If you’ve been following the recent debate around the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and their proposed tiered pricing strategy for camping, you’re probably feeling the same frustration I am. As someone who craves the raw, unfiltered experience of camping in remote areas, this plan feels completely out of touch with what I - and many others actually want. I’ve been diving into the details, and I had to share my thoughts on why this proposal misses the mark for campers like me, especially since I already tend to avoid national parks for a whole list of reasons.
For context, the NPWS is rolling out a six-tiered fee system backed by Labor MP Penny Sharpe for their 365 campgrounds across NSW. They’re categorising sites based on facilities and demand, with prices ranging from free for remote bush spots (Tier 1) to as much as $89 a night for a family of four at high-demand sites (Tier 6) during peak season. The goal is to manage the 1.8 million overnight stays they recorded in 2023–24 and address “ghost bookings”—when people book sites but don’t show up - by simplifying fees and offering refunds to encourage cancellations. It might sound reasonable, but it’s sparked a lot of backlash, and I can see why, especially given my own hesitations about national parks.
To be honest, I usually steer clear of national parks for camping, and this proposal just reinforces why. For one, they’re often not dog-friendly, which is a dealbreaker for me - I want Nugget by my side when I’m out in the wild. They also tend to be overdeveloped, with facilities like hot showers, camp kitchens, or shelters that I didn’t ask for and don’t want. I’m someone who prefers vehicle-based camping, but national parks often restrict that, making it harder to just roll up and set up camp wherever feels right. Then there’s the booking systems, which are so inflexible - I never know the exact date I’ll be there, and having to commit in advance just doesn’t work for my spontaneous trips. And don’t get me started on the crowds. National parks are often packed with too many people (check Delicate Campground on a weekend), which kills the sense of solitude I’m after. So, I usually head to more remote, off-the-grid spots instead.
Delicate Campground on a weekday
That’s why this NPWS proposal frustrates me even more. They’re doubling down on the things that already push me away - like adding more facilities no one in my circle asked for. I haven’t met a single camper I know who wants national parks to be “upgraded” with things that make them feel more like resorts. We head to these areas because we don’t want any of that - we want a patch of ground, the sounds of nature, and nothing else. If you’re looking for amenities, that’s what Hipcamps and private campgrounds are for. National parks should be for those of us who want to escape civilisation entirely, not bring it with us. Adding facilities isn’t just unnecessary; it ruins the whole point of a remote, natural experience and makes the overcrowding problem even worse by attracting more people who want those resort-like vibes.
Glow Worm Tunnel after the upgrades, has encountered endless traffic compared to the original 2-3 car parking area.
NPWS was founded around the preservation of nature, yet are now about making remote locations places more accessible, but that logic doesn’t add up for me. If you make a natural spot more accessible by adding infrastructure, it ceases to be natural and loses what makes it so special. It becomes another commercialised campground, stripping away the wildness that makes these parks special in the first place. Plus, it does nothing to address the other issues I have with national parks - like the lack of dog-friendly policies, the restrictions on vehicle-based camping (vehicles access is being restricted at an alarming pace), or the rigid booking systems that don’t let me just show up when I’m ready. Why would you launch a massive plan that goes against what your core campers want, costs everyone more, and does nothing to preserve the untouched beauty these parks are meant to protect? I can’t wrap my head around it.
And then there’s the price hikes—some sites could cost a family $600 a week during peak season! That’s absurd. National parks are supposed to be a budget-friendly way to disconnect and recharge in nature, but these fees risk turning camping into something only a few can afford. If the NPWS really needs to charge fees, there are simpler ways to do it without over-complicating things or making booking even more rigid. I’ve seen systems that work so much better: just set up a locked box at the site where campers can drop in cash with their rego details. Rangers can check and empty it as needed. It’s straightforward, doesn’t lead to ghost bookings, and keeps costs low for everyone while giving you the flexibility to show up when it suits you. Why make it more complicated than that?
The public feedback period for this proposal is open until May 25, 2025, so there’s still time to share your thoughts with the NPWS. If you’re as frustrated as I am, I encourage you to speak up. Let’s remind them that national parks are for everyone - not just those who can afford premium fees, and definitely not for those who want a glamping experience. For me, and I’m sure for many of you, the beauty of camping is in its raw, untouched simplicity, with the freedom to bring my dog, camp with my vehicle, and avoid the crowds. Let’s keep it how it is or ideally, strip it back a little.
What do you think about the NPWS proposal? Do you share my frustrations with national parks, or do you see it differently? Drop your thoughts in the comments - I’d love to hear from you!