“If the government has a fantastic argument about why this is a solid idea, then they need to bring it forward, don’t try to sneak it through without consultation,” he said. “This is the biggest change any government has tried to make to the Parks Act since it was created in 1974.”

Loading

He said further consultation with the community was needed, as well as presenting measured reasons for why the changes had been proposed.

“To put forward something with such broad propositions that appears to be moving towards a commercial model for the funding of national parks, and that may not be the intent, but that’s how it looks at the moment and we have to react as it is being presented,” he said.

The bill would also see a non-profit entity created that would accept donations and “mobilise philanthropic investment in NSW,” Mr Kean said at the second reading of the bill on Wednesday.

“This will be additional funding for our national parks, complementing but in no way replacing core government funding. It will also energise community engagement with our national parks,” he said.

Nature Conservation Council chief executive Chris Gambian said the world-leading conservation agencies, like National Parks NSW, should not have to resort to this type of funding model.

“Nature conservation is an essential service that taxpayers legitimately expect their government to provide. Pushing that responsibility off budget is unacceptable and unsustainable,” he said.

Independent NSW MP Justin Field added the proposed changes, in particular the biodiversity credit scheme, went against the core principle of the national parks which aimed to conserve nature.

“If Minister Kean has a good idea to improve conservation or the visitor experience in our national parks, work with the consultation process to make this happen. Don’t come to Parliament with no consultation asking for carte blanche powers to do what he or future ministers want,” he said.

Greens MP Cate Faehrmann said there was a long history in the state of consultation with environmental stakeholders over changes to park management.

“It’s completely unacceptable that environment groups were made aware of this bill the day before it was introduced into parliament,” she said. “We are strongly opposed to national parks being used as biodiversity offsets. The idea of using national parks as a justification for the destruction of threatened species habitat for major projects will be abhorrent to many in the community.

“We will not be supporting this bill in its current form. If the Minister thinks these changes to the way in which our national parks are managed are so necessary then he needs to allow the time for genuine stakeholder and public consultation.

Mr Kean said he wanted to see stronger protections for the state’s national parks and ensuring conservation work and improving visitor experience for everyone, including people living with a disability, remained vital.

“This bill is about carefully modernising how we manage our national parks making them more accessible and vastly improving conservation outcomes to ensure zero extinctions and increased biodiversity for future generations,” he told the Herald.

“We are committed to working with all stakeholders to make our national parks a great drawcard for everyone who cares about the environment, conservation and biodiversity.”

A guide to the environment, what’s happening to it, what’s being done about it and what it means for the future. Sign up to our fortnightly Clear Air newsletter here.