Beginnings 4
'The only creature to be driven out of the Park and kept out with flaming swords is the Utilitarian, who would indiscriminately chop trees, spoil waterfalls, dig up rare plants, kill live things, and spoil and ravage and destroy everything for profit. If there ever come to exist legislators who cannot see the value of such a place we hope it will become a recognised custom to shoot them on sight whenever seen within three miles of the Park.' Regretfully for conservation in Tasmania, this custom never established itself and utilitarians had their day at Mt Field.
The area of the park was progressively increased until, in 1948, shortly after the Park Board had been reconstituted and the name changed to Mt Field National Park, its total extent was 16,953 hectares. However, one of the boundaries which had not been altered since the 1915 proclamation was that on the western side of the park in the Florentine Valley. It adjoined substantial timber concessions held by one of Tasmania's largest industrial enterprises, Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd, generally known as ANM.
For some time the company had been pressing the government to alter this boundary to give it access to 2,833 hectares of park land. It consisted of an incomparably rich forest containing the State's finest remaining stand of the swamp gum, Eucalyptus regnans, the world's tallest hardwood. For exactly this reason the move was being vigorously opposed by the Scenery Preservation Board and a myriad other interested groups. Despite this, early in 1949 the Premier, Mr Cosgrove, introduced the National Park and Florentine Valley Bill aimed at giving effect to ANM's wishes.
WHILE THE AREA may not sound large in terms of current conservation debates, the ensuing controversy was substantial and very significant. It was the first test of the strength of the State's scenery preservation legislation and brought into public focus the issues which continue to underlie Tasmania's fundamental dilemma: should the State opt for conservation and a tourist-based economy, or development and an industrially-based economy? The parliamentary debates on the legislation sound very contemporary:
The Premier: 'The company is ... building up a large export trade. It is employing large numbers of Tasmanians and that means a lot to the State.'
Mr Fidler (Liberal): 'I am opposed to any large area of timber being held by any organisation just to look at. .. the area is worth 100,000 pounds sterling to the Forestry Department. '
Mr Lyons (Liberal): 'This is a tourist State not a milling State, and unless we have something of a national park, we will not get as many tourists as we should.'
Perhaps the only element missing was any feeling at all for the value of the wilderness itself.
The debate was greatly complicated by a spurious question concerning the exact location of the original boundary but, by the time the last of three parliamentary joint committees considered the bill, it was able to recommend, with some precision, that 1,490 hectares be transferred to ANM, confirming their control of most of the disputed area. The only compensation recommended was the exchange by the company of a far less significant area of land of approximately equal size to the south of the park, and a possible increase in the annual grant to the Scenery Preservation Board. Late in 1950 the bill was passed.