After he’s got the fire at his campsite roaring, Andre Laudams likes to sit down and look up.
“Getting to see the stars at night is one of the best things about camping,” the Sydneysider says. In the city, he is used to them being hidden behind a veil of light pollution.
“I don’t think we should pay to get that peace and solitude.”
The 54-year-old is one of many campers troubled by a proposed change to the pricing structure for sites inNew South Walesnational parks.
The government wants to tackle “ghost bookings”, whereby people book limited sites in case they want to go camping, but then don’t turn up. However, campers are worried the reforms could change the “classless” nature of the great outdoors.
Michael Atkinson, who appeared on Alone Australia, said on social media last week: “We should be encouraging people to get outdoors not making it a middle-class and above activity.”
The planned changes won’t see prices increase everywhere – some sites could even become cheaper. But the question is being asked: has the government got the balance right?
The NSW government says the current pricing structure is “inconsistent and complex” and should be simplified.
It aims to address three issues raised in consultations with 200,000 national park visitors: “ghost bookings”; a lack of staff at campgrounds; and the need for better maintenance of facilities.
Currently, campsites have a flat fee for the site itself and then additional costs per adult and child. The proposed change would institute flat rates for low and high seasons, based on the services offered at the particular site. Prices would be pegged to CPI and people would receive a refund of up to 80% if they cancelled.
The government says it hasn’t increased the cost of camping since 2017.
Grahame Douglas, a member of the National Parks Association of NSW, agrees reform of the “complex” pricing structure is necessary, but he’s not convinced by Labor’s proposal.
“I’m not persuaded the number of tiers is correct – there are some grey areas,” he says, arguing it’s confusing what tier some campsites fall into. “There has been misguided criticism because of this confusion.”
Douglas says it’s not clear whether the change will make camping more expensive overall. “It will definitely vary,” he says.
For example, Saltwater Creek campground – a beach-lovers haven on the far south coast – has barbecues and picnic tables. That suggests it could be considered a tier-three campsite.
Currently, Saltwater Creek campsites are $24 a night for two people with a tent and $12 extra for every additional adult and $6 more for every child. This means the cost for a family of four is currently $36 a night. It’s $49 for a family of six or $74 for six adults.
Under the proposed changes, it would incur a flat rate of $36 a night in high season and $20 in low season.
The change to a flat fee could hurt more if campers had been fudging their bookings by stating, for example, that only one adult would be at the site rather than a family of four.
Laudams’ favourite campsite is a secluded spot on the edge of Abercrombie River national park. It has a pit toilet and would appear to fall into tier two under the proposed regime.
It could, therefore, more than triple in price during high season – going from $6 a night to $22. It would be $13 in the low season.
Bents Basin campground in the Royal national park, which has hot showers, would cost a flat rate of $89 a night in peak season and $52 in low season.
“If it’s an off season, the prices look quite reasonable in the context of existing charges,” Douglas says. “But when you look at the high season charges, the question is, is that going to be something that’s going to dissuade people, and is that the intent as well?”
The government says a key reason for the change is to deter pesky ghost bookings – an issue that has plagued users in NSW andVictoria.
Laudams argues ghost bookings are caused by the unreasonable bureaucratisation of camping. For him, the obvious answer is to remove the booking system altogether and return to the days when people rocked up and hoped for the best.
Some popular campsites have long had a booking system but it was applied more widely as camping became increasingly popular during the early years of the pandemic.
Visitation to the state’s national parks and reserves increased 49% over the past decade, government data suggests.
Alone contestant Atkinson wants bookings scrapped for campsites that didn’t have them before Covid. He’d like to see a boost in the number of available campsites “in line with the amount of extra visitation”. Not increased fees.
Douglas says the National Parks Association is pushing for 50 new protected areas to be reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.
But he says the booking system is still necessary because of how popular camping has become. It also reassures people heading into remote areas that there will be a site available.
Victoria made camping free over the past year as a cost-of-living measure. But as a result, ghost bookings have increased.
Prof Nitika Garg, a University of New South Wales expert in consumer behaviour, says that was a foreseeable consequence.
“When there’s no cost, consumers do not put in the effort to finalising or forming their plans,” she says.
Last year, Booderee national park near Jervis Bay in NSW introduced a flat fee structure.
Luca Marelli, who travels from Sydney to camp there with his young family, says he has noticed a drop in ghost bookings since the change.
It’s now slightly more expensive at about $80 a night for his family of four – but he says he doesn’t mind. “It’s that bit more expensive but still much cheaper than Airbnb.
“[We camp] not only because of the money, but also because we love the experience. We love the area, we love the beaches there and we love the campsite itself.”
Garg thinks the NSW reforms could reduce ghost bookings.
“What they’re doing is trying to match demand to supply, so they’re probably saying that in the low season, where we can afford to have more ghost bookings, we will lower the rate or keep it similar,” she says.
The government could also appeal to Australian values, the academic suggests.
“One that doesn’t shame but encourages people to be considerate. Be a mate for a mate.”