Page 615 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries goes on in his motion to note the heritage and tourist value of livestock within the Parliamentary Triangle. Heritage seems a particularly strange fact to pick on, because a very significant part of our heritage is that natural heritage, and the grazing of cattle is really incompatible with sustaining our natural heritage. It does not gel. They do not go together. I do not think that using the term "heritage" has anything to do with supporting the grazing of cattle. Rather, it says that the cattle should go.
Mr Humphries further goes on to express concern about coming to amicable and suitable arrangements. Well, I have seen the correspondence, too. I think the department and Ministers have bent over backwards to come to amicable arrangements. We have worked very hard to accommodate Mr Russell because he is a gentleman of Canberra. We acknowledge his background and we have tried to assist him - not just we, but other governments, and I will make a particular point about that shortly. We have bent over backwards to accommodate Mr Russell, but I think that he just wanted no interference at all. He could not see anything but that his 60 years of grazing - that is acknowledged - should continue without any change. He has not acknowledged that Canberra itself has changed. When he had extensive leases in the Deakin area - I think from Deakin to Curtin somewhere - he surely must have acknowledged then that the leases were resumed for residential development. I think he should acknowledge on this occasion that the changing demands of Canberra and of its citizenry mean that there are some changes in this area.
I have not read the letter that Mr Humphries tabled alleging unfortunate language and tone. I note that Mr Humphries did not read anything from it. He did not quote from it to demonstrate that, but I will walk over to the Clerk's table shortly and have a look at it. I believe that all letters that go out are properly couched, and I hope that that is the case. I will reserve judgment until I see that letter. Bear in mind that Mr Russell is rather behind in paying the necessary fees. There certainly have been letters saying, "Please, will you pay?". I do not know whether one letter got around forgetting the "please" and saying, "You must pay". It may well have said that and, if that is offensive, well, I am sorry. We do require that citizens pay the normal fees that are charged to them. Other leaseholders have to pay the necessary fees. I am afraid that Mr Russell, generous as we have been to him, is not excluded from that. I will not indicate the amount that is owing. I do not think I should make that publicly known. But he owes money and he should pay it, because he is getting a good deal there.
Finally, in his motion, Mr Humphries calls on me to seek a more realistic solution to Mr Russell's difficulties. Why do you call on me, Mr Humphries? Why do you expect a different standard from me than you accepted from your own Government when you were in the Alliance Government? I am not doing anything different from what you did when you were in government. Mr Humphries skated past some points here. Maybe he deliberately skated past them, or it may be that Mr Russell did not tell him the whole story. I do not know which.
Mr Humphries indicated that this started some four years ago, presumably in the time before we had self-government, and the policy continued. I commend you for the policy you carried on. It continued under the first Follett Government and under the Alliance Government, but it was during the time of the Alliance Government that this policy that he is complaining about was set in place. I did not write the letter. It was not bureaucrats under my responsibility who wrote the letter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .