Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 7 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 1941..
MS GALLAGHER (continuing):
unit, and that meant we were able to admit all those children very quickly from another area of the hospital, with minimal contact with other people who were working or in the hospital for other health reasons.
MR SPEAKER: Is there a supplementary question?
MR SESELJA: Minister, when you get back to us about whether it was the oncology unit, could you also advise the Assembly of the decontamination procedures which ensured that there was no risk posed to patients who are immuno-compromised?
MS GALLAGHER: Yes. It was a public health response. All of the decisions about how to move those children into the hospital, through the hospital, out of the hospital, to their bus, onto a plane and back to Queensland were taken with infection control measures in place. In terms of decontamination and cleaning, having spent some time in an isolation ward at the hospital recently, I know that very thorough cleaning processes are put in place. There were no other children in the unit where the 16 were admitted. With respect to the hotel where some of the other children were staying, the infection control procedures extended to cleaning the hotel after the children had left.
Integrated Forest Products Pty Ltd
MR GENTLEMAN: My question is to the Chief Minister. The opposition leader is reported in today's Canberra Times as saying that secured creditors such as banks—in this case the National Australia Bank—should receive precedence over the payment of workers entitlements, such as superannuation and long service leave, if the Integrated Forest Products mill at Hume is forced to close. Will the Chief Minister tell the Assembly what would be the effect of an unconditional government response, as proposed by Mr Stefaniak, to the receiver's request for assistance?
Mr Stefaniak: Point of order. The question is out of order because the member has misquoted me. If he is going to ask a question like that he needs to quote me exactly.
MR SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
MR STANHOPE: We can all understand the Leader of the Opposition's sensitivity to this. If anybody every needed an assurance of his party's ideological opposition to workers—
Mrs Dunne: Point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. The way Mr Gentleman's question was framed, it seemed to relate to the comments made by Mr Stefaniak. I do not think Mr Stanhope has any responsibility for comments made by Mr Stefaniak.
Mr Corbell: On the point of order, the question was what would be the consequences of the ACT government adopting the approach proposed by Mr Stefaniak. As Mr Stanhope is the minister responsible for the request for assistance from the pulp mill, it is entirely in order that he outline what the consequences would be should the government adopt such an approach as proposed by Mr Stefaniak.
MR SPEAKER: Will you repeat the question that you asked, Mr Gentleman?