Page 3033 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
values of the homestead, the surrounding buildings and various plantings are very carefully preserved. At the same time we have put out an urban renewal proposal that indicates that maybe some of that fairly large area might be appropriate for residential development or other development. Obviously, what we will do will be influenced by the conservation study and by other suggestions that are made to us.
If we proceed further we will issue a draft variation that will allow for further community debate, because there has been quite a deal already, and so that the whole proposal will be very carefully examined. I have had a quick perusal of that conservation study and it does indicate that maybe some areas might be suitable for residential development; maybe others will be suitable for some other appropriate use. It is all up in the air still; it is a matter for further discussion.
Refrigerants
MR STEVENSON: My question is to the Minister for Health, Wayne Berry, although I realise that it will also be of concern to the Environment Minister, Bill Wood. There is a report in the Melbourne Age of 4 November 1992 which quotes Professor Alan Knight, of Griffith University, as saying that refrigerants under consideration to replace CFCs may be even more dangerous than CFCs. He refers to the most likely of several related chemicals to be used to replace CFCs as being highly toxic to mammals in trace quantities. Is the Minister aware that this chemical, sodium monofluoroacetate, is actually the deadly poison used to kill rabbits and dingoes and known as 1080? Is he also aware that there is no known antidote and its effects are irreversible 30 minutes after ingestion, inhalation or injection? What is being done to prevent the ACT's headlong rush to restrict the use of CFCs from turning into a disaster that widespread use of the 1080 chemical could cause?
MR BERRY: It sounds a bit like the old "no hole in the ozone layer" stuff. But you are right, Mr Stevenson, in one respect. It is not - - -
Mr Stevenson: About the ozone layer? Thank you. I have finally had an acknowledgment. Wonderful!
MR BERRY: No; you are right in one respect, in that it is a question you should have directed at Mr Wood because it is a matter which he will appropriately deal with as it is part of his portfolio. That is what I have done; I have referred it to him, and he will respond in due course.
Mr Stevenson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you allow Mr Wood to answer that question?
MADAM SPEAKER: I believe that he is taking it on notice.
Mr Stevenson: Thank you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .