Page 613 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
talking about language; we are talking about expressions and inherited concepts. We are talking in this case about a piece of living heritage. Mr Charles Russell is a link between us, in this late twentieth century day and age, and the very early origins of the ACT. He provides a direct link with what used to happen in this whole area, the area we are now sitting on, the grazing of these Limestone Plains, and that representation, that link, deserves to be preserved.
This is not a gung-ho motion, it is not a motion condemning the Government, and it is not a motion which seeks to do anything excessive; it is merely a motion which argues that Mr Charles Russell ought to be given a fair go, and that is what I think this Assembly ought to acknowledge and support.
I think that the language used in some letters to Mr Russell has been intemperate and excessive. I seek leave to table a letter to Mr Russell from the director of the Environment and Conservation Division of the Administration which I think uses language which I would not use to an 87-year-old person.
Leave granted.
MR HUMPHRIES: I would argue, Madam Speaker, that we ought to support this motion as a signal both to Mr Russell and to other aged people in our community that their contribution is not devalued by this Assembly; that we value the role that they play in the ACT, particularly in a rural sense; and that we are prepared to support aspects of our rural inheritance which are of importance to us.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.46): I thank Mr Humphries for the opportunity to debate this matter and to put some facts on the record. Some of the statements that have been made outside this chamber I do not think have always represented the issue exactly as it is. I want to assert very strongly that the Government - I beg your pardon; governments - over a period have acted with two interests in mind; first of all, the interests of the ACT and, secondly, the interests of Mr Russell. I believe that at all times Mr Russell - I think the documentation will show this - has been fairly treated.
It is the responsibility of governments to have an overriding interest in the quality of land care, the way that leaseholders look after their land. From time to time landowners are told that they may be overgrazing or that they may be carrying on other practices that are not compatible with good land care. It is the Government's responsibility to take care of the land in the ACT. With the establishment of land care groups, with the establishment of land care programs under the Decade of Landcare, we have taken a greater commitment to look after our land.
I might point out that the procedures about which Mr Humphries and others may complain have been under way now for some 15 years. They have been thoroughly accepted by the ACT community, strongly endorsed by the ACT community, and they have been accepted by all leaseholders, the many leaseholders that have been affected. Mr Russell, to my knowledge, at any rate, is the only leaseholder who has not accepted the advice that he has been given and the actions that understandably impact upon him.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .