Page 614 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One area formerly under a lease to Mr Russell has been withdrawn. That is the area with the famous button wrinklewort. That was done on the recommendation of the CSIRO; we took their advice. I beg your pardon; I should not say "we" because I was not in the Government at that time. The Government of the day took the advice from CSIRO that grazing was incompatible with the protection of that plant, so a fairly extensive area was removed and Mr Russell no longer grazes cattle on that part of Canberra Nature Park.
He is allowed to graze cattle in other areas, though - and this motion is about it - in limited numbers. Some of the reporting I have seen suggested that we kicked him out altogether; that we told him to go away. That is not the case. He is able to graze cattle. He is allowed 15 or 20 cattle, depending on the season, whether it is dry times or better times, with calves. My understanding, according to the report I got today, is that there are currently 26 beasts in this area, and it has been assessed that that is reasonable, bearing in mind the stocking condition, what the area can carry.
It may be that we would be better off without any cattle at all there. Maybe the interests of the city would be better served with no cattle, but concessions have been extended to Mr Russell. The bureaucracy and governments have acted generously to Mr Russell, but obviously he does not see it that way. What is happening in this area is exactly the same as has been happening in many parts of Canberra. There is nothing unique about this. Other people have accepted such measures, but not Mr Russell. Mr Russell, incidentally, has other leases at Red Hill and Mount Mugga, and about half the number of cattle and some horses on those other leases - just to put you in the picture.
Let me respond to some of the points in Mr Humphries's motion. I refer first to points (1) and (2). I acknowledge the contribution that has been made by Mr Russell and his forebears and I agree that his family have been grazing livestock on Red Hill and elsewhere since 1920. I met with Mr Russell in my office after a social meeting earlier and I had a long discussion with him. I admire the gentleman. He is a distinguished citizen of Canberra. He told me that he came to Canberra with his father in 1920. His father was the first land commissioner for Canberra, I think he said; certainly, he was an early land commissioner for Canberra. They have had, since that time, an extensive interest in grazing and leaseholding in the ACT, and I acknowledge that. I think the ACT has been very good to Mr Russell. I think he has been generously treated over the years and properly treated, might I say. I think he should acknowledge that the ACT has treated him well.
Points (3) and (4) relate to bushfire danger on Red Hill and vandalism. Certainly, grazing can diminish the bushfire threat. There is no question about that. But it is only one measure. It does not stop bushfires, as the 1987 bushfire demonstrated. Park care groups are active in measures that also reduce the threat of bushfires, but park care groups - there is one there, and the local school wants to do a bit more - have only very limited access to this area because of the cattle. There are fences, Mr Humphries, and the cattle themselves, although docile, are not necessarily an encouragement to park care groups. The planting of young trees may only be a planting of fodder for cattle. The other point that Mr Humphries makes here is that it keeps down the level of vandalism of fences and water troughs. Well, they are there only because the cattle are there. I do not see that there is any particular logic in that. It does not make sense to me.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .