Page 611 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: That is imagemongering. Madam Speaker, when the - - -
Mr Berry: They call it "in calf", Gary.
MR HUMPHRIES: We know about riding pigs, Mr Connolly; you cannot talk about animals, I assure you. Madam Speaker, when those cows become pregnant they naturally give birth in due course and it is not possible to regulate precisely the number of calves you might have on the leasehold at a particular time.
Mr Cornwell: That must be infuriating to the bureaucrats.
MR HUMPHRIES: It must be terribly infuriating to the bureaucrats. The fact of life is that on occasions, therefore, it is the case that there will be too many cattle and calves grazing on Red Hill in terms of the number that has been set by bureaucrats in the Minister's department. As I indicated, the total leasehold is something like 360 hectares. Mr Russell says that it is ridiculous to suggest that with 35 to 40 animals he could be overgrazing on Red Hill. Obviously, some bureaucrats take a different point of view. I am not a grazier, as you obviously heard; but it seems perfectly reasonable to me to expect that 35 to 40 animals could comfortably graze on those 360 hectares without a threat to the environment in which they are grazing.
Madam Speaker, some of us have been up there and had a look at Red Hill. At the present time I would go so far as to say that I think that Red Hill has been undergrazed. The grass there is very long at the moment. Some noxious weeds have grown up there, according to Mr Russell, in part because the normal grazing process whereby those sorts of weeds are either trampled under or eaten when they are very small and still edible has not occurred. I used to be a resident of Red Hill and I have certainly seen the grass looking shorter than it is now. I think that there is a very good case for saying that, in fact, Mr Russell's cattle pose absolutely no threat to the environmental status of Red Hill.
Of course, we have a difference of view here. We have Mr Russell, who has been grazing cattle for 60 years, all his life, since before almost any of us in this chamber were even born, and we have a number of departmental advisers who say that there is some threat of overgrazing. To be quite frank, I prefer to believe Mr Russell - not just because there is some issue for us to raise here, but because this man has a wealth of experience.
I know, Madam Speaker, that some of us have visited Red Hill, I think you included, and I have to say that I found Mr Russell's attitude, for a person of 87 in particular, to be refreshing and frank. He is a man, to put it bluntly, with all his marbles. He is not losing touch with reality and he certainly knows what he is talking about when he talks about grazing on that property. I believe that the essential message we should be sending to him and to the community today is that activities such as his will be tolerated because of the status which they bring to the ACT.
When I talk about status I am talking about the benefits, the many benefits, that flow from having activities like these going on on ACT land. Some view the grazing of cattle and other animals as exploitative. I have to say that in this case the benefits of grazing are very many. First of all, of course, it reduces the bushfire risk. It is simply not possible for departmental mowers to get out on places like Red Hill and try to keep the grass down. It is out of the question.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .