Mr DEAN (Windermere) - Madam President, I want to raise an issue that is rather concerning to me and it is probably not surprising that I have become somewhat cynical when it comes to my dealings with the Fox Eradication Program and it should not be surprising that I continue to ask a number of questions, but I will keep this very short.

Late last year, Madam President, I asked a number of questions on baiting in the Huon area and on 15 March of this year those questions were answered. One of those questions was about the issue of what was being done to identify the animals that were taking those baits. The answer provided by the Fox Eradication Program was, and I will cut the first part of the answer out and go to the last part, which is the significant part, the answer was this:

'The member cannot honestly expect that it is either an efficient or effective use of taxpayers' money to purchase, place, service and review the hundreds of cameras it would take to cover each bait station to answer this question, yet again, for the member's satisfaction.'

I do not recall even having asked that question, but it was answered and I do not recall having asked it previously.

Madam President, because of that answer I then asked a question this year of how many cameras it took to look after eight bait stations, because previously I had been told 'hundreds' and I could not understand why it would take hundreds of cameras to identify what was happening at one bait station. Today the answer I was given and I will quote Hansard, I did have the questions handed to me and it corresponds with what -

Mr Parkinson - One per station, I think the answer was.

Mr DEAN - It corresponds with what is in Hansard. Today the answer given to me was:

'One camera per bait station is considered to be sufficient to adequately monitor that station. More cameras offer some degree of redundancy in the event of equipment failure, but multiple cameras are not considered an efficient use of resources and two cameras per bait station do not double the effectiveness of monitoring.'

So what the hell would 100 cameras do, or hundreds of cameras do if it is said that two would not even improve the effectiveness? Madam President, I just do not know what the situation is. I will be asking a further question probably tomorrow or the next day in relation to this matter to get some clarification of it, but I am not quite sure whether the program is having a lend of me, whether they are deliberately raising these issues to annoy me or whether they are misleading the Parliament. I do not know what it is. I really do not know what it is and therefore I wanted to raise it now to identify my frustration with the program as to some of the answers I have been given. I might add, Madam President, it is not the only answer that I have been given in a similar manner and will probably raise some other issues later on as well. All I ask for is some accuracy and some reasonableness to be provided in the process. Maybe there is a logical explanation as to why in one answer it would take hundreds of cameras to control one bait station and in the next answer it would take one and any more than one would not really be effective.

Mr Wilkinson - Better camera.

Mr DEAN - Well I am glad you raised that, because in the answer given they also said it would be a waste of taxpayers' money to have to purchase all these cameras. Well, Madam President, the Fox Eradication Program already has many cameras. In actual fact one camera, as I said, on a number of occasions was previously left in situ for 12 to 18 months so that would indicate that they have a lot of cameras and in fact they probably do not even know where all their cameras are, but the fact is that they do have cameras and to make that statement also causes some concern and frustration to me in the circumstances. So I raise that question at this stage and I will be raising some questions tomorrow or the next day on that, Madam President, thank you.