Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 3149 ..

MS FOLLETT: By way of a supplementary question, Mr Speaker, I would ask the Minister: What is your estimate of receipts from the sale of double to triple the number of houses? Will those receipts be used solely for the construction of new dwellings?

Mrs Carnell: And maintenance.

Mr De Domenico: And maintenance.

MR STEFANIAK: And maintenance as well, as a couple of people here are saying. Ms Follett, as you are well aware, under the current agreement, in terms of any stock we sell, we must use the money either for the purchase of new stock or for maintenance. Accordingly, that means, Mr Speaker, that, if we sell between 150 and 200 houses and we build about 200 new properties, the money is there for those new properties. A lot of the money from those sales will go towards those new properties. Other moneys will go towards maintenance. Ms Follett, we do have a significant maintenance bill of about $15m a year, and that is primarily paid for by way of such things as tenants' rents. I think it is important that we use some of the money from sales for the very important maintenance we do need to do, on some of our old stock especially.

Ms Follett: What a pathetic answer!

MR STEFANIAK: What a pathetic question!

MS HORODNY: My question is directed to Mr Humphries as Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. The Minister would have seen the Conservation Council's media release today and would be aware of concerns that have arisen among rural lessees adjacent to Namadgi National Park about wild dogs coming out of the park and attacking sheep. I understand that you established a working group over a month ago to determine a policy for dealing with these wild dogs, which group should have reported to you by now. The Greens have also received information that your departmental officers have recommended that, rather than continue the current practice of dog trapping, these wild dogs be controlled by surface spreading of meat baits containing 10/80 poison along the boundary of the park and extending four kilometres into the park. If this is the case, then some 68 per cent of the park could be affected by the baiting program. Given that the management plan for Namadgi National Park says that wild dogs should be controlled only within one kilometre inside the park boundary and that poison baits laid on the surface of the ground could be eaten by native animals, particularly the threatened tiger quoll, could you tell us exactly what you intend to do about the wild dog issue; and either confirm or deny that you intend to allow ground baiting within four kilometres inside the Namadgi National Park boundary?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .