Page: 22337
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I direct my question to the Minister for Natural Resources. What monitoring of levels of dioxin in fish is done in New South Wales? Has New South Wales Fisheries made any preparations for the imminent annual migration of mullet and bream populations from dioxin contaminated areas of Homebush Bay and Sydney Harbour to the north coast? Is the department conducting any monitoring of the movements of these populations? If so, what measures are being taken to monitor them? If not, why has action not been taken to monitor the movements of contaminated fish stocks from Sydney Harbour and Homebush Bay? If the movements of the contaminated fish are being monitored, what measures are being taken to warn the commercial fishing fleets in areas to which the contaminated fish will migrate? If none, what is the basis for not informing commercial fishers? Is the Minister aware of any reason that the originators of the dioxin pollution have not been made liable for the damage being done to New South Wales commercial fisheries? Did the contract of sale of the Homebush Bay Union Carbide site contain a specific exemption from damages or restoration costs due to site contamination?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, we are aware that mullet, bream and other fish migrate along our coast. Of course the Government is monitoring dioxin levels in some of those species and more information will be released about that in the not too distant future. It would be very difficult to monitor each individual fish once it migrated from Homebush Bay and along the coast. We know that prawns grow much larger after leaving Sydney Harbour and by the time they get to the northern coast their level of dioxin is greatly reduced. I will take the other aspects of this rather detailed question on notice and respond to the honourable member.