Free Booking (or Fees Refunded) of Parks Victoria’s Campgrounds between 1 Dec 2024 & 30 Jun 2025 (Exclusions Apply)

990
Free Booking (or Fees Refunded) of Parks Victoria’s Campgrounds between 1 Dec 2024 & 30 Jun 2025 (Exclusions Apply)
Go to Deal
Langras on 17/10/2024 - 12:51 parks.vic.gov.au (2486 clicks)
Last edited 17/10/2024 - 13:34 by 1 other user

Camping in 131 of Parks Victoria’s paid campgrounds will be free of charge between 1 December 2024 and 30 June 2025. There are a small number of sites excluded - refer to the parks vic website.

Existing bookings for this period will be honoured and refunded.

Camping fees will be changed to ‘free’ in the coming weeks. If you wish to book a campsite now to go camping from 1 December 2024 to 31 May 2025, you can. However, you will need to pay the normal camping fees, and you will receive a refund in the coming weeks.

Bookings are essential, even though there is no charge. There is a maximum booking limit of two sites per campground in a single transaction.

Sports & Outdoors Camping

Related Stores

Parks Victoria
Parks Victoria

Comments

  • JuryWheel on 17/10/2024 - 13:19
    +18

    I guess this is anti ozb, but i dont understand why they would do this. Wilsons Prom is hugely popular (and very affordable!) and the money raised from campsites is used for all sorts of positive projects - where is the money going to come from now?

    • douevenozbargain on 17/10/2024 - 13:21
      +1

      Agree completley

    • blldzd on 17/10/2024 - 13:33
      +9

      Looks like it only cost the Vic Government 9 mil and they are hoping to recoup the costs through increased tourism / more families getting out to regional areas and spending their money.

      • blldzd on 17/10/2024 - 13:35
        +5

        I said 'only' because the industry is worth $2.1 billion a year to the Victorian economy (per the above website)

      • 1st-Amendment on 18/10/2024 - 08:37
        -5

        Looks like it only cost the Vic taxpayers 9 mil

        FTFY

        • blldzd on 18/10/2024 - 08:45
          +10

          I don't think it's controversial to say that most people are fine with their taxes going toward national parks and campgrounds. Let's leave that seppo libertarian shit over in that rotting country.

          • 1st-Amendment on 18/10/2024 - 15:35
            -7

            @blldzd:

            to say that most people are fine with

            Why do you think you speak for most people? You have precisely one opinion and I have also have precisely one. It's the thinking that you speak for everyone else that is a big part of these types of problems.

            Let's leave that seppo libertarian shit

            You mean having a basic understanding where taxes comes from is 'sEpPo LiBeRtArIaN sHiT'? The universe must be a complicated place from where you sit…

            • blldzd on 18/10/2024 - 16:02
              +5

              @1st-Amendment: Mate you clearly just come on here to argue with people. I think you would benefit from some fresh air, maybe a free camping trip.

              • 1st-Amendment on 18/10/2024 - 17:22
                -6

                @blldzd:

                Mate you clearly just come on here to argue with people

                You're the one who seemed to be triggered by a simple comment with the 'sEpPo LiBeRtArIaN sHiT' response… I suggest you take some of your own advice…

      • davebern on 01/11/2024 - 23:55
        +1

        Agree.
        Another benefit is by encouraging more people to travel, they will be more active and families will enjoy the bush together..

    • mapax on 17/10/2024 - 13:39
      +4

      You’ve probably heard that the Vic government wants to change a large area of land from state parks/forests into a national park which will effectively be a ban on rec-reg dirt bikes, 4x4ing and hunting.

      A part of me can’t help but think this free camping is somehow tied to that, but I’m going to need a new tinfoil hat before I can figure out how exactly…

      • Igaf on 23/10/2024 - 23:32
        +1

        Still having trouble with simple concepts I see. I suspect even the dullest pseudo-libertarian conservative knows that govts underwrite business in a multitude of ways. Some might even be able to grasp the many reasons why.

        Businesses certainly don't seem to have any problem putting their hands out for welfare or being bailed out by taxpayers even if they don't need assistance in some cases. Nor do conservative govts have an issue with doling out taxpayer dosh without any strings attached. So where does that leave your quaint notions of "socialism" and capitalism? Rhetorical question.

    • heytherehoney on 07/11/2024 - 16:34

      I agree. I just received a refund for a February camping trip (booked in Sep) and it was one of the only dates I could get for a powered site within 6 months. People who book these popular campsites really want to go, and would go regardless of this "incentive"

      • JuryWheel on 07/11/2024 - 17:19

        1000% I don't think the price is limiting the numbers….

  • cbpeh1 on 17/10/2024 - 13:31
    +4

    I feel like a system like this will be so easily abused.
    It does not make any sense.

  • jimboner on 17/10/2024 - 13:36
    +8

    Agreed, what is to stop people from booking and not showing up?

    Or for some prawn to book out the whole campsite…great way to have a private campsite

    • Wolfy on 17/10/2024 - 14:44

      The system only allows reserving 2x campsites at the same location per person.

      So you'd need multiple accounts/emails/car-rego and to ignore the pop-up checkbox that says you can't book more than 2 sites.
      … not that hard, but it does take a bit of effort.

  • stickingly on 17/10/2024 - 13:37
    +9

    So now there will lots of people booking and then not showing up?

    • angras on 17/10/2024 - 13:54
      +3

      Maybe, but most of the popular sites will already be booked out for summer, and those bookings get refunded. That’s a big win for people who have already booked.
      And for now, you still need to pay first and then get refund later, so maybe this won’t be abused until Parks Vic update the booking system to show $0

      • Wolfy on 17/10/2024 - 14:45

        It's updated now (for the vast majority of places).

  • urbancartel on 17/10/2024 - 13:47

    What are the small number of sites excluded ( can't find the info or Parks website)

    • angras on 17/10/2024 - 13:55
      +4

      “Fees will continue to apply for roofed accommodation like huts and cabins at Wilsons Promontory, the unique pre-pitched Discovery Tents at Point Nepean National Park, and remote hike-in campgrounds along the Grampians Peaks Trail.”

  • Wolfy on 17/10/2024 - 14:41
    +1

    Thanks OP, I had not seen the announcement.

    Booked 3x camping trips … the hot showers will be a nice touch that we don't usually get when camping.

  • besttechadvisor on 17/10/2024 - 15:28
    -1

    They're hoping to make more back with the $300+ fines when you don't show up

  • Big Sexy Unit on 17/10/2024 - 15:53
    +1

    so safe to assume most paid sold-out campsites will be full of empty spots all summer

    • Horacio on 17/10/2024 - 16:01
      +9

      Exactly. I feel this is a bad plan. Maybe it needs to be based on a refund you can apply for once they check that you were actually there.

      • Igaf on 25/10/2024 - 20:11

        I think you have the wrong end of the stick. Anyone who has booked and paid prior to the booking changes will have their fees refunded - as you'd expect given fees are being waived. It's irrelevant whether they turn up or not.

    • starspawn on 25/10/2024 - 18:45

      I really doubt that, people are still going to camp for that period. What else would they do with their kids?

    • Igaf on 25/10/2024 - 19:57

      Existing bookings for this period will be honoured and refunded.

      Don't see your logic. If they were sold out when it cost to book why would there suddenly be vacancies when booking is free?

  • Nedkellyinthebush on 17/10/2024 - 18:59
    +3

    They should do this for lesser known campsites only. Leave the fees on the hugely popular ones. Tourism would be more spread out this way.

  • Mischaseb on 17/10/2024 - 20:55
    +2

    This is annoying. The sites were cheap already. Just going to result in people hoarding spots and not turning up.

    • Cheaplikethebird on 18/10/2024 - 09:38

      They should at least limit the booking timeframe for the free spots to one month. I feel like there will be a bunch of bookings made now for the late summer period that will be completely forgotten about when the time comes.

  • godspeed4476 on 17/10/2024 - 21:35
    +3

    This is only going to push people into private camping locations. People are just gonna book and not show up. There should have been a system put in for refunds after proving you have camped

  • davebern on 18/10/2024 - 07:43

    Great initiative.
    Encouraging more people to get outdoors and get active is a good thing.
    More tourist 💰 into regional Victorian businesses is another positive 😀

    • 1st-Amendment on 18/10/2024 - 08:40
      -7

      Encouraging more people to get outdoors and get active is a good thing.

      If you think it's great why don't you fund it yourself? Why is it that other people have to pay for things you want?

      • davebern on 27/10/2024 - 12:36

        I do!!
        You've made some big assumptions here!!
        I retired @55 and 💰 is not a concern to me, thanks to some wise investments 😎
        But I am not just thinking of myself and my own hip pocket as many others do!!
        I understand that there are many people far less fortunate than me where the 💰 is a big factor.
        I really wish your question "Why is it that other people have to pay for the things you want?" was true, as I wouldn't have to pay so much taxes that subsidise those on the dole, welfare or pension…those benefiting from government handouts from the taxes on my high income could've could've been you or your family (in the past, now or in the future)!! 🤪

        • Igaf on 27/10/2024 - 13:08
          +3

          The bloke you were responding to has a long history on this site which suggests he has no concept of how decent societies function.

          Your first comment above is simple common sense. In initiatives like this the question is always about equity of access and balance between outlay and return.

          Your menton of "dole, welfare, pension" suggests you also need some brushing up on your own apparently unconscious use of "welfare" throughout your life - be it education, Medicare, the PBS, or ludicrously generous superannuation concessions, just to name a few obvious examples. Bottom line is this - if you were born and raised in this country you've benefited significantly from "other people's taxes" from the moment of your conception.

          • 1st-Amendment on 27/10/2024 - 15:55
            -2

            @Igaf:

            The bloke you were responding to has a long history on this site which suggests…

            Strawman.

            You are the gift that keeps on giving…

            • Igaf on 27/10/2024 - 16:10
              +1

              @1st-Amendment: Your self-awareness hasn't improved with age I see. I'm not in the least surprised you don't know what a straw man is. Add it to the very long list of things where your knowledge is on the negative side of the bell curve.

              I appreciate that you're hampered by that knowledge deficit but surely even you know a tiny bit about how capitalism actually works in the real world?

          • davebern on 30/10/2024 - 23:19
            +1

            @Igaf: Thanks for pointing out the background of 1st Amendment.
            I thought his response was over the top.
            There are too many people like him that don't like it when others have an alternative view.
            As a high income earner, I have no issue with paying more taxes to help those who are not as fortunate as me.
            Justice Kirby of the High Court once said a measure of a good country/society is a strong, fair and equitable tax system.
            I agree and in fact for my whole working life I worked at the ATO collecting near to $1b in taxes from tax evaders.
            Maybe I didn't express my point well enough, but I wasn't meaning that I haven't benefited from taxes.
            Of course I have benefitted from free uni, super concessions, Medicare etc.
            The point I was trying to make to 1st Amendment is that he wrongly assumed that my support of free camping was so that
            "other people have to pay for things I want".
            Rather, I was trying to point out to 1st Amendment that the cost of camping wasn't an issue with me. I was for free camping to encourage others to get out into the great outdoors, which is good for their health and mind.
            I was trying to point out to 1st Amendment, who seemed to be an advocate of 'user pays' that there were many things that he has benefitted from that others have paid for.
            I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
            🙏
            Regards, David

        • 1st-Amendment on 27/10/2024 - 16:35
          -1

          You've made some big assumptions here!!

          I didn't make assumptions, I merely asked a couple of questions.

          But I am not just thinking of myself and my own hip pocket as many others do!!

          Well you are. We all are. If you're not thinking of your own hip pocket why are you on this site? Just pay RRP for everything. And if you aren't thinking of your hip pocket why haven't you already given all you money to other 'less fortunate' people? Because deep down, we're all the same. We all think of ourselves first, its the survival instinct that is universal across all of nature. Some of us are just in denial about this fact.

          • Igaf on 27/10/2024 - 17:19
            +1

            @1st-Amendment:

            Deep down we're all the same.

            Lol, is that the best you can do when cornered - invoke the old lowest common denominator argument? As far as hackneyed and patently inaccurate generalisations go, it's a classic. You really have plumbed the depths of inanity and ignorance with that platitude. Cue Trump's comments at Arlington National Cemetry.

            Genetically you're correct - first time for everything - but a quick look at the behaviour of particular demographics around the globe over thousands of years suggests at least two things: (1) it's complete nonsense; (2) you still have no concept of the nuances of life, character and behaviour.

            Need me to provide examples or can you phone a friend?

            • 1st-Amendment on 28/10/2024 - 09:25
              -1

              @Igaf: Another unhinged rant where not a single point of mine was addressed. Yet again.

              Orange man bad… we all know the drill…

              • Igaf on 28/10/2024 - 12:58
                +1

                @1st-Amendment: There's a vast difference between "a point" and a "valid point". What was your point exactly - apart from the obviously ludicrous claim that we're all basically the same? Is that how you justify your neo-conservative libertarian opinions to yourself? Newsflash - that nonsense doesn't wash in the rational adult world.

                My Trump reference was on topic and obvious. If you need explanation or elaboration phone that elusive friend.

                • 1st-Amendment on 29/10/2024 - 08:32
                  -1

                  @Igaf:

                  My Trump reference was

                  Unhinged. Seek help. TDS is real.

                  You might also want to look up what the word 'neoconservative' means before you use it next time. It will save a lot of embarrassment.

                  You truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

                  • Igaf on 29/10/2024 - 16:22
                    +2

                    @1st-Amendment: Poor memory? You've played the neo-con meaning card previously. My answer is still the same.

                    Still having trouble addressing my points and answering my questions? roflmao at your complete lack of self-awareness.

                    Find out why the Trump reference was precisely relevant yet?

                    Speaking of gifts. I've given you numerous tips on other topics you knew nothing about and since you still haven't found the key to escaping the doldrums I guess it's time for another free gift - although you will have to unwrap it yourself. Feel free to consult your brains trust.

                    Here's the clue. You stated: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15850364/redir. Discuss - yes it's time to step away from the banal dissimulations you call opinions - whether Trump's comments to Kelly at Arlington support your puerile theory about the essence of humanity being base selfishness.

                    • 1st-Amendment on 31/10/2024 - 16:09

                      @Igaf:

                      You've played the neo-con meaning card previously.

                      Citation required

                      • Igaf on 31/10/2024 - 20:16
                        -1

                        @1st-Amendment: Deflection is the best you can do to justify your obviously asinine opinion that we're all driven by the same base self-interest? Why am I not surprised.

                        Always happy to help out a struggler so here's another clue. Learn how to search comments. Then slowly work your way through my responses to you. Content alert: revisiting your opinionated vacuity might be painful.

                        • 1st-Amendment on 01/11/2024 - 16:26

                          @Igaf:

                          wibble wibble…

                          Lol so no citation then? Just baseless claim after baseless claim as expected because you have no idea how to construct an argument.
                          Back onto the blocked list with you…

                          • Igaf on 01/11/2024 - 21:17

                            @1st-Amendment: Aw shucks, still haven't mastered basic searching? I doubt it. Far more likely you don't want to be reminded about your past embarrassments. Block away, it won't stop me from pointing out your regular errors and inanities.

                            It's interesting - but by no means surprising - that you're cynical about the motives of others, many of whom consider goodwill towards others as nothing more than normal human behaviour. There will be more to follow on that topic later.

                            But this is all nothing more than a sideshow to your laughable "socialist" objection to a government doing what capitalist governments here and around the world do every day of every year. It seems you hadn't considered that simple, well-known fact so you panicked and shifted your attack - as is your wont when challenged on this website. My guess is that in your cerebral circles deflection is the go-to tactic. It's certainly a very common trait among the dunning kruger candidates

          • davebern on 30/10/2024 - 23:47

            @1st-Amendment: Wrong!!! You did make some big assumptions!!!
            You said *Why is it that other people have to pay for things you want?"
            You wrongly assumed that my reason for supporting free camping was out of self interest.
            I still remember in my uni days where I had little 💰 how good it was that I was able to enjoy the great outdoors as it was very affordable then for low income earners. I want more people now to not be deterred from getting out into the bush because of the 💰 like I was able to.
            "Because deep down, we're all the same. We all think of ourselves first…" The big assumptions continue!!!
            Not everybody is like you (thank goodness).
            I've donated many thousands of 💰 to charities and welfare groups over the years.
            I've also housed and fed an Afghani refugee for 9 months at no cost to him and sponsored children in poverty in 3rd world countries.
            As a CPA Accountant, I've also helped (pro bono) with advice about managing their 💰 better to clear their debt.

            • 1st-Amendment on 31/10/2024 - 15:55
              -1

              @davebern:

              Wrong!!!

              Nothing you said disproves my point.

              You wrongly assumed that my reason for supporting free camping was out of self interest.

              It is. It's something you want to happen because it's something that makes you feel better about yourself. That is still self-interest.

              Not everybody is like you

              Deep down, we're all the same, that is the kicker. Self-interest is built-into nature, every animal in the universe exhibits it, even the most altruistic gesture is just a form of it, because the person doing it gets self satisfaction from it. That is what drives every action.

              I've donated… I've also housed and fed… sponsored children… I've also helped (pro bono)

              And you do all this because it makes YOU feel good, which is fine, but that is still self-interest.

              Here's a simple test. If you have no self-interest in your 'hip pocket', then give me all of your money. We both know that won't happen because you'd get no satisfaction out of it.
              Or for an easier test, just start paying RRP for everything. The only reason you'd never do this is because you put your own interest first, and that's how everyone works.
              Whether you are Hitler or Mother Teresa, every single person and animal on earth is doing thing that makes them feel better about themselves. Once you grasp this concept the world will make a lot more sense.

              Worth noting, this is not my idea. Altruism as a form of self-interest is well know concept in the field of Psychology. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/what-makes-hero/2013…

              So, back to your original comment, you want to help those less fortunate than yourself with some free (to them) camping. You want this because it would make you feel good inside (self-interest), and rather than finance this feel good moment yourself, you want other people to pay for your feel good moment. All I said is that if you want to feel good you should pay for it yourself, not expect others to pay for it. The same rules goes for everyone else. Would you like to pay for me to have feel good moment of my choice? Of course not, because we all put our own interests first.

          • davebern on 10/11/2024 - 06:56

            @1st-Amendment: I pondered whether to write this as you don't seem to be a person that has the capability of understanding another person's point of view where that differs to yours.
            You are a person of infinite chutzpah 🤪
            lgaf was right. You have " …no concept of how decent societies function."
            Fortunately most people are not like you. Most people are good rather than bad. You may not think that (or not have experienced that), but throughout the 65 years of my life, that has been my experience when travelling to all continents of the 🌏 and mixing with people of all religions, races and classes.🥰
            I expect that you will respond again in the same cynical, negative, narcissistic and provocative way.
            Will I respond?
            Probably not, but I will be keeping a record of your posts (as I have with some beautiful posts) to remind me of the good and bad things about people posting on the internet.

            • 1st-Amendment on 10/11/2024 - 10:32

              @davebern: I read your post twice and it actually didn't say anything other than 'I don't like you'. Is this how you think the 'good people' behave?

              Did you have a point other than that? Because the topic being discussed is not whether you like me or not, it is that all of nature is driven by self-interest even altruism. Because even the altruistic actor does so to make themselves better about themselves ie self-interest. The link I posted describes this.
              So feel free to discuss the subject matter, or play the man instead of the ball then claim to be the good guy…

              lgaf was right. You have " …no concept of how decent societies function."

              Saying 'I'm right, you're wrong' is not an argument. I mean that is how children argue, but I assume you are not a child?

              Most people are good rather than bad

              Which isn't a counter-argument. Most people are 'good' because that serves their self-interest. ie promoting a cohesive society allows greater survival for them and the people they care about, it gives a sense of fulfilment which makes them happy, ie all of these things result in self-interest. So being 'good' is all still based on self-interest. The link I posted describes this if you care to read it.

              Bad people also act with self-interest, so good and bad are all driven by different versions of the same thing, just like I said.

              If rather than getting upset at me, you could focus on the subject, you light learn something here.
              Worth noting: This is not new nor my idea, it's a well know topic in the field of psychology, ie altruism as a form of self-interest. Here's another link if you are interested in the subject matter (rather than me) https://www.academia.edu/6319647/Altruism_as_self_interest

              I will be keeping a record of your posts

              That's really weird… But whatever floats your boat…

              If you care to discuss any of the ideas presented I'd be happy to do that. But if you just want to chip with 'I'm right, you're wrong, I don't like you, and I won't respond to you' because it makes you feel better about yourself then you have just proved my point. ie your entire post was a demonstration of self-interest. Thanks for your support!

              • Igaf on 10/11/2024 - 15:17
                +1

                @1st-Amendment: Roflmao. You lecturing anyone on the merits of and procedures for argument is irony writ large. Regular Ozbargainers are very familiar with your puerile argument style, which among other things includes deliberate vagueness, ignorance-based waffle you substitute for adult reason, the introduction of red herrings, repetition of inane and illogical generalisations you read (but likely didn't understand) on rabid right wing websites, and of course a total failure to answer simple questions - like how this deal is "socialist".

  • foodsnob on 18/10/2024 - 08:42
    +1

    maybe should adopt the NSW model after COVID. Have a booking system that only charges you a booking fee that covers the cost of running the IT. I think it was around $6 for 1 booking regardless of how many nights you stay. That way, you don't have some uncommitted people just hogging up camping spots.

  • paullovesbargains on 18/10/2024 - 09:24
    +2

    Do they really think $10 or so a night is the deterrent to people going to these campsites. Double the fees and build a whole lot more sites in the popular areas. Turn our parks into a tourism industry so we can justify not logging them. Truly not logging them I mean. Not saying we will stop and doing even more. There is huge demand for camping these days after domestic and o/s travel got too expensive.

  • Mr BoMBAStiG on 18/10/2024 - 11:36

    Hot tip: grey nomads book out huge chunks of multiple sites as they don't have set dates on arrival and departure as they plod around Australia. Even with paying sites, they will cop the few bucks to ensure they have a spot.

    If I'm going somewhere and it's booked out and it's not a long weekend, I'll just rock up. There has always been space. If anyone asks I'll just say I tried booking and I thought it worked but never got a confirmation.
    This doesn't apply for the few spots that actually allocate you a designated and marked spot.

  • SYLTB on 19/10/2024 - 16:15
    +1

    They all should be free nationwide infinitely. They are public properties. Foreign tourists should be charged not me.
    Everywhere is fenced I cannot walk up to any hill. I already pay my GST, Tax, traffic infringements, council rates et etc to the governments.

  • fullmetal on 19/10/2024 - 22:05
    -1

    is this the solution for housing crisis?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join