging re- zoning of Rural Conservation Zones to housing and farming use), and from reading recent council papers, the Glenelg Shire Council Year 4 Council Plan 2009 – 13 Report (GSC meeting minutes July 2013) and the Council Plan 2013 – 17, GS Council is a bit like the Queen Mary and will be hard to “turn around” to supporting environment and heritage.

GSC continues to have a limited definition of “economic development”, and is not responding to SPPFs encouraging infill and concentration of development in existing serviced towns. Whereas the VCS 2008 advocates that councils should seek to resolve “old and inappropriate subdivisions” so that they can not be used for housing in Rural Conservation Zones, Glenelg SC is now exhibiting Amendment C 78 – following on from C 73; it is seeking to re-zone to RLZ some “inappropriate subdivisions” allowed

29 in the RCZ during the shire’s period of lax planning in 2000 - 2005. This would enable development with consequences for remnant vegetation and habitat according to the exhibited amendment.

Council Plans and their influence

Council Plans are supposed to reflect council priorities in relation to the MSS; and to link to the council’s Strategic Resource Plan. See also LEDI Recommendation 6, p. 3, where there would also be a link to an economic development strategy, which I support as I hope that this may require councils to treat cultural heritage and environment issues more respectfully.

The current GSC MSS has strong references to the shire’s heritage and environment attributes, but the GS Council Plan 2013 – 17 does not. It rather reflects the continuing lack of Local Policies for environment and heritage in the Planning Scheme. However Glenelg SC is long overdue for a revised MSS and I understand that this is “slated” in Amendment C 75 but not yet authorized.

The new Council Plan 2013-17 includes the GS “Municipal Strategic Framework Plan Map” (Council Plan p. 3). It refers to numerous ecotourism assets including “Coastal Landscapes. Promote and protect Significant Coastal Landscapes (Cape Bridgewater, Cape Nelson, Discovery Bay”) – but there is no mention of the Narrawong SLO.

On this map reference to cultural heritage is safely confined to a panel for the Budj Bim Heritage Landscape, 50 km. away from Portland, and a panel for “Heritage. Promote heritage based tourism to broaden the Shire’s economic base and protect its heritage assets – e.g. Warrock Station”. Warrock Station is very worthy but distant from Portland, which has diverse heritage and accommodation attracting the most visitors in the Shire (not mentioned). Also, the shire’s abandonment of HO protection for 6 village HO precincts throughout the Shire indicates that it lacks understanding of the potential benefits of heritage recognition for those precincts.

In my view, lack of adequate reference to cultural heritage in the Council Plan 2013 – 17 is likely to influence GSC’s input to Amendment C 75 and an updated Municipal Strategic Statement; limiting its heritage references.

This does not accord with the Federal government’s work on the GOR Region, the State government’s present Inquiry looking at the issues of heritage and ecotourism, or the Great South Coast Region’s view of the need to make its heritage and ecotourism assets better known and more accessible.

GSC Council Plans - Issues

i) The GS Council Plan 2009 – 13 is just completed, and the Year 4 Report was given in the Council meeting minutes, July 2013. It had Objectives for Planning Scheme improvements through completing Heritage Studies and implementing them, and implementing SLO Amendments, among others, as a result of recommendations in the Glenelg Shire Strategic Futures Plan (GSFP) 2009.

30 The GSFP arose from Council’s commitment to “improve balance in its Planning Scheme” after the 2005 Auditor-General’s Report.

While council had only partly met its conservation objectives for the Council Plan 2009-13, the Year 4 Report referred to “C 52 Part 1” (SLOs), and “C55” HOs as though the full Amendments were finalised.

In my view, the “Performance Indicator” for C 52 and C 55 should have been that they were “not fully achieved,” and (considering Heritage Victoria investment of about $95,000 and GSC $50,000 in developing Studies and HOs15; and considerable DSE investment in SLOS), Part 2 of each should have been carried over to the 2013 - 17 Council Plan. This is not the case.

But – even Part 1 of the SLOs has not yet been gazetted by the Minister although it was approved by the GSC in Feb. 2012! As a submitter to “the parent amendment C 52 for SLOs” in Feb. 2011 where the Panel agreed that further SLOs should be applied, and the council developed C 52 Part 2 in response then abandoned it – I am concerned for Glenelg’s Part 1 SLOs.

I consider that LEDI Recommendation 6 (p. 3) may ensure that agency funding with the purpose of planning scheme improvement is not lost from view with the creation of a new Council Plan. ii) Council Plan 2009 – 13 Objective regarding VIC attendance Tourism visitations will increase with attendance at Visitor Information Centres recorded at 5% or more above five year averages.

Performance indicator Not Achieved (unable to be assessed) - As the uptake of electronic media to access VIC tourist information increases, the actual attendance number of visitors to the VIC has decreasing relevance as an indicator of use of service or number of tourists.

This reveals the impact that internet-driven FIT (Free Independent Travel) is having on “current tourism arrangements”. It is essential that marketing and information strategies must adapt to fit new ways – and an increasingly sophisticated market, along the lines of recommendations that I have suggested (p.2)

 That research is undertaken into cooperative use of the Internet for marketing that would be useful to all regional and local organizations contributing to the regional tourism industry (including volunteer groups supporting arts, community cultural development, Indigenous and European cultural heritage and environment).

 That Tourism Victoria’s regional marketing campaigns and strategies are reviewed with the aims of - restoring to the regions more responsibility for promoting their own assets;

15 GSC Council Minutes re Amendment C 55 for HOs, June 2012

31 - assisting regional tourism associations to better serve their communities through developing cooperative, comprehensive and accurate web site information.

iii) There is no apparent “carry-over” from the 2009 – 2013 Council Plan to the new one -

The GS Council Plan for 2013 – 17 has four Key Themes;

1. Engaged, healthy, connected and proud community. 2. Diverse economic base. 3. Manage and sustain our natural and built assets. 4. Govern in a responsible and responsive way.

Under Theme 2 for a Diverse economic base, and a “thriving economy full of opportunities and resilience” there is only one tourism-related target; for there to be at least 2 cruise ship visits (to Portland) per year.

No improvements to the Planning Scheme to support a “diverse economic base” are listed here, as they were in the 2009 – 13 Council Plan.

There is no tourism-related target or KPI in the 2013-17 GS Council Plan for Theme 3, “managing and sustaining our natural and built assets” – such as further work on protecting the assets identified in the Heritage Study Stage 2 (a) or improving land management through implementing Part 2 of the HO and SLO Amendments. It is as though they never existed in the preceding Council Plan 2009 – 13, or had really been fully implemented.

The Council Plan 2013-17, in my view, does nothing for the shire’s heritage, environment, or tourism-associated businesses. These need council commitment to improving general recognition of Glenelg as a destination for “bread-and-butter” tourism visitation, as well as one that attracts cruise ships.

I note that the State Government has granted funds to the Port of Portland ($250,000) for improving Port facilities to receive cruise ship visitors, and this is commendable. It may increase cruise ship visits.

I do not consider that the 2013 – 17 GSC Council Plan has adequate measurable targets for the future of tourism, and support Recommendation 6 from the LEDI Report as a consequence –

The Local Government Act 1989 be amended to require local government authorities to prepare a separate economic development strategy that complements the Council Plan required under Section 125 and the Strategic Resource Plan required under section 126.

I also support Recommendation 11 in the interest of transparency in the important matter of economic development –

32 The Local Government Act 1989 be amended “to require councils to make available economic development strategies to their communities both in hardcopy and on council websites.”

I consider that the community needs more detail on “council plans” than is given in the GSC Council Plan 2013 – 17.

TOR 3 - Potential for the development of ecotourism and heritage tourism in South West Victoria The Glenelg Shire and Portland as a “hero” destination –

Portland was a “hero” destination from the late 1800s until the 1960s. All roads in Australia Felix (tracks for bullock drays in the 1830s) lead to Portland, “The Watering Place of the West”. But in the 1960s holidaymakers arrived to find that the town’s beaches were construction sites for the new port; and visitation dwindled. Industrialisation of the National Heritage listed Three Capes (a smelter and windfarms), plus inevitable industry issues – closure of an abbatoir, compensating live sheep exports, feed lots, heavy transport from “new” mineral sands and wood chip exports - changed peoples’ perceptions of the place.

But Portland is a vibrant place, full of character, set in a beautiful land and seascape, and its architecture, streetscapes and surrounds still demonstrate Victoria’s pioneering past. They remain vital assets in Glenelg Shire’s tourism attractions which include high level ecotourism options – see Appendix 2 for web sites.

“Game changers” for Glenelg tourism? I think that this may apply to whale watching and fishing.

Whale viewing – The return of Southern Right whales in increasing numbers in the last 5-6 years could be a “game changer” that Portland has been waiting for. They wallow close in-shore, often just off the Lee Breakwater or Dutton Way, favourite places for getting rid of barnacles. Whalemails alert people to a sighting and last year there were up to 4 a day, reporting numbers up to 5-7 in groups.

Fishing - The tuna fishery in particular has burgeoned in the last few years; 7 am traffic jams have ensued as boaters pour in to Portland. Fishers bring families and mostly camp. “Word of mouth” recognition of Portland is increasing (GST RR 2011). Improvements in facilities for fishers arising from the Portland Bay Infrastructure Plan 2009 are starting to pay off.

Ecotourism assets – The area’s environmental assets include National, State and coastal parks. In my view they have the capacity to absorb larger visitation, provided that Parks Victoria and DEPI have adequate staff to look after the parks and camping grounds, and provided that global warming does not place them at risk.

33

I consider that Parks Victoria needs to be better resourced to supervise and direct visitors in such a way, “resting” areas as needed, to minimise damage; and to provide visitors with information and interpretation of the assets (see Dot point 1, p. 1).

Visitation should be encouraged throughout the year, but if possible limited in remote areas during summer to avoid increased fire risk affecting visitors and the environment.

Significant Landscapes (Overlays on the coast not yet gazetted) – These abound in Glenelg, and along the coast are particularly fragile. The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 (VCS) Hierarchy of Principles (p.3) should be respected to ensure their survival. Any development should 1. Provide for the protection of significant environmental and cultural values. 2 Undertake integrated planning and provide clear direction for the future. 3 Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources. 4 Ensure development on the coast is located within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for development is evident and the impact can be managed.

Over-exploitation for accommodation in fragile environments would place Glenelg Shire’s amenity at risk, as would over-use. Glenelg’s environment is extremely diverse and complex, and miraculously, most assets are still in a reasonable state of preservation. But it is difficult to separate “ecotourism” and “heritage tourism” as they are inter-dependent; both Indigenous and colonial European settlement patterns have depended on the environmental assets of water, soils and shelter.

Glenelg’s tourism opportunities and potential include

Nature-based Tourism Assets – see also Appendix 2.

 Glenelg has extensive networks of National, State and regional parks. These have potential to link to parks to the north (with benefit to species migration as global warming occurs).

 There are also opportunities offered by the Glenelg areas of the Victorian Volcanic Plains (remnant grasslands) in the north, a Federally recognized high-level threatened area.

 The Kanawinka Geopark (UNESCO recognized) is based on the region’s vulcanicity, biodiversity and culture. This is one of the first geoparks in Australia, extending from Colac and Port Fairy to beyond Mt. Gambier, and there is great diversity in types of volcanoes and the landscapes that have evolved. Glenelg’s Coast and Caves (Cape Bridgewater area) is publicized in its brochure. See http://www.kanawinkageopark.org.au/

 Glenelg has high-level biodiversity in both flora and fauna, and a number of rare and endangered species. There are opportunities for whale, seal, gannets, bird-watching, flora and sightseeing tours in coastal, State and National Parks.

34  “Activity” tourism – camping, boating (the Western Coastal Board’s Boating Coastal Action Plan 2010 (wcb.vic.gov.au )identified Portland as a State level boating facility and Nelson as regional level while there are several more local level boat ramps); recreational fishing, beaches, canoeing (sea and river), and nature walks – Sea Cliff, Fawthrop Lagoon, and the Great South West Walk 250 km loop through forest, along the Glenelg River, through dunes and along the coast.

 Marine Parks and the Bonney Upwelling have the potential to be significant visitor draw-cards, as does Portland’s Bonney Upwelling Festival based on it - www.upwellingfestival.com.au/page.asp?id=362

 For example, Glenelg’s “Whalemail – Portland’s Southern Right Whale sightings” records (see appendix 2) this year show unprecedented visits and numbers of whales off Cape Bridgewater, Cape Nelson, Portland and Dutton Way (the Convincing Ground) since April 3rd, with spectacular viewing from Portland’s cliffs and breakwaters e.g. 27 June 9.15 am – 4 Southern Right Whales 100 metres offshore from the Water Tower at Portland. 3 Southern Right Whales 50 metres North side of Lee Breakwater in Portland Bay. See http://www.whalemail.com.au/whale_sightings.html Email updates throughout the day direct people to the best viewing locations. Portland’s Water Tower (a community commemorative project with World War Two displays on the curving interior stairs leading to a viewing platform) has enough volunteers open regularly, and would be an excellent whale- spotting site. In my experience, whale sightings close to Portland were very rare until the early 2000s, and were then infrequent. Greater numbers of visits prompted the VIC to provide warning signals (flags and sirens) when a whale was in the Bay, then in 2011 the VIC instituted the “Whalemail” – which not only alerts people, but will be a valuable scientific record. The numbers of sightings this year are similar to those recorded in the Henty Journals, but there was much more action then – 30 May 1835, Saturday …. 4 Whale Killed to day as follows: Cape Piller 1 – Tomlins 1 – Wm. Mansfield 2 – Cape got fast to a second and cut, J Mansfield the same, Guff got fast and lost his line, Dutton got capsized in fastning, picked up by chase, Tomlins got the whale Wind north, strong breeze, Wet Night16

Heritage and Cultural Tourism –

As shown above with a tiny excerpt from The Henty Journals, the wealth of written material about Portland, its environment, and its early citizens and actions could and should support both environmental and cultural heritage tourism.

- With proper research and support the archives could - Be made accessible for people to do their own research (another attraction);

16 The Henty Journals, ed. Lynette Peel, MUP 1996. P. 70

35 - Provide valuable interpretation to add to the existing Maritime Discovery Centre material, History House (the Old Town Hall) which houses genealogical records, and walks around Portland and along the coast to e.g. the Convincing Ground. Bendigo’s “Framework of Historical Themes”, and present development of better access to its heritage, would be good models to follow.

But Glenelg SC has not acknowledged many of its assets, e.g. The Convincing Ground embodies many settlement themes and deserves an Information Centre and proper interpretation at the location of the whaling stations. It was the site of Victoria’s first major conflict between Indigenous people and Europeans in a dispute over a beached whale c. 1832; first export site (whale oil and bone from the 1820s, and wool from Henty’s first clip 1835; first pastoral area (Henty sold meat to the whalers) and first industrial area – boat building.

The GS Heritage Study Stage 1 (2002) identified it as one of Victoria’s most important heritage locations. But the GSC did not include it (or Narrawong, except for William Dutton’s grave) in the brief for the Heritage Study Stage 2 in 2005/6; so it is not recorded as being significant in the GSC Planning Scheme (although in 2005 Heritage Victoria Registered 7 ha, including the jetty piles which are under water. It will not be able to be celebrated as is Warrnambool’s Point Ritchie for a very long time – see Warrnambool Standard article, 5/8/13, re its “approval for the highest level” of protection as one of the most important Aboriginal sites in Australia - www.Vic%20Tourism%202013/Point%20Ritchie%20site%20an%20Aboriginal%20w onderland%20%7C%20The%20Standard.webarchive

Unfortunately the Convincing Ground became a contested landscape resulting from ambitions to “open it up” to development. Indigenous people (who thought they had a Memorandum of Understanding, and that they would be notified if applications were made for development) and conservation groups (who thought the area was still Rural Zone, not Rural Living with a Development Plan Overlay as this had not been advertised) were shocked in 2003 when bulldozers moved in to create a subdivision – on a massacre site.

This saga is documented elsewhere. All development was held up as VCAT sought to unravel the issues. Meanwhile it became plain that the area’s vulnerability to erosion, exacerbated by sea level rise, made it unsuitable for development. The GSC conducted engineering studies but the Minister for Planning has finally permitted development (except on a narrow coastal strip, and avoiding the massacre site) of re- locatable buildings.

Now, with climate change and SLR, much of this coastal archaeology will be at risk.

As well, Glenelg features  Indigenous archaeology, heritage and culture; and Indigenous contact and conflict history from many locations. Tours of Lake Condah and Budg Bim, a future National and World Heritage site, are highlights.  European maritime, settlement, and social history; including exploration, pastoral, agricultural, education, military and industrial history – the North Shore of Portland Bay was Victoria’s first industrial site.

36

 Authenticity; streetscapes, the working port, cultural landscapes, and buildings are “the real deal”; they are not re-creations, and providing they are protected and looked after they will continue to illustrate their origins and past to future generations.

 Early newspapers, official records and surveys, letters, settlers’ and explorers’ diaries; the Portland Bay Settlement was the administrative centre for Western Victoria from the 1830s. It was also the point from which most settlement occurred, and there is much raw material for interpretation.

 Colonial Georgian architecture (built in local basalt or bluestone). Its 1850s hotels and mansions lend themselves to re-use as accommodation – each able to tell colourful stories of the past.

 A beautiful setting - Portland Bay gives character and charm to Portland.

Inland areas and settlements have their own character based on their origins as staging posts for bullocks and horse traffic, fords and service centres for pastoralists and later farmers. High conservation values are reflected in Amendment C 55, citations and HOs for 87 properties; while in abandoning Part 2 of C 55 (HOs on 6 precincts) the council has abandoned heritage protection for 600 more properties which would have bolstered their precincts’ tourism credentials.

There is such significant cross-over between the environment and cultural heritage tourism in Glenelg that it is hard to separate them.

 Building materials - Bluestone buildings from the 1850s give Portland its specific character. Volcanic rock was quarried in small areas around Portland; the masonry and joinery of many Colonial Georgian buildings match building techniques and styles of Edinburgh Newtown (Scotland) in the 1820s, and it would appear that builders from Scotland settled in Portland – a link that needs further research;

 Museums e.g. the Portland’s Maritime Discovery Centre, Old Town Hall / History House, Vintage Car Museum, and Casterton’s Railway Museum tell the stories of settlement which largely took advantage of the bounty of the environment – whaling, fishing, timber, pastoral production on the volcanic plains; See Appendix 2.

 Festivals - Portland hosts the Bonney Upwelling Festival and has a strong community arts base with arts workshops that have created many public art works in leadlighting, mosaic and tapestry reflecting the environment; Heywood has a Wood, Wine and Roses Festival (its forestry and horticultural heritage), and Casterton has the Kelpie Festival and a main street sculpture of a kelpie - celebrating its pastoral history.

The diversity of these attractions makes it hard for the municipality to describe itself to potential visitors. But Glenelg Shire’s buildings, environments, landscapes and

37 ways of life offer major “points of difference” from most other places in Victoria, especially the new suburbs and towns.

Many Glenelg attractions are sophisticated and may appeal only to niche markets, becoming part of its “menu” of offerings for visitors to select from. But current costs of advertising limit the availability of small-scale attractions to locals and visitors.

I consider that if Council coordinated small attractions and underwrote their promotional costs, more attractions could become more “visible” to the public.

Council completion of its Part 2 of Amendment C 55 for HO precincts in small settlements throughout the Shire would add to community pride, and may also encourage Heritage Victoria to proceed with assistance to GSC for the Heritage Study Stage 2 (b), confirming heritage significance in many individual buildings that would only have interim protection under the precinct HOs.

Terms of Reference 4 determining the environmental and heritage issues associated with large scale tourism

As indicated above, I do not consider that Glenelg’s environment and heritage attractions are suited to large scale tourism, because both are relatively fragile and could suffer from being over-loaded.

In my view most attractions are more suited to niche markets and free independent travellers (the FIT market). People are now self-identifying their interest in the region through the internet. Distance from main population centres means that visitors tend to stay for several nights, increasing the yield per visitor.

I consider that some increase in tourism numbers (especially increasing visitation from April to December) could be achieved – Southern Right whales visit from April to September, and blue whales feed in the Bonney Upwelling from September - but there are strong limitations.

Since the ABS has stopped providing information about accommodation occupancy where there are less than 15 rooms, and many regional establishments are small, supplementary surveys of small accommodation providers would better reflect the “real” visitation to the regions and better confirm fluctuations in visitation (see p. 40).

Increased tourism possibilities in Glenelg Shire -  A more sympathetic approach from Tourism Victoria for local issues,  greater GSC commitment to tourism,  more assistance to volunteers looking after the assets, and  possibly coordination of tourism through the Great South Coast regional organization of municipalities, could generate better visitation to Glenelg and benefit the whole region with greater income.

38 The Future - However a surge in recreational fishing opportunities and whale-watching, with information disseminated on the internet, is already attracting higher visitation.

Obstacles to increased tourism.

Logistics – Transport (roads, parking) and accommodation (variety, cost, locations) could impact on small towns and sensitive environments. Areas and places to be opened up to large-scale tourism should be sufficiently robust to withstand road and foot traffic

Agency funding limitations –

Heritage Victoria and other studies have identified more places of high archaeological interest e.g. whaling station sites around the North Shore and near the Convincing Ground; Portland’s 1840s-50s Government Buildings Block; Cape Bridgewater; but HV is not sufficiently well funded to pursue their research.

I also consider it unlikely that HV will be prepared to invest further in supporting GSC heritage after the C 55 HOs debacle, especially when they can have more confidence that support for other shires’ heritage will be used more effectively.

Tourism Victoria As stated above, the Jigsaw promotion in my view - does not suit the scale of Glenelg Shire’s attractions, - the GOR and Grampians “icons” do not represent Glenelg’s attractions, - GSC’s distance from Melbourne along the increasingly precarious Great Ocean Road is a disincentive to visit Glenelg Shire, and - the cost of advertising through the approved brochures is prohibitive for small attractions.

Community limitations – Also as stated above, attractions are mostly staffed by volunteers with limited opening hours – often they are all open between 2 and 4 pm on a Sunday! but the community offers tremendous support – unsung philanthropy – to Glenelg’s tourism assets.

Employment – As stated in the Great South Coast Strategic Plan, training opportunities in hospitality need to be increased in the regions. A recommendation is needed from this Inquiry in my view such as

That education providers are encouraged to expand hospitality training in the regions by increasing their budgets for this purpose.

Glenelg’s “Community profile” statistics show that accommodation and food services employment 2006 – 2011 increased by 99 to 596, or from 5.6% of the work force to 6.8% - equal to the percentage of tourism employment in other regions - while manufacturing and retail declined; see http://profile.id.com.au/glenelg/industries This repeats the pattern shown in the previous statistical period and supports my view that recognition of Glenelg Shire and Portland’s attributes is increasing.

39

The GS Tourism Research Report 2011 places tourism employment in 2010 at “an estimated 1039 jobs or 14% of total employment” taking into account the construction industry and services industry (real estate, cleaning, linen and service stations).17

Accommodation

In my view increase will respond to increased visitation and in Glenelg is already doing so with a large Quest motel establishing in the last few years and increasing small-scale “themed” accommodation as conversions and restorations are carried out.

Existing accommodation is varied but often small-scale, however indications are that it is increasing – see ‘Community Profile’ above.

NB – ABS statistics on accommodation now only take into account places with 15 or more rooms, so its statistics do not reflect actual accommodation available in the Shire which is often small-scale, using heritage buildings, farm cottages and beach houses. I consider that this situation would be assisted by a recommendation from this Report such as

That ABS accommodation statistics are supplemented by regional surveys showing occupancy of accommodation with fewer than 15 rooms.

The Federal World Class Tourism Investment Study of the GOR (see p. 14), part of the National Long-term Tourism Strategy, found re infrastructure :-

AREAS OF INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED FOR IMPROVEMENT The following infrastructure items are identified for improvement in the Great Ocean Road region; these will assist to support the growth of tourism.

Improvements and capacity of the Great Ocean Road. The Great Ocean Road is at capacity during peak times. Improvement to parking bays, rest areas and passing bays needs to be explored. The general road quality also needs to be improved;

Princes Highway. The Princes Highway is in poor condition from Winchelsea to Warrnambool, there is a need to improve the road into a dual carriageway to support growth in population and visitors;

Harbours, marinas, piers and jetties. There are numerous development plans in places for harbours and marinas along the coast. These will improve water access significantly in the region;

Park infrastructure. There is a need to improve facilities and infrastructure at various parks locations across the region to meet visitor expectations;

Airport upgrades. Airport upgrades are required at Warrnambool and Avalon. This will improve access into the region significantly;

17 GSTRR 2011 p. 17

40 Public transport. Improved regularity of train services along the Princes Highway Corridor and significantly improved public bus transport along the Great Ocean Road is necessary to meet existing and future demand for independent travellers. There is also a need to upgrade the rolling stock servicing this corridor.

Accommodation. There are areas within the Great Ocean Road region that lack tourist accommodation, particularly internationally branded accommodation at the higher end of the market” (Executive Summary p. xiv) …..

“Barriers to Investment - Consultation with industry representatives has identified several issues that are impacting on further investment in tourism product and infrastructure in the Great Ocean Road region. These obstacles include: labour supply, finance, land use zones, public land leases, tour operating licenses, and fisheries legislation.

Strategies need to be developed which curb these barriers to investment in order for the timely delivery and investment in tourism projects” (Executive Summary p. xvii).

As well as above issues, to these I would add need for - Better identification and improvement of direct routes by-passing the Great Ocean Road e.g. from Portland to Melbourne via Mortlake and the Hamilton Highway - Re-establishing the passenger rail link to Portland via Hamilton - Better Rail signage and information from Melbourne to Portland e.g. Buses from Warrnambool via Portland terminate at Mt. Gambier, so Portland appears as a lower status destination on current signage. - Improving the Henty Highway between Hamilton and Portland - Improving the Portland – Nelson Road ( necessary for woodchip traffic as well) - Better access to hospitality training in the regions - Better directions to the West and South Western Victoria from Avalon - Encouraging Jetstar and other airlines using Avalon to expand identification of the airport from “Melbourne (Avalon)” to “Melbourne (Avalon and Western Victoria)” - Better promotion of the air services to Portland.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

A. L. Chalmers OAM,

Appendix 1

Comments on Tourism Victoria’s Web Pages

41 Tourism Victoria GOR Web pages and links - General comments

I am concerned that some Tourism Victoria web marketing and links are very “Melbourne-based”; do not reflect regions and routes accurately; and sometimes provide advice which is environmentally unsound.

Web Information provided - Emphasis on Melbourne - www.visitmelbourne.com/Regions provides information on the Regions including GOR.

Most Tourism Victoria Web pages are headed with a small Jigsaw logo, with a much larger Melbourne logo at the foot. Sometimes, the positions of the logos are reversed. Material that is clearly Victorian appears on the visitmelbourne web site, including GOR material.

In my view, Melbourne is a destination in its own right; so are all other Victorian destinations, and Tourism Victoria should not contribute to international and interstate visitors’ confusion by labelling everything in relation to Melbourne. Surely links can be provided to areas beyond 100 km. out of Melbourne? Otherwise, this impinges on a region’s ability to establish its “points of difference” in order to attract visitors.

Also in my view the Victorian Jigsaw logo is appropriate as a brand for all regional web pages, but the Visit Melbourne “regional” pages (link above), topped by the Melbourne logo with the Victorian “Jigsaw” logo demoted to the foot of the page, in my view demonstrate a centralized, blinkered and insensitive approach to regional marketing.

Touring Routes Web page –

Some information is unclear or inaccurate - “Drive one of the world's most scenic coastal routes on the famous Great Ocean Road. The road extends from Torquay in the east to Allansford in the west with the stretch between Lorne and Apollo Bay being the most picturesque. See huge cliffs, towering rock stacks, raging surf, tranquil bays, beautiful beaches, lush forests and fun filled resort towns. Travel through more of Victoria's west and expand your Great Ocean Road journey further inland to The Grampians and the Victoria's Goldfields or around continue east through Geelong to Port Phillip Bay taking in the Bellarine and Mornington peninsulas. Ride the car and passenger ferry from Queenscliff to Sorrento and explore the natural attractions and scenic beauty of Phillip Island and Gippsland.” (my emphasis) Note – according to this page, the GOR ends at Allansford – strictly correct, but not as far as Moyne, Warrnambool and Glenelg are concerned since it is at Tourism Victoria’s behest that they are all identified as part of the Great Ocean Road Region.

This page would divert travellers from the GOR for the Grampians while areas further west, all “officially” part of the GOR Tourism Marketing Region are not mentioned.

This adds a degree of difficulty to their marketing.

42

The reference to the Bellarine peninsula in this context is just confusing. Links could be used to refer to nearby “icon” areas, rather than specifically directing travellers out of the region; while the space then available on the page could describe attractions further west.

Nature and wildlife Web page –

http://www.visitvictoria.com/Regions/Great-Ocean-Road/Activities-and- attractions/Nature-and-wildlife/Wildflowers.aspx - Limited information, mostly for areas close to Melbourne. Mentions Glenelg’s Mt. Richmond and Moyne’s Tower Hill, but concentrates on Otways features. - No mention of the Lower Glenelg National Park where eastern and western flora and fauna mingle, or any of the wealth of other parks in Glenelg Shire. Most unfortunately one panel recommends that people can “pull up in your campervan” on a bush block near the beach! “Free camping” is a bugbear of the GOR as sometimes people are careless, fouling the bush, and it must not be encouraged. Free camping also deprives the coast and camping parks of income which is essential for coastal maintenance. (NB - Local governments cannot keep up with rising GOR demand for toilet facilities – I believe this is one of the reasons for the Shipwreck Coast Master Plan). See also comments re Tourism Victoria’s “Camping” page re “free camping” –

Camping page –

I consider that this page is completely irresponsible in its encouragement of “free camping” for the above reasons. See http://www.visitmelbourne.com/Regions/Great-Ocean-Road/Activities-and- attractions/Outdoor-activities/Camping.aspx “Sleep under the stars along the Great Ocean Road. Choose from serviced camp grounds throughout region, or sites nestled deep in the Otways. Pitch your tent or park your van by the dunes at remote and secluded beaches. Stay in a forest park or choose a holiday site with full facilities” (My italics) Note - one finds this page from www.visitmelbourne.com/Regions

Maritime History Page does not mention Portland which I consider a major oversight – it was settled from the sea, was a whaling and sealing centre in the early 1800s, was Victoria’s first settlement, was a centre for Immigration in the 19th Century, has always been a working and fishing port, has the Maritime Discovery Centre with very good displays, and has a designated State level Local Port (WCB Boating CAP 2010) with the best fishing on the western coast of Victoria. Glenelg Shire needs much better historical interpretation of the foreshore and the N North Shore of Portland Bay to confirm its place as a maritime history centre.

Appendix 2

Web sites – heritage and ecotourism

43

The Region –

The UNESCO-acknowledged Kanawinka Geopark, http://www.kanawinkageopark.org.au/ places Glenelg Shire in its regional context, and emphasizes its “Coasts and caves”.

Kanawinka encompasses cultural heritage, geology, geography, and biodiversity. Geoparks are a world-wide network, and Kanawinka is Australia’s first recognized geopark. This approach suits Glenelg’s mingling of environment and cultural heritage in particular, but is excellent for the whole region.

Web sites supporting cultural heritage tourism and ecotourism in Glenelg Shire –

1. Glenelg Shire cultural heritage www.glenelg.vic.gov.au/Cultural_Collection www.glenelg.vic.gov.au/Arts_Culture http://www.glenelg.vic.gov.au/Files/GSC_Cultural_Strategy_2011_-_2015.pdf

The GS Cultural Strategy states “Glenelg Shire Council aims to facilitate ongoing understanding of the region’s history, environment and people, through preserving and making accessible relevant cultural material…. Strategy 5.7 Utilise the Glenelg Shire Arts website to both promote the (Cultural) Collection and make it more accessible to the general public …. Strategy 6.12 Assist arts organisations to effectively target tourists and visitors to the region as purchasers of local arts, crafts and entertainment, and also to ensure local cultural product is effectively displayed and widely marketed.”

Comment - The prospect, in the near future, of visitors on cruise ships visiting various locations in the Shire on a regular basis, makes further development of this strategy essential.

The GSC Cultural Strategy is supported by its Cultural Collection Strategic Plan http://www.glenelg.vic.gov.au/Files/Final_Document_Adopted_by_Council_on_27_J anuary_2010_Cultural_Collection_Strategic_Plan_2009_2014.pdf Vision – “The Glenelg Shire Council aims to effectively manage its Cultural Collection for the benefit of current and future residents, facility users and visitors”.

The GSC cultural collection is spread over 11 locations, six in Portland and one in each of Casterton and Heywood, together with the Shire Offices in Portland, Casterton and Heywood.

Other cultural collections are held and maintained by volunteer groups or individuals – Portland Historical Society at the Gardens Cottage, the Vintage Car Club at the Vintage Car Museum, the World War 2 Museum at the Portland Water Tower, the Dartmoor Museum, Casterton volunteers at the Old Railway Station. Opening times vary, while some are not often accessible to the public; and there are no comparable web sites for cultural heritage as there are for enthusiasts for

44 ecotourism, although the following site includes Historic Pictures and scenery - www.wildblue.com.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=54

2. Ecotourism web sites –

Outdoor adventures http://www.southwestadventures.com.au/portland.html Area information links http://www.southwestadventures.com.au/links.html

Environment – www.wildblue.com.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=54 - has had over 2,700,000 visitors; - the “Main menu” shows the range of district interest areas - demonstrates the passion local people have for their environment

Fishing http://www.sharkmen.com.au/portland.html http://www.portlandfishingcharters.net.au/p/portland-fishing-charters_19.html http://www.seasprayportland.com.au/ http://www.fishingservices.com.au/

Whale and seal viewing – http://www.glenelg.vic.gov.au/Whale_Sightings http://www.whalemail.com.au/ Archive 2011 – 2013, showing spike in whale sightings in 2013 http://www.whalemail.com.au/whale_sightings.html http://www.sealsbyseatours.com.au/

Villages http://www.sealsbyseatours.com.au/cape_bridgewater.html http://www.visitmelbourne.com/Regions/Great-Ocean-Road/Activities-and- attractions/Nature-and-wildlife/Beaches-and-coastlines/Cape-Bridgewater.aspx

Note – Cape Bridgewater is about 250 km. from Melbourne, so Tourism Victoria’s placement of Web information about Cape Bridgewater on www.visitmelbourne.com seems very inappropriate.

45