Page 620 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Minister, as he has indicated, not by Gary Humphries, as he has indicated, but in fact by people who are experts in determining what is appropriate. I am not talking about one person.
Mr De Domenico: Mr Russell is an expert too.
MR LAMONT: Yes, Mr Russell might be an expert and he may have had a grazing permit which 60 years ago outlined a particular stocking requirement. What was appropriate 60 years ago is not necessarily appropriate in 1992. One of the things that Mr De Domenico fails to come to grips with when that argument is being put forward is that that is the case throughout the rest of Australia. The stocking policies which were acceptable 60 years ago are no longer acceptable in any part of Australia in 1992. We have not had pharmacists living in the luxury of Red Hill determining these matters; we have had experts doing it. If we look at the stocking requirement for the area we find that most conservationists agree that there is a requirement and, in fact, an obligation on governments to involve themselves in ensuring that soil degradation, for example, is not allowed to go unchecked.
The proposal that has been put forward in relation to this property is no different from the proposals being put forward to other lease owners in the ACT area. I think that that is the point that we need to bear in mind when considering the justness of the position that the Government is putting, and that is that the stocking requirement on this property is no different from what applies, on my understanding, to other leaseholders in the ACT. So, it is therefore, in my view, appropriate on that level.
It is also appropriate, given the fact that most of the conservation groups in the ACT have expressed concern for some time over the level of soil degradation that is occurring in this very fragile ecosystem here on the Limestone Plains. I think that we need to be very careful that we do not perpetuate the damage that has been occasioned to our ecosystem over 60 years. While we can say that this is one very small area, we have to look at the larger picture; and the larger picture quite clearly demonstrates that overstocking, overgrazing, has been one of the major causes of soil degradation in Australia. It has been one of the major - - -
Mr Humphries: In the ACT?
MR LAMONT: I am talking about not only in the ACT. Yes, there has been environmental damage and ecosystem damage caused by overgrazing in some parts of the ACT. That is quite clearly borne out by the decision of the agronomists in the CSIRO to determine the stocking requirement for this piece of land. It is not done by a bureaucrat; it is not done by a public servant without knowledge in this area. These are experts from the CSIRO who have determined that this is the stocking requirement to be able to sustain the ecology in this area.
I believe that the view which has been expressed by the Minister here this morning, the attitude adopted by the ACT Government, is reasonable. I hope personally that Charlie Russell, or his children or his children's children, continue to graze this area in the ACT. Coming from the bush, I also, just like Japanese tourists, like to see livestock around the ACT. It adds more than just a little bit to the real determination of this as a bush capital. But I also say that there is an obligation for us to protect that environment and, in doing so, the attitude which has been taken by the Government is a fair and just one.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .