Page 3257 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Recommendation 10.4.1 suggests that the Government assume direct responsibility for the prevention of overstocking and, where possible, restorative work on leases affected by soil degradation, with appropriate cost recovery mechanisms. Madam Speaker, on this recommendation the Government makes no mention of soil degradation in its response and assumes, by virtue of its answer, that soil degradation comes only from stock levels. The Government says that the primary responsibility for stocking levels rests with the lessees. I know, and I am sure everybody else in the Assembly knows, of a former rural lessee, a Mr Charlie Russell, who may be surprised by this statement. For those who have forgotten - I am sure no-one has - Mr Russell's entitlement to run a bull on his agistment was removed and the number of cows he was able to keep was dramatically reduced, greatly reducing the viability of his operation. Mr Russell, as members are no doubt aware, has now thrown in the towel.
The Government does not agree with recommendation 10.6.6, which suggests that examination should take place of whether the habitat and existence of rarer marsupial animal species are being threatened by the numbers of eastern grey kangaroos in the ACT. The Government believes that there is no evidence to suggest that the population of eastern grey kangaroos poses a threat to any other animal wildlife. Without the study recommended by the committee, it is difficult to see how the Government can be so dogmatic.
Recommendation 10.7.2 suggests that lessees be given the opportunity to maintain heritage sites by adjustments to lease rentals where the protection of such sites results in assessable economic loss. The Government has not agreed with this, stating that only Aboriginal heritage locations on a rural lease are currently acceptable for compensation under section 76 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991. This is a ridiculous, if not discriminatory, situation. For the Government to say that lessee compensation will be considered in a future review of that legislation, three years from now, is not satisfactory. A lot can happen to heritage sites in three years. The Government must acknowledge that a considerable financial burden can fall on the shoulders of a rural lessee where heritage sites are encompassed in the lease. The Government's response simply does not take account of that burden and, I regret to say, is bad news for rural heritage sites in the ACT.
Madam Speaker, the Government disagrees with recommendation 10.7.4 to examine jointly with the New South Wales Government the retention and protection of the Queanbeyan-Cooma railway line as a heritage item, because they say that the line lies in New South Wales. The railway line forms the boundary between New South Wales and the ACT for some distance, although the line itself is actually in New South Wales by a matter of inches. This hardly seems a good reason for the ACT to abrogate responsibility.
Madam Speaker, some of the responses by the Minister are, however, gratifying. Recommendation 10.1.4, which suggests the retention of alluvial river flats for intensive agriculture, seems to have been taken to heart. The committee, Mr Humphries advises me, had in mind Pialligo in particular with this recommendation. Pialligo's contribution to the ACT economy is small but significant and should rightly be protected.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .