Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 17 May 1995
Parliamentary Record 10
Debates for 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997
1995-05-17
Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
English
Debates
Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
Darwin
application/pdf
Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)
Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/281696
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/413973
DEBATES - Wednesday 17 May 1995 I think that favourable consideration should be given to pastoralists who want to diversify into smaller projects on their pastoral properties, projects still connected with agriculture, but not necessarily of a pastoral nature. Landholders on some properties might want to go into angora goats, although the price for them has fallen over in the last 10 years or so. However, some might want to produce turkeys for the Christmas table. Some pastoralists may want to become involved in grain production as well as improved pastures. They might want to produce hay. I hope the Pastoral Land Board views favourably all applications for uses such as those. Other applications for non-pastoral use, such as subdividing for infrastructure like roadhouses and motels, should be viewed rather differently. If I were on the Pastoral Land Board, I would want to have extensive back-up information presented to me before I would agree to those types of developments, although everybody is entitled to earn a dollar. Provided it did not upset the nature of the land, I suppose it could be agreed to. Nevertheless, I would weigh up a proposition like that well and truly, and I would not view it with as much favour as I would view an agricultural use. As stated in the report, there were discussions with lessees on public access to waterways through pastoral land. That could present many problems. I read that the board had decided to take a reactive stance on that, and not a pro-active stance. In other words, these things should not be offered unless the public wants them. I read that the Pastoral Land Board was not very interested in individuals wanting access over pastoral properties, but would view slightly more favourably an application by an organised group. The big problem with that is stated here. I have had small instances of it. When people come on to your property, they do not have the same respect for fence lines, or for gates used to keep certain stock in one paddock and other stock in another paddock etc. I will give an example. Recently, I have been selling hay. To access my place, you come to the road gate, open that, come through and close the gate, and then you come down to the garden. If you want to buy hay, I come out and speak to you and direct you through another gate. You then go up track to where the hay is. It involves a simple trip through 2 gates. However, many people come to the first gate and open it. They pass through, and then leave it open behind them. I tell them as politely as I can, bearing in mind that the customer is always right, that the rule in the country is to leave a gate as you found it. I do not have any problem with fences. Somebody did let down one of my back fences some time ago, but not to do anything untoward on the property. People could have been growing things in pots, but I did not see it. If I had seen anything of that kind, I would have given it to the goats or to the cattle to eat. Public access to pastoral properties can present many problems, not only terms of access to the actual swimming hole, fishing hole, creek, billabong or river, but with gates, stock in paddocks, cigarette butts starting fires or getting a bit fresh with firearms, as some people did at Harrison Dam when they shot a couple of Harry Fitzgeralds Friesian bulls. Situations like that occur where people have a few beers. Perhaps they are unlucky at fishing and decide to take a shot at an animal instead. They might see 50 or 200 stock in a paddock and think that the pastoralist will not miss one. They use it for target practice or they kill it and bone out, say, a leg and leave the rest of the carcase. All of these possibilities have to be considered. I believe the board will also need to consider matters such as littering and who manages the 3282