Page 3256 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Rural lessees contribute some $16.6m to the ACT economy - that is the figure for 1988-89 - and that is testimony to the fact that the rural industry is an important part of our economy. A fundamental ingredient of the success of that industry is a reasonable degree of security for those who make their living from the land. The committee's report was designed to address many of the concerns raised by rural lessees on environmental and heritage aspects of the rural leasehold system.
Madam Speaker, I turn now to a number of recommendations which the Government has declined to support, to see how well based its rejection of these proposals may have been. Although the Government says that it categorically agrees and supports the reduction and elimination of soil erosion and the importance of tree regeneration, it does not agree to provide lessees with any financial assistance to do so. Recommendation 10.2.2 suggested that the Government consider low interest loans, where appropriate, to enable lessees to expedite remedial soil conservation, and recommendation 10.4.5 suggested that, where appropriate, again, the Government provide financial assistance in the form of loans to expedite tree regeneration programs on leaseholds; yet the Government did not agree to support either recommendation. It would appear that the Government is prepared to wax lyrical on the need for soil conservation measures and tree regeneration programs and the like, but is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is and do anything that may make a real impact in solving future problems.
Essentially, the land belongs to the Government and, if it has become subject to soil erosion which is not treated, it will cost even more to repair as it gets worse and the Government could most likely end up with no lessees and no revenue at all. It is worthwhile to offer a loan to the lessee, where this is essential, which in the long term will save the Government money. If a loan is not suitable, exemptions could be offered through the tax system, as another alternative.
The Government say that they are waiting to see what is being considered on a national scale before they act. This to a certain extent is unacceptable. Mr Hawke, the former Prime Minister, made the promise that a certain number of millions of trees would be planted nationally to assist with this problem, but one needs to know how many have been planted in the ACT. The ACT should not need to wait to see what the Federal Government does with the Landcare program before it takes action itself.
Not only is the Government not prepared to assist lessees financially with loans to help solve the problem; it is not even prepared to lend government equipment or expertise to assist lessees to do the job. Recommendation 10.2.1 suggests that, where soil erosion is present in existing leases, the Government should arrange with lessees for remedial work and consider arrangements for the use of government equipment and expertise for the work. Further, recommendation 10.6.4, which suggests that lessees should be encouraged to control and eradicate noxious plants and weeds through publicity programs - perhaps even lawnmowers and other things might help - the provision of expert advice, the loan of equipment and, where appropriate, financial loans, also has not been agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .