Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I congratulate the member for Elwick on her inaugural speech and the issues that she covered. Perhaps local government is one where we may have some differences.

Mr Harriss - It's a good thing you couldn't interject.

Mr DEAN - You are right. I agree very clearly that it should not be done blindly and I agree that we need to take into account all of the issues and I agree that bigger is not necessarily better. I agree with all of those statements that were made by the member.

Ms Forrest - She said things completely differently.

Mr DEAN - Not quite completely differently but certainly some issues we differ on.

Interestingly in this Budget, Madam President, the Treasurer did not come out as he has done on some previous occasions and given a name for the Budget. I think we had the golden budget before -

Mr Aird - No, I have avoided those types of phrases. Note for the past five years I have avoided them.

Mr DEAN - One person identified it as the vanilla budget - not a lot of flavour in it and just one of those budgets that you would expect for the first term in government so a fairly bland sort of a budget. But interestingly when the Premier came along to the meeting at Launceston on Friday he did really give it a name. He called it 'a budget with a tinge of green'.

Ms Rattray - A green budget.

Mr DEAN - The green Budget.

Ms Forrest - A lime-flavoured budget.

Mr DEAN - That is right, a lime-flavoured budget. So he has given it a name.

Mr Harriss - He took over from the Treasurer, didn't he?

Mr DEAN - He did. I have already raised that by way of interjection. I was there for part of it but I had to leave early. I am told that it got a little rowdy after I left and some members there were not too happy at all. The Premier had to come to the defence of the Treasurer.

Mr Harriss - That is right. Just as he was gagged in the election campaign, he was gagged at that meeting.

Mr DEAN - I am sorry that I was not there because it may have been -

Ms Rattray - You would have helped him out.

Mr DEAN - I would probably have helped out as well.

Ms Forrest - The Leader came to his defence yesterday as well so obviously he needs the protection of the party.

Mr DEAN -That is right. The Leader did a good job of coming to the defence.

Mr Parkinson - Just applying the house rules.

Mr DEAN - If this Budget has a tinge of green in it then I suspect that the next Budget will be a green budget and the one after that, if this accord goes that long, will probably be a dark-green budget.

Mr Finch - No, it will be time for another election, it will be the crème brûlée budget.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - I think it is clear that there have been some significant changes in the previous Labor Government's position. Things that are likely to come back into this House for further discussion are the euthanasia bill, the prostitution bill -

Mr Parkinson - Euthanasia is a conscience vote.

Mr DEAN - Very clearly they are starting to take over already and it will be interesting to see where we go into the future.

Ms Rattray - Don't forget banning canals.

Mr DEAN - Banning canals is another interesting one where we had the Premier and the Labor Government strongly in support. There were some issues that caused them some problems. There were some negotiations that had to be done in the party with some of its members. The Premier had a very clear position on canal developments but we now see that is all going to change.

Mr Wilkinson - Is 1080 going to be banned as well?

Mr DEAN - 1080 is another one.

Mr Parkinson - There is probably room for a canal development in the Tamar to solve that silt problem.

Mr DEAN - I think to take a total and absolute ban on canal development is probably not the right way to go and no doubt it will come into this House at some stage. Then we will really see what the position is.

Mr Wilkinson - Pigs.

Mr DEAN - Pigs is another one. We could just go on and on. It is amazing what is going to happen.

Mr Parkinson - Pigs is a national position anyway but it is just a question of timing. You are talking about sow stalls?

Mr DEAN -Yes. It is important stuff.

I wanted to briefly refer to the sheets that are sent out to us identifying the budget expenditures and where the money is going to. Some people have referred to them as cheat sheets. When you read these single-page documents, the average person would be led to believe that those amounts of money have been provided by the State Government this year or for the year 2010-11 for things that are going to happen during that year. But when you look closer at that document, because the Budget extends over a four-year period, a lot of those issues in there are direct reprints of what was in last year's sheets and those of the year before.

A lot of the money that is referred to in these documents is Federal Government money; it is not State Government money.

Mr Hall - It's 63 per cent.

Mr DEAN - Yes, 63 per cent is Federal Government money. I have had a number of people come to me and when I show them these sheets they say it is good the State Government is making all of this money available for all of these things. But it is not like that at all. I wondered if that was fair to the ordinary person who has an interest in the Budget and what is occurring. The Dilston bypass and the East Tamar Highway are classic examples. It is a lift-out of what was in last year's papers. It will probably be there again next year. It is just interesting, and probably needs to be pointed out. There are one or two issues that I want to refer to at this stage.

[12.00 p.m.]
Regarding legal aid, I support the increase but it is nowhere near large enough. There is a tremendous number of people that cannot source legal aid - cannot get the support they need because of the inadequate funding, and because of the current policy relating to legal aid entitlement. I was approached recently by a disabled person who had been charged with an offence. They said they had a legitimate defence, but they could not access legal aid. They had no money, and he and his family decided that he would go to court and plead guilty. I convinced him that to do so would be foolish. If he was not guilty - did not commit the offence - he should not plead guilty. I offered to obtain some support for him. I went back to Legal Aid and spoke to them about it, and they agreed to pick up the case. I commend the member of Launceston for the position he took on that occasion. But, it is sad to think that people out there who want legal aid cannot get it because of the funding position. There is an increase, but I do not think it goes far enough.

I raise the issue that has been raised by previous members about the Budget of four years ago, which provided for cuts in a number of government departments. I think 800 public servants were to be cut and/or equivalent savings were to occur with resources -

Mr Aird - It was not a target. The 800 was not a target.

Mr DEAN - What was it?

Mr Aird - It was an expression of the budget management savings that we had to make.

Mr Hall - Same thing, isn't it?

Mr Aird - No, it is not, if you can make the cut in another way. There are other ways of achieving savings. But that was the equivalent.

Mr DEAN - It was in the Budget, and I think its meaning was fairly clear to most of us. We had a number of debates in this Chamber about it. There were a number of questions in this Chamber about that position. I remember it was clarified that it did not actually relate to personnel - it could relate to changes in resources or to other methods of saving the equivalent of 800 salaries.

Mr Aird - Yes.

Mr DEAN - I wonder how many departments met those requirements.

I am not going to try to cover the misty areas that have been raised by other members. I will stick to some of the issues that are pertinent to my area - to my position, and the Launceston area in particular. The first one is the AFL position regarding Aurora Stadium. The member for Launceston brought this matter forward last Thursday evening in the adjournment speech, and covered a lot of pertinent facts and details in relation to the position. He particularly pointed out what was likely to occur if AFL football came to Bellerive.

This is a very important issue. The position regarding the future of AFL football is that it remains with Aurora Stadium and Launceston. It is not a negotiable position. The same position remains for international cricket in Bellerive. Bellerive is the oval for international cricket, and I do not think there will ever be a push from the north of the State for international cricket to go to Launceston, or anywhere else in the north of the State. It is an accepted position. When you go back through history, there are lots of quotes and lots of information. I have heaps of it here with me today - comments made by the late Jim Bacon, comments made by the previous Premier, Paul Lennon, and statements made by the current Premier. It is not as though too many of those statements mean much at all because he continues to go back on what he says, and that is very sad indeed.

Very clearly, the position of this Government was that AFL football in this State would be played at Aurora Stadium. That is why all the money was being provided to Aurora Stadium; to ensure that that took place.

Mr Wilkinson - How much money has been provided?

Mr DEAN - I think the member for Launceston identified the actual amount last Thursday evening. I do not have the actual amount but it cost the Launceston City Council in the region of a million dollars a year, just to maintain Aurora Stadium. All of this has been sold to the ratepayers of Launceston on the basis that AFL football will be played at Aurora Stadium, and only there. In my opinion, it is absolute garbage for the Premier and the Treasurer to make this statement, and I quote:

'The Tasmanian Government would not push for AFL games to be played in the south at the expense of the northern Tasmanian Aurora Stadium.'

Mr Parkinson - Do you think the AFL is wrong, too?

Mr DEAN - Why is the AFL making the statements they are making? I believe they have been motivated and incited to form the position they currently have.

Mr Aird - What does that mean?

Mr DEAN - I have no doubt that there have been other conversations and discussions taking place that we do not know about.

Mr Aird - If the AFL and Cricket Australia, who runs Bellerive, come to an agreement to have AFL games there, what can you do about that?

Mr Wilkinson - Nothing at all. That is the argument.

Mr DEAN - That is the argument.

Mr Wilkinson - That is where it is amiss. The Government cannot do anything. They still have number one priority with Aurora. The Government cannot say you are not going there.

Mr Aird - Exactly.

Mr DEAN - Well, I think the Government can.

Mr Aird - Do you want us to intervene and say you cannot do it?

Mr DEAN - I think the Government could be much stronger in their support for AFL football and Aurora Stadium. That has been your position and you do not support AFL football being played at Bellerive.

Mr Aird - If the AFL and Cricket Tasmania want to have games at Bellerive, what can we do about it? That is my point.

Mr Wilkinson - The Government cannot do anything about it.

Mr Aird - We do not want to see any lessening of football in Launceston, we will not do anything which would lessen the presence of football. We put football into Launceston.

Mr DEAN - That is right.

Mr Aird - We put it there at great political cost. Remember?

Mr DEAN - You did.

Mr Aird - Having gone through that, and justified the expense in terms of supporting the Launceston economy, we are not going to do anything which is going to lessen the effect.

Mr Wilkinson - And you paid double the rates as well.

Mr DEAN - I was going to make the statement that one AFL game in the south of the State, at the Bellerive Oval, will have a huge impact on the north of the State.

Mr Aird - Why?

Mr DEAN - Well, it takes the people away from an AFL game at Launceston if it is played at Bellerive. The people will all be -

Mr Aird - No it doesn't. This would be additional games, wouldn't it. There would be more games.

Mr Wilkinson - That's right.

Mr DEAN - If there are additional games, they should be going to Aurora Stadium in Launceston.

Mr Aird - You might like that but -

Members interjecting.

Madam PRESIDENT - Order.

Mr Wilkinson - It is not: what is yours is mine and what is mine is my own. I hope that is not the argument.

Mr DEAN - This is a huge issue in the north of the State.

Mr Aird - You are making it one.

Mr DEAN - I am not the only one making this a huge issue.

Mr Aird - It needs quite a mature understanding of what is going on, rather than the present discussion.

Mr DEAN - You have the position of the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce represents business people in Launceston and that region. The letters they have written to the Premier are very -

Mr Parkinson - Hawthorn already plays a lot of its games in other grounds around Australia.

Mr DEAN - Where? In Melbourne? Only when it is an away game.

Mr Parkinson - Hawthorn only comes to Aurora Stadium four or five times a year.

Mr DEAN - Only when it is an away game. For goodness sake. All their home games are played at their oval in Melbourne, at Etihad Stadium or the MCG and/or they play here at Launceston. It is the away games that are played all around the country. Of course they are. That will always happen.

Mr Parkinson - It's a club following you're talking about. A lot of Tasmanians don't follow Hawthorn.

Mr DEAN - Of course they do not.

Mr Parkinson - And they don't go to Aurora to watch them either.

Madam PRESIDENT - Order. This is supposed to be an address in reply to the Budget. I think the interaction, if any, should be between the person at the lectern and the Treasurer who is taking the bill. There are opportunities in private members' time for any sort of notice of motion to have a great in-depth debate about football, if people so wish, but please let us stop this across-the-Chamber interaction.

Mr DEAN - Madam President, I want to refer to a position that was put to me that I was the only one trying to push this issue and that is not right of course. The member for Launceston is a strong supporter, the member for Rosevears is obviously a strong supporter and all of those in the north of the State - the member for Western Tiers and others within this House.

I want to refer briefly to a letter that was written by the Chamber of Commerce to the Premier dated 16 June 2010 and I will quote some of that letter:

'Dear Premier

A key function of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce is to support and protect opportunity for all areas of business and sustainable economic prosperity in Launceston and Northern Tasmania, so we are writing to express our strong concerns about the Government's intention to move away from the current arrangement that has been in place for some years now where all AFL games are played at Aurora Stadium, the only home of AFL in Tasmania.

AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou has publicly stated that extra games in Tasmania are inevitable given the expansion of the AFL competition over the next two years. The Chamber's position has always been that any extra games should be played at Aurora stadium the only home of AFL in Tasmania in Launceston.

We strongly support the Government's current arrangement with the Hawthorn Football Club and the AFL and firmly believe that in the re-negotiation of an extension of the current agreement beyond 2011 the Government should lobby Hawthorn and the AFL for one to two additional roster matches at Aurora Stadium over and above the current arrangement.'

The letter goes on. It is a fairly strongly written letter really calling on the Premier to honour the previous position provided by the Government, the previous Premier and the late Jim Bacon.

Mr Aird - I've only just heard the argument put forward in the Examiner. This is nothing that is contrary to any aspiration of Jim Bacon, or anyone else.

Mr Wing -You are wrong.

Mr Aird - Am I wrong?

Mr Wing - Absolutely.

Mr Aird - And who was closer to him about this than anyone else?

Mr Wing - Ray Shipp on this issue, and closer than you.

Mr Aird - Who believes that?

Mr DEAN - The position, Madam President, was very clear and you only have to read the transcripts of the information and evidence provided by the late Jim Bacon and Kathryn Hay, in particular, who was involved in this process as well and I have transcripts here and I do not see a need to go back to them. Her position was very strong in support of Mr Bacon's position taken at the time where she made it abundantly clear that AFL would be played at Aurora Stadium, the only oval in this State to accommodate it.

The member for Launceston gave some particulars on Thursday of the conditions that must apply to have AFL games. Very clearly, they now require a stadium to have 25 000 seated positions. That is the current position of the AFL and that is what they are requiring. That is what Aurora Stadium is aiming for - it will have very shortly 14 000 seating positions and there is the opportunity for it to expand to the 25 000 as is required by the AFL.

Mr Finch - Logical.

Mr DEAN - Yes, and this occurs with the other stadiums. If you look at the Gold Coast, a new stadium will be required to be built to seat 25 000 patrons, Western Sydney will be upgraded to 25 000 seating capacity, Skills Stadium will be upgraded to 35 000 and it currently has 35 000 with many changes taking place there over a number of years. Bellerive has a capacity of 16 000 total, to my knowledge.

Mr Wilkinson - It's 17 500. At the 2002 one-day game between England and Australia it had 17 500.

[12.15 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - That includes people standing. I have just been handed a note by the member for Launceston.

Mr Wilkinson - Who disagrees with it.

Mr DEAN - No, quite to the contrary and very clearly so. I should have said in fact that I do have some notes to this effect, that it is not just a matter between the AFL and the Tasmanian Cricket Association. There is a lot more in it than that. Andrew Demetriou - and I do have a transcript of this ABC program that I think most of you have probably seen - made it clear that the AFL were doing and would do as the Government required of them. That is in that transcript.

Mr Wilkinson - Through you, Madam President -

Mr DEAN - That is in the transcript of evidence given -

Mr Wilkinson - Can I ask you this question please - through you, Madam President? If three clubs contact the TCA and say they want to play games at the Bellerive stadium, are you saying that the Government is able to stop that, because my answer to you is they cannot stop it, so what are you asking the Government to do? Create legislation that no other games can be played in Tasmania? Is that what you asking them to do?

Mr Wing - Asking them not to initiate it.

Mr DEAN - Yes.

Mr Wilkinson - They are not initiating it, though.

Mr Aird - We have not initiated, we have not rung up. This is all three clubs, they are all public, everyone knows what they want to do.

Mr DEAN - It is very interesting and when we talk about that I suspect that most of us, or some of us, would have seen the program the other night on Footy Classified that was on Monday night, where Caroline Wilson in fact raised this matter. She talked about the AFL providing $4 million to North Melbourne to play games at Bellerive. I just wonder where all that is coming from and why that statement is being made. Is the State Government aware of that? I would suspect that they probably are.

Mr Aird - Until you mentioned that, I had never heard it.

Mr DEAN - It was on the Footy Classified program on Monday night.

Mr Aird - Yes, but if it is AFL supporting a football club they can do it anywhere. They support football being played at Carrara, they support football being played in Darwin.

Mr Wilkinson - They tried to get North Melbourne to the Gold Coast so that is what they are trying to do - keep the teams.

Mr DEAN - Tasmania, Madam President, is a very small State. It has a population of about 500 000. If we look at the position in Western Australia with Subiaco Oval, you have Freemantle playing their games at Subiaco Oval in Western Australia, so they would be travelling an hour, an hour-and-a-half, two hours, to play their football. The State of Western Australia is huge geographically but it also has a much larger population than we have. They only have the one ground.

South Australia currently only has the one ground for two sides. They have looked at the Adelaide Cricket Oval but the cost of bringing it up to an AFL standard is astronomical, and currently the Government is looking away from that at this present time as I understand it from the information I have been provided. This is a huge issue, it really is.

Mr Finch - Did they rebuild Subiaco, or what?

Mr DEAN - They added to it. Yes, a lot of changes were made at Subiaco - a lot of money was put into it by their Government.

I just have some concerns there. It really irks me and it certainly does a number of other people as well, Madam President. This matter needs to be fixed. It is very divisive at the present time and it is going to become a very big issue. I do not think the north of the State is going to sit back and see a position that they were clear on being altered, in a way in which it could go, with the Government's current thinking.

Mr Tim Nicklason said to me the other day - and another member mentioned it here yesterday - that Jim Bacon would roll in his grave if he knew what was happening.

Mr Aird - Rubbish. That is so stupid.

Mr DEAN - Tim Nicklason is the man who said that. The other comment he made, and he would not mind my using his name, was, 'It won't happen and we will create hell'.

It is interesting that there is a strong feeling about this. I am not quite sure how Bellerive Oval would cope with a crowd of 16 000 to 17 000 or 18 000- to 20 000. I went to a game there last year, a preliminary State final, between Clarence and Burnie, my son was in that game. There was a crowd there of only 3 000 to 4 000, from memory, and I had to park at least a kilometre from the ground, it was probably further away than that. I might add - and I can say it now because it is another time - I was semi-illegally parked.

Mr Finch - So you were the one.

Mr DEAN - My wife had to drive around and around to get a parking place. It was very difficult with just that very small crowd. Launceston has good parking, easy access and is the ground where AFL should remain.

Mr Finch - It is proven.

Mr Aird - Gee, life is tough for you, isn't it?

Mr DEAN - I will move on to another controversial matter and a favourite one of mine - foxes. I notice that there is an increase in output on the conservation of Tasmania's flora and fauna and that it is all due to increased expenditure on the Fox Eradication Program under the Caring for Our Country Program. There is an additional $1.907 million there. I am wondering what that extra funding will allow the FEP to become involved in and what it will do. It is a question for Estimates that I have written down. I will continue to raise this matter because of some of the activities of the Fox Eradication Program. We see that there are senior people in the organisation who continue to move aside and I wonder what is happening there. That is another issue that I will take up during the Estimates process.

I believe that with the issues and the concerns that have been raised in this area that a full and independent inquiry is necessary to regain the confidence of the public in their support of this program and where it is going and what it is achieving - or what it is not achieving, more importantly. I think that is the concern.

As I said previously and as recently as last week, so far over a period of nine years there has been an expenditure of in excess of $36 million. Will there be an end to it? I do not know. People are still reporting thylacines.

Mr Aird - Are they?

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - Tigers, they are still reporting tigers, thylacines in this State, so I suspect that we will be receiving reports of foxes going on forever.

About three or four years ago we had a number of people coming out and saying that if we could not eradicate foxes within a period of three years the fight would be lost. Dr Clive Marks was one of the people who made that statement.

Mr Aird - The question that needs to be posed is this: if you are wrong, what are the consequences?

Mr DEAN - If I am wrong?

Mr Aird - If you are wrong, if we do not have a fox eradication program, what happens?

Mr DEAN - I have never, ever said that there should not be a program in place. I do not know whether there are foxes in this State or not, I have my doubts. But I do not know whether there are or not. I have never said that. What I have said is that there needs to be another function of the Fox Eradication Program to identify with credibility and with what this group are on about. Because if you look at the evidence that they are providing us with and what they are saying is happening now, we have foxes pretty well all around this State, from the very north of the State to the very south of the State and on Bruny Island. All of this is now coming out. If we have foxes scattered across almost the whole breadth of this State, Madam President, surely they are breeding. Surely they are not just all dormant. Surely they are not all just male or all just female. Very clearly there has to be some breeding going on out there. I just have a number of concerns in relation to that and to where it is going. I have concerns about the scat situation and what is occurring there. There is not one tiny amount of evidence to demonstrate that there is any endemic species with any of those scats. The other interesting issue is that there have not been, to my knowledge, two scats found from the same animal. Every scat that has been found at this stage has been from the one individual fox, so we are told. Alarm bells are continually ringing for me and a number of other people as well. I know that people are concerned about that part of the program, Madam President.

As the member for Murchison is aware, recently the Fox Eradication Program placed scats on a farming property on the north-west coast for the purpose of having a dog squad come in to find those scats. Those scats were left in situ. The farmer was told not to breathe a word of it to anybody. He was briefed on that long and clearly and he was told that they would be back within two to three weeks hopefully to find those scats. Nobody turned up until for at least six weeks. A member of the fox task force turned up to tell him he did not know what had gone wrong, that the scats were still out there, he had gone out and examined the scats and they had weathered. The dung beetles had gotten into the scats and he presumed that the scats were left there still in situ and not recovered because they had been eaten and weathered. That is a real concern because we do not know whether that is a single occurrence around the State.

In that instance the farmer contacted me to let me know what was going on. He was concerned when it happened. He was not really in favour of it but he said that he was persuaded to support them after some reasonable discussion. The other concern I have there is about hydatids. I do not know what happens with any scat that is brought into this State. I will be asking questions in the Estimates process regarding this as well. What process do those scats go through before they are brought into this State; are they properly processed and treated for hydatids? Currently Tasmania is free of that form of hydatids, and it needs to remain that way. The scat needs to be radiated and sterilised and I wonder whether that is happening. But then, if they are radiated and sterilised, what value do they have to a dog sniffing out a fox scat? So that is the next question that needs to be asked and answered.

The other subject I want to raise, Madam President, is 1080 poison. There has been a lot in the press about that in the last few days. We have Gunns now withdrawing their use of 1080 from their industry. It is a very, very good move because it has always concerned the public. But we still have the fox task force using 1080 and it will be exempt from any position the Greens adopt. Vica Bayley has spoken about this as well, that the Fox Eradication Program should be able to continue to use it willy-nilly all around the State. I find that to be quite hypocritical and not an acceptable position at all. If 1080 is banned, it ought to banned totally.

Mr Hall - It is not yet banned in agriculture, is it?

[12.30 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - No, it is not. As I understand, the Greens want a total ban on it, with the exception of the Fox Eradication Program. I find that quite hypocritical because very clearly they take the strong position only where it involves forestry. That is the upsetting part of this whole thing. I have some real concerns with that. I think an independent inquiry is what will be needed and what will occur in time.

Madam President, another area that is equally controversial I think is the siltation issue. I am not quite sure what the Budget really means in relation to this matter now for this coming year because the Labor Party and the Greens have a strong position on this and the Liberal Party did as well, Madam President, about further funding for the cleaning of the river. The Labor Party made a commitment of $6.65 million. The paper says $6 million but it was $6.65 million and with the current amount of moneys that are made available for siltation it took the total amount up to $7.4 million for dredging over a three-year period. Is that now going to occur? The Treasurer might be able to answer very clearly just what is going to happen because the river is in a disgraceful state at the present time. There is another photograph in the Examiner today of a number of yachts that are high and dry, sitting in the silt, and it is becoming worse day by day, Madam President. A few weeks ago, for the first time to my knowledge, a number of charter boats had to cancel some trips because of the build-up of siltation in the river. That does not put this State, or the Launceston area in a good position.

It is really a disgraceful situation and I am not quite sure where we are going to go because the Launceston City Council from 1 July this year have withdrawn totally from that program. It is interesting that Bryan Green makes a comment in today's paper about his need to have further negotiations with the Launceston City Council. He, or the Government, knew of this several months ago.

Ms Thorp - He wasn't minister then.

Mr DEAN - He may not have been but he has been in place now for how long?

Ms Thorp - Nine weeks.

Mr DEAN - He leaves it until now and 1 July is when the Launceston City Council withdraws from the program.

Mr Aird - Whose decision was that?

Mr DEAN - The Launceston City Council's.

Mr Aird - Yes, arbitrarily - bang - pull the pin. Very mature!

Mr DEAN - I was not at the meeting when it occurred but I should say that what the Launceston City Council is saying is that this is a State responsibility.

Mr Aird - A very mature discussion.

Mr DEAN - I do not think they are wrong in that decision but I was not at the meeting when that stance was taken. It is interesting that the minister now says that he will need to have discussions with local government in relation to the ongoing responsibility.

The point remains, Madam President, and I ask the Treasurer a question, will the amount of $6.95 million, as identified during the campaign, be provided for the cleaning of the siltation and muck from this river? Things have to happen there and there has to be a very strong position put in place.

I mentioned last week, Madam President, about the position in South Australia in relation to the Coorong district where they have a somewhat similar problem. It is obviously a bigger salination problem there and there are some other issues but the Federal Government are putting $200 million into it and the South Australian Government are putting in a huge amount of money to fix it. They do not say it is a matter for local government. The State Government and the Federal Government have stood up to fix that problem.

I ask the Government to please do what you say you are going to do. Take the action. Do what is necessary. I think the indication by the minister that there probably needs to be another report - and he makes reference to the GHD report that the council acquired - is a bit of a nonsense. There have been so many reports done in relation to the Tamar River siltation issue, that it is just making jobs for consultants. If the money paid to all these consultants had been put into cleaning up the river, the problem would probably be well on its way to being fixed.

Ms Thorp - Have you written to the new minister?

Mr DEAN - No, I have not.

We need a single statutory authority to take charge - the members for Launceston and Rosevears are strongly in support of this. The member for Rosevears chaired a committee which looked at this possibility, and the Greens clearly support this position. It will be interesting to see whether they continue to support it, since the Labor Party has not been clear on the position it intends to adopt. A single authority is needed, to get on top of what is happening in that area. There are too many people and too many groups involved. While that is the case, they will be blaming each other, and no-one will know what is going on. We must have a single authority. I ask the Government to strongly support that.

There are a number of areas in policing that I want to raise. There is nothing in the Budget, to my understanding or to the understanding of the Police Association of Tasmania, to cover any increase that should occur, and has to occur, in relation to the EB negotiations currently being undertaken with the State Government. Currently the police are seeking a 6.34 per cent increase. The Government is considering the increase, and I understand that it will advise the Police Association of its position in July. I will be very interested in the Government's determination because the increase being sought will simply put Tasmanian police wages on par with those of their mainland counterparts. They have the same traumas and issues, and they confront the same dangers in Tasmania as they do in any other State in the performance of their duties.

It is all very well for the Government to continually sing their praises, but the Government also needs to stand up and ensure that they are properly recompensed and that their salaries are reasonable. They do a wonderful job, there is no doubt about that. I have no doubt that we have the best police service in the country - they are professional in everything they do.

Currently there is a nexus between the salaries of teachers in Tasmania and mainland teachers. Politicians have a nexus between our salaries -

Mr Aird - Eighty-seven and a half per cent is not a nexus.

Mr DEAN - But it is written in.

Mr Aird - It is a ratio.

Mr DEAN - It is a ratio, but it is written in.

Mr Aird - Do you want everyone on that?

Mr DEAN - No, I do not have a problem with that. But why is there not a nexus between Tasmanian police salaries and the salaries of their colleagues on the mainland?

Mr Aird - There is a relationship between them.

Mr DEAN - No, there is not.

Mr Aird - It's not a nexus but it's a relationship.

Mr DEAN - They have to negotiate their position every three years. Why can it not be connected with the average salaries?

Mr Aird - You want to know why?

Mr DEAN - Because it takes it away from you.

Mr Aird - It means that other States are then setting our salaries. We want to be, quite rightly, in charge of setting our salaries for Tasmania. Do we take into account the relativities between other States? Yes, we do.

Mr DEAN - Is that not currently occurring with teachers?

Mr Aird - No, it is the same.

Mr DEAN - What is the position with teachers? I thought that there was a nexus of teachers. I thought that they were connected.

Mr Aird - No, again, we take a relativity between other States. We understand that. We do the same with nurses, we do the same with police, and we do the same with nearly every sector - in fact every sector. But there is not a nexus.

Mr DEAN - I just wonder why it is done that way because the process is very destabilising to police when they have to start and go through these processes. It goes on for a long period of time and there have already been discussions and comments made as to whether or not they would be taking action to ensure that they get a reasonable pay. It happens about every three years. Surely there is a better way.

Mr Aird - There is always a resolution to these matters. There is always an agreement.

Mr DEAN - So the police can look forward to good news.

Mr Aird - There will be an agreement, in time.

Mr DEAN - Currently, as I said, to bring them up to par with other police I think it is a bit over 6 per cent - 6.34 per cent. We will be waiting and watching that very, very closely.

The police suffer the same sort of violence as they do elsewhere in the country, or in the world for that matter. If you look at the headlines in the papers in recent times about the violent crime that is being committed, there seems to be an increase in the violence and the extent to which they will go. Police need to be recognised for what they are confronting on a daily basis. The Special Operations Group is an interesting area.

I would be interested to know - I will give the minister an up-front start here - the number of times that the SOG is called out. If you look back over previous years I have no doubt that the SOG is called out a lot more now than they previously used to be. I would be very surprised if that was not the case. Violence is reported in the media every day, even just in malls.

Mr Aird - Tasmania is still the safest place in Australia to live.

Mr DEAN - That is the information that we are getting, yes. I guess it happens across every State and it is not just Tasmania, but when we look at statistical data, police can only put together statistical data on the information and evidence that comes to them, in other words on reported matters in the case of crime. But we know very well that there is a huge amount of crime being committed that is never reported. We know that there are a huge number of assaults, in particular indecent assaults, that are committed and never reported.

[12.45 p.m.]
That is another problem, in my view, as to how we get on top of that because, if we allow these people to continue to commit these offences, and reports are not made, there is no deterrent and those people will normally go on to commit further crime. How do we get through to people that if you are the victim of a crime or an assault, and particularly a serious assault, you must and should report it? It is very difficult to get that through. There was a case recently in Launceston, which did receive some publicity, where a businessman and his wife who were involved in education, and her brother, were in Launceston when they were attacked by 15 thugs at 11 o'clock at night. They were beaten. They had bottles thrown at them, eggs thrown at them. One was hospitalised for a fairly long period of time with cuts and abrasions and sutures et cetera and the other two were very badly shaken up, and it was not reported. They would not report it to police because they feared that there would be retribution, that they would be found out and further punished.

I am not quite sure how we get on top of that but it is interesting that the business person there said that he was aware of another 15 assaults that had happened around the CBD area of Launceston, that had not been reported. I am not quite sure how we get on top of this and what happens, but it is a pretty serious situation.

I want to talk very briefly on speed detection devices, and if we agree and believe the headlines in the papers since the Budget was handed down there will be a fairly heavy reliance on speeding fines to provide the Government with funding to put into other areas.

That is not a good headline really for us because speeding fines should have nothing to do with the raising of revenue at all. It ought to be about making our streets safer and making a much safer State to be in for drivers on our roads. It should not be anything to do with revenue raising and that is a real concern.

Police have a benchmarking process. If the police strategies were right, shouldn't we really see a decrease in speeding year to year, or at least on a par? But that is not the case. The number of offenders caught each year continues to rise. The benchmarks police have to achieve continue to rise. There is something wrong there somewhere. I would have thought we could have been dropping those benchmarks considerably and that our roads would be much safer.

Mr Aird - Benchmarks are irrelevant if people do not break the law.

Mr DEAN - Of course they are.

Mr Aird - If people break the law they get fined, if they get caught. I think the argument about this is just about if people did not break the law they would not be fined no matter where they are or what they are doing. I put the argument of going over the Tasman Bridge and there are cameras there. You put up signs to say there are fixed cameras there because that will reduce the number of people speeding. It has not - it has gone up. It is counterintuitive. I agree with you. It is perverse, but people break the law.

Mr DEAN - People break the law, but my concern is that a lot of the speeding offences are those that are occurring in the fairly low-speed areas. The bridge is probably a good example. If you get the statistical data you will find that a lot of those booked on the bridge are doing 80 kilometres an hour or thereabouts, probably creating or causing no danger at the time those offences are being committed, but if we had appropriate policing at the right times in the right places we would have a greater impact on road safety.

I was talking to police officers only last week about their benchmarks and in one area the benchmark for the police - and I think it is fairly common around the State - was that the individuals had to get 560-odd bookings annually for speeding. They said in order to get those bookings, in amongst all of their other jobs and family violence that they are involved in, which takes an inordinate period of their time, they have to set up in the areas where they are going to get them. What they said was, and the member for Murchison mentioned this yesterday, you have to fish where the fish are if you are going to catch any.

They set up in the school zones, they set up in the 50 kilometre and the 60 kilometre speed limit areas so that they are assured of getting their required benchmarks, rather than being out on the highways and in the areas where they know there are accidents. As one member said to me, we could sit for two to three hours, patrol that area for two to three hours and probably only get one or two bookings.

That is not good enough. Those bookings could well be for very high speeds and could well be preventing very dangerous situations, but that is not the way that they are able to do it. I have said here on numerous occasions and I say it again, that I do not agree with many of the benchmarks that are set for police.

We had one changed a few years ago. I was able to convince the then Commissioner, Mr McCreadie, that the benchmark on speed cameras - that they had to get so many bookings each hour they were set up - was a nonsense and did nothing for road safety. That was changed. But there are a number of other benchmarks that need to be changed as well.

I will raise a lot of issues about policing during the Estimates process. I will be interested to know where the additional 30 police officers are going to go. We certainly need the police out there, and they need to be seen. That brings me to another matter that was raised in relation to visibility of police.

Currently we have these candy cars on the highways and they are easy to pick out. On Monday night when I was travelling down through Jericho about 9.30 p.m. or 10 p.m. I saw one of these cars and I thought it was great as I could see it very clearly and easily. But when police in uniform are out on the street, particularly during the evening, they are not that easily seen. I believe they ought to wear fluoro jackets that very clearly stand out so the public can see them.

This week an inspector of police spoke to the Launceston City Council, saying that this was a wonderful strategy. I think he was attempting to make some changes there. A police officer wearing a fluoro jacket at night-time would stand out and a lot more people would see them and I think it would be a greater deterrent. That is something that I would hope could be considered and it is an Estimates matter that I will be pursuing.

Mr Hall - Don't they need to be camouflaged at times so that they can catch the miscreants?

Mr DEAN - There are plain-clothes police and they are an important part of the process. Visibility is what we need. High visibility works and it is a deterrent to would-be miscreants.

Debate adjourned.

Noting of Budget Papers

Resumed from page 29

[3.05 p.m.]
Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - On the suspension, Madam President, I was talking about the police. Before I go to police I want to go back to AFL at Launceston. I want to refer to two very important quotes because of the position that the Treasurer talked about this morning after becoming involved in the debate. The Andrew Demetriou interview with Mr Tim Cox has been referred to previously. This was a broadcast dated 15 June 2010 and I quote from that. I think the member for Launceston may well have quoted this, too, last Thursday.

Mr Wing - I did, but the Treasurer wasn't here, I think, but he needs to know it.

Mr DEAN - This was a question asked by Tim Cox on that program and the answer given by Mr Demetriou was, and I quote:

Ms Thorp - What was the question?

Mr DEAN - I will go back and I will read the question:

'Mr Cox: Would that be because you want to cover a larger population spread, or because you don't want to run the risk of in any way spoiling the Hawthorn-York Park access that's working so well?'


Mr Demetriou answered:

'No, I think it's a bit of both, to be quite truthful. If you remember, we have always supported the government's view from day one that football should be played in Launceston. Up until recently, there seems to have been a shift, and the shift is that there should be football played at Bellerive, and on that basis we would support the government.'

I would have thought that that was very clear. I would have thought that in that statement Mr Demetriou is identifying with the position as articulated and put by the Government.

I quote again from that same answer - and I will go through the whole answer:

'If the government desires that there is more football to be played in Tasmania and that it should be at Bellerive, and obviously not to the detriment of Launceston, then we would support that.'

Once again, I would have thought that it was perfectly clear as to what is happening and the reason the AFL has taken the position it has.

Mr Aird - Just to clarify, are you saying there should be no AFL games ever played at Bellerive?

Mr DEAN - What I am saying is that the Government have had a strong position on this from day one that York Park - Aurora Stadium - would be -

Mr Aird - No, I'm asking you -

Mr Wing - No, you're dodging that comment.

Mr Aird - No, I'm not dodging anything. He won't answer the question.

Mr DEAN - I am not dodging it at all. The current shift seems to be with the Government. The current shift is perfectly clear in my view, from these statements, and they have discussed it with the AFL, that they are supporting very clearly AFL being played at Bellerive. To say that they do not support a game in Hobart that is going to be to the detriment of Launceston is an absolute nonsense because any one game played -

Mr Aird - How many games do you get at the moment?

Mr DEAN - I thank the member for Huon for providing me with some information props. I would have preferred the colours to have been black and gold, and I might say we are on a roll, two games in a row.

Mr Wilkinson - I'm glad someone is.

Madam PRESIDENT - If we do not get back to the Tasmanian Budget we might be on a roll.

Mr DEAN - I am talking about the Tasmanian Budget. We should be supporting Richmond and we should be inviting them over here to play football anywhere.

Madam President, it is perfectly clear in my view, from some of these statements, and I want to quote an excerpt from Hansard on Wednesday 27 August 2003, Part 2, House of Assembly, Australian Football League Games in Tasmania. This is a question session between Mr Cheek and Mr Bacon, the previous Premier deceased. The question is:

'Mr Cheek - So it is only for York Park?

Mr Jim Bacon - That agreement is for York Park.

Mr Cheek - Would you consider underwriting other AFL games in Tasmania?

Mr Jim Bacon - At York Park? Yes.

Mr Cheek - At Bellerive?

Mr Jim Bacon - No, we believe that York Park is the number one football venue in the State and we are supporting the further development of York Park.'

Mr Wilkinson - No difference with that.

Mr DEAN - There is another matter that I wish to refer to - Thursday 23 November 2006.

Ms THORP - Madam President, on a point of order, could I ask you to consider standing order 100.

Madam PRESIDENT - While I take your point, this is a grievance debate and I think that it is appropriate that the member is allowed to utilise his time in any way that he sees fit. I do not see it as repetitious or irrelevant. It is not irrelevant to the debate in a grievance debate. I acknowledge there is no money in the Budget that relates to the football that we are talking about and where it ought be played, but in a grievance debate the member has the Floor and other members have to show some patience.

Ms Thorp - Thank you.

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Madam President, could you define 'repetitious' for me.

Madam PRESIDENT - Continually repeating.

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Thank you, Madam President, for your ruling in this matter. It is a critical issue. The Tasmanian Government has provided huge amounts of money from budgets into football at Aurora Stadium, as has the council and the ratepayers of Launceston. Very clearly this is biting and hurting the Government for them to take the position that they currently are taking. The position that we have here is very clear. The ratepayers of Launceston feel that they have been dudded. That is the word some of those people have been using.

Mr Aird - How could they? Nothing has been taken away, we are trying to negotiate with Hawthorn and we need some competitive tension to make sure that we get value for our dollar in supporting a football team. How can they feel aggrieved? How can Launceston feel aggrieved when we went out on a limb to support football in Launceston? It is because of government action that you got football. And it has not been taken away.

Mr DEAN - The Launceston people have congratulated the Government on the stance that they have taken in relation to York Park. They have congratulated them on the funding and their support of York Park - there is no question about that. They have made that perfectly clear over a long period of time. It is where we are going now that really matters. I have one further quote from Hansard of Tuesday 26 September 2006. This is an answer provided by the then Premier Mr Lennon:

'So at the outset let me make it absolutely clear' -

Mr Wing - Through you, Madam President - perhaps you could just make sure that the Treasurer hears this. It is important.

Mr DEAN - Yes. Is the Treasurer taking a phone call or answering an e-mail?

Madam PRESIDENT - You are supposed to be addressing this to the Chair. If the Treasurer is not listening, he will have to read his Hansard at the end of the process before he responds.

Mr DEAN - Thank you, Madam President. I will make it perfectly clear; I quote the answer being given by the then Premier, Mr Paul Lennon:

'So at the outset let me make it absolutely clear that the Government is absolutely committed' -

Ms Thorp - Through you, Madam President - standing order 99 says that a member may not allude to any debate in the other House of Parliament.

Madam PRESIDENT - But may refer to the reports of debates or other printed papers of that House. I think the member is alluding to a report as per Hansard.

Mr DEAN - Yes.

Madam PRESIDENT - Thank you. The member may resume his place and continue.

Mr DEAN - Thank you, Madam President. They will try everything, obviously, to stop -

Madam PRESIDENT - No, please do not go down that path or I will make a ruling you may not like. Please continue with the debate.

Mr DEAN - Thank you, Madam President. I will go through the quote again that I commenced to make:

'So at the outset, let me make it absolutely clear that the Government is absolutely committed to keeping AFL football in Launceston.'

Madam President, there is nothing ambiguous about that at all. It is perfectly clear. It is plain and I think that we can all understand exactly what the position is and what was being stated at the time. I will now leave the matter of football alone.

I mentioned the situation regarding foxes earlier as well. I realise there was some debate downstairs in relation to this as well this morning; about the fox scats, et cetera. All I want to draw from that is that there was one matter I meant to mention - that is, that the number of -

Madam PRESIDENT - Pardon?

Mr DEAN - There is a matter of bogus reports - no, nothing to do with this.

Madam PRESIDENT - No, but you just caught yourself in your own trap. A member must not allude to a debate in another House, so please move on.

Mr DEAN - If those comments are not acceptable I withdraw them, Madam President, but it reminded me of another matter I needed to raise. That is what it was about. It was the number of bogus reports that there have been in the press from time to time about the presence of foxes in the State. I am aware of two current bogus reports suggesting that there are foxes here, and I am aware that those matters are being currently investigated or have been investigated by police. I just want to mention that because we often read statements in the newspaper and we take them for granted as being right. There have been two bogus reports.

Madam President, back to police. As I said, there is an increase in the Budget; an increase in equipment and there are extra police being brought into the organisation. I am very interested to know where those extra police will go. I wonder whether or not there are enough police in road safety. Driving while disqualified is a very interesting area because when you get the same person being pulled up by police three times in as many weeks for driving while disqualified, you really do wonder what is happening out there. This is just one case and the police have finished up taking the vehicle off him and clamping the vehicle under the legislation. I would like to see changes here again to the legislation so that if a person is caught driving whilst disqualified, the vehicle should be clamped in the first instance and removed because, in my view, it is clearly a contempt of court matter.

Ms Thorp - They can do that now.

Mr DEAN - Not the first time, I do not think.

Ms Thorp - It is excessive speed, 45 kilometres over the speed limit, driving dangerously and recklessly, driving while disqualified. I think there is one other but definitely driving while disqualified. There is a degree of discretion on the part of the officer.

Mr DEAN - Yes. In the Estimates, in another place, I will probably take this further, Madam President, as to why it did not happen in the first instance. Very clearly these people are contributing to the serious accidents and the fatalities that are occurring out there on our roads.

The other matter I want to mention with the extra police we are going to see is hooning, referred to in this Chamber on many occasions. It is a huge issue out there and is creating a lot of concern for people. I had an event on the long weekend where people in the Mayfield area in particular were driven mad by continual hooning and motorbikes roaring up and down the streets. As they said, their quality of life for the weekend was ruined. I might add that, when they notified me, I contacted the police and the police very quickly went out and, within a very short time, confiscated another two motorcycles. Madam President, the number of motorcycles being confiscated for this type of activity around the State is enormous. That is a matter I will pursue in another place next week as well. It is causing and creating havoc out there still.

Another matter I want to talk about, Madam President, is Safe At Home legislation. Safe At Home legislation is taking an enormous piece out of the police's budget. It is absolutely enormous when you look at some of the things that are happening there and you look at the time that police are engaged in Safe At Home activities. On a minor offence or minor report under the Safe At Home legislation involving probably abuse only - not an assault involved but where somebody alleges that they were abused - and that can be serious too, I accept that - it will take the police on an average of four hours to resolve such a situation.

Normally it would be two police officers and that would occupy half their shift. Half their shift would be taken up on a fairly minor - if it is more serious and involves an assault it will take police about six hours on average to work right through it from the beginning to the end of the process, with lots of reports and lots of action by the police. It is eating up their budget and taking a lot of their time.

Ms Thorp - Don't you think domestic violence is serious?

Mr DEAN - I have never underestimated the seriousness of domestic violence. I am just saying that there should be some changes here somewhere to expedite the process, to make some changes with the paperwork, with everything else that is occurring. They attend a lot of domestics and I think it is well above the numbers that were projected.

Ms Thorp - I think you will find that there was a peak and that things have tapered off. But we will get on to that later.

Mr DEAN - In the Estimates I will pursue some of these things, Madam President. There are so many things that are involved in there. As I understand it, there is another group of police that need to become involved the next day. Another group has to make a home assessment and they have to do different things and so on. The amount of overtime in this area I think would be enormous. I will take that up as well next week. I am also advised that probably only 10 per cent of people who are charged go through the courts and the matter is finalised there. Normally the charges are withdrawn or a victim refuses or does not want to give evidence.

Madam President, it is a huge issue and it does need sorting out. You wonder whether there ought not be a cooling-off period somehow. I am not quite sure how that would work - separation of the parties perhaps. Perhaps there could be a cooling-down period to come back and look at the issue the next day afresh to see whether or not they do want the matter to proceed and whether the evidence is there et cetera. There have to be other ways of expediting this. As the police said to me, this is time that they could be out on the streets preventing some of these assaults and some of these other antisocial actions that are occurring. There are so many other things that they could and should be doing.

I want to touch on the energy gas rollout, Madam President, and the Budget in relation to its position of supporting gas in this State and the references made to it through the Budget. I have often referred in this Chamber to the position that Launceston finds itself in. That is, it should be treated as a priority area for the rollout of gas to give people another option when they look at changing over their heaters because of the environmental issues that Launceston is experiencing. I would urge the Government to continue to negotiate a position there to try to get an increased rollout to residential homes in the Launceston area. I know they support rolling out gas to big industry but I say that the residential people are almost as important in many respects in having access to a cheaper form of energy. With the cost of electricity about to skyrocket shortly again, very clearly even more people will want the rollout to occur. If we do not, Madam President, what we will have is what happened in Launceston at Mowbray last week - or the week before - to the Bhutanese family and it could have had an absolutely tragic consequence. Here was a group of people in their home, on a very cold night, quite obviously concerned about heating; as I understand it the temperature in their home was about zero degrees - very cold indeed. When they moved in no doubt they would have had access to electrical heating. They would have been considering the cost - I have been trying to talk to this family, I might add, to get some further detail on it - and because of the cost they wheeled in a wood-fired barbecue to heat their home. When they were found, I am told, the seven people in the house were unconscious - what a tragedy it could have been if a call had not been received.

Apparently a person in the house rang a relative but the relative could not really understand what was being said at the other end. However, this relative detected that something was gravely wrong at this home and so they went there and that is what they found. This is the consequence of energy costs, heating costs in particular, where people just cannot afford it so they take other options and, as I said, here was a classic case that could have become an atrocious situation. We could have lost seven people and newcomers to Australia too, I might add.

I urge the Government to enter into negotiations because the providers of gas in Tasmania have indicated that they have been unsuccessful in negotiating with the Government in this area. I am not quite sure why but I would urge the Government to continue to consider that and to provide some other options.

I am aware that the General Manager and the Mayor of Launceston view it so seriously that they have been to the mainland to talk to the Federal Government with a view to getting their support for a further gas rollout as well. It is a very serious issue in Launceston that should be treated as a priority area.

Madam President, there are just one or two other areas that I want to finish on and one is Youth on Paterson. Youth on Paterson is not significantly different in its position to that of Chance on Main that operates at Glenorchy. It is a very similar organisation and I recall the previous member for Elwick talking of this issue and the funding for it being cut and Youth on Paterson at Launceston is now in exactly the same position. The organisation has been functioning for three years and they are seeking some urgent funding from the State Government, Federal Government or wherever they can get it to continue to operate. They have sufficient funds now, I am told, to operate for about six months and after that, if nothing further comes in, they will have to close the doors.

They are currently providing support to many youth at risk. They are currently working with 34 young people directly but there are a lot of other at-risk people becoming involved and people who have been through the Youth Justice system, so it is an organisation that is doing very good things for Launceston. I realise here that this organisation has not quite taken the approach that they should have taken; they have been slow in coming forward to the State Government to seek some support but I would ask that when their request does come through that there can be some adjustments made somewhere within the Budget to provide them with some support to move on. It is not a large amount of money that they are looking for to exist, in fact I am told that the amount is $120 000 or thereabouts so it is not a huge amount of money for this organisation to continue to exist. They are providing some very good things out there to the youth that we should be supporting because if we do not, those youth will be creating mayhem for us in the future. Yes, it is $120 000 to function on an annual basis and I would seek some support in that situation.

[3.30 p.m.]
The other matter to finish on, Madam President, is the matter that is receiving a lot of publicity at the present time and that is the methyl bromide situation at Bell Bay, which is creating a lot of angst in the area.

I am not quite sure where this is going but when you look at methyl bromide and its consequences, and I refer to a Workers Health Centre report I got off the internet yesterday. It says at the bottom, about the dangers of this gas: 'The effect of methyl bromide poisoning is permanent and irreversible. If any symptoms occur within 24 hours of exposure then medical attention is required'.

We are talking about a fairly dangerous substance, Madam President, and I guess we could ask the question: if it is banned in Hobart, you cannot use it here, then why can it be used in an area like that where there are a lot of employees around the Bell Bay area? There is Rio Tinto, Temco and a major industrial area set around them, so it does make me wonder why it is banned in Hobart when it can be used at Bell Bay.

I have some concerns with that. I know that the Greens and others have jumped on to this, talking about the inversion layer that exists in that area. I do not know whether or not that layer exists and I do not know where the scientific evidence is to support that but, very clearly, if there is a layer there it is not holding up all of the smoke and all of the other gases and so on forever and a day - it obviously gets away somewhere at some time or another because Comalco, Rio Tinto and those other companies have been working there for a long time. It is an issue that the Government needs to consider.

There are lots of good parts within the Budget and I and many others will be looking at it closely. There are benefits there to Launceston but I think some of the major issues have been neglected; as I said, the siltation issue in particular. It just seemed as though the Government is lackadaisical about that or they do not fully appreciate what is happening in that area. If they did, I think they would have said that the $6.94 million that they promised during the campaign is there in this Budget and that over the next three years we would get that total amount and there would be a lot of work put into extraction of the silt from that river. It is critical to the area and I would hope that there is something done about that problem.

The Budget is noted, Madam President.