Page 3260 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Wood: You mean the real trains.
MR MOORE: I hear an interjection about real trains. I find this absolutely fascinating because trains have never had this impact on me.
Mr Wood: You are too young, Michael.
MR MOORE: Mr Wood interjects that I am too young. If I am too young, well, I appreciate being too young.
Mrs Grassby: The soot in your eyes, in your teeth and in your clothes.
Ms Ellis: It is very romantic.
MR MOORE: Mr Deputy Speaker, you have heard the romantic interjections we have just had about trains. Such enthusiasm reinforces the point that I was trying to raise, and a lot of it came from the government benches. Perhaps we ought not to let that recommendation go. Overall, having raised those couple of points, I appreciate the overwhelmingly positive response from the Government. I think it is yet another Assembly report that has been able to make a positive contribution in the ACT. Before I sit down, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is appropriate to recognise in this house that the motion to take on this inquiry was originally moved by Mrs Robyn Nolan. She was particularly enthusiastic about this issue. I think it is appropriate that the Assembly recognise credit where it is due.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.44), in reply: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the two members for their contribution. I think they pretty much said the same things. Mr De Domenico focused in more detail on some of the comments, and Mr Moore recognised quite astutely the Government's view, though not entirely. Mr Moore said that he thought it was mainly the financial imperative - to use my words - that made us give a negative response to some of those recommendations that Mr De Domenico was quoting. That is not entirely the case, but it certainly is a factor.
Part of this whole proposal is to give many rural lessees, where it is possible, a longer-term lease of up to 50 years. In doing so, we are expecting that they will, as they said they would, take much more care of the land, will get much more involved in controlling what happens on their land and will become more responsible. That is not to suggest that they are irresponsible. I do not see the need for the Government to be funding measures to control erosion or plant many more trees. It is the Government's expectation that, under the improved lease conditions they are going to have, they will undertake that work as part of their natural organisation on the farm.
I did my own assessment of these recommendations some time ago, and when you add them all up and put them one after the other we are really saying to the leaseholders that they have to take much better care of their land. Probably half the recommendations put requirements on leaseholders to take that care. That is very much the thrust of the committee and it is one that the Government strongly supported. We went all the way with the committee in that respect. We did differ, as has been said. I will not go through the list in the way I have organised it, but I am pleased to note that the rural lessees have welcomed this report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .