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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4029 ..

MR CORBELL: I ask Mrs Dunne to withdraw that comment. She suggests in some way that clinicians have been nobbled. That really suggests an improper motive on my part. I ask her to withdraw that comment.

MR SPEAKER: I missed it. Can you repeat that?

MR CORBELL: A comment was made that I had nobbled clinicians. That is quite improper.

MR SPEAKER: First of all, the interjection was disorderly, but if that is what you said, you ought to withdraw it.

Mrs Dunne: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

MR CORNWELL: The clinicians have indicated to me that a net gain—and that is a net gain—of between five and 10 beds available when they are needed will make a significant difference to the operations of the ED. I know that those opposite would like to paint a simple solution to this problem, but the reality is that there is no simple solution, nor is there the capacity to view the ED in isolation from the rest of the day-to-day operations of the Canberra or Calvary public hospitals.

So, the government’s approach is focussed on the detail, getting the mechanisms of the hospital working well, making sure that, wherever possible, procedures are put in place to make sure beds are available when they are needed. There is a broad acknowledgement amongst both medical and nursing staff that simply to promise more beds is an unrealistic claim, especially when we are yet to hear from the opposition how it will deal with the workforce shortage to staff the beds it thinks are needed.

Kangaroo cull

MS TUCKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Environment and is in regard to the use of commercial operators in the ACT during the recent cull of kangaroos in the Googong Dam area. Minister, your officers acknowledge that this was the first time that the ACT had used commercial operators in a kangaroo cull and that they were monitoring how that worked. My question is: will the results of that monitoring be made available to the public? Can you tell the Assembly the criteria used to assess the effectiveness of the use of the commercial operators?

MR STANHOPE: Yes, it is correct that a decision was taken at the outset that the kangaroos to be culled at Googong would be culled on a commercial basis by commercial operators. That was a decision taken by Environment ACT, essentially as a recognition or acknowledgement of a commitment to sustainability and an acknowledgement that, if the kangaroos—in the order of 800—were to be culled or shot, it made good practical sense, as difficult as the issue is, for those 800 kangaroos to be utilised. That of course was the basis of the decision. It was a pragmatic and practical decision made in light of the decision to institute the cull.

Environment ACT did undertake to monitor the cull. I am not aware whether Environment ACT has prepared a formal report of those aspects of the cull. I am more

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