Page 3699 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Public Place Names Act—
Public Place Names (District of Gungahlin) Determination 2006 (No 1)—Disallowable Instrument DI2006-242 (LR, 9 November 2006).
Public Place Names (District of Gungahlin) Determination 2006 (No 2)—Disallowable Instrument DI2006-243 (LR, 9 November 2006).
Public Place Names (District of Gungahlin) Determination 2006 (No 3)—Disallowable Instrument DI2006-244 (LR, 9 November 2006).
Public Place Names (Gungahlin) Determination 2006 (No 1)—Disallowable Instrument DI2006-245 (LR, 13 November 2006).
Public Place Names (Kingston) Determination 2006 (No 1)—Disallowable Instrument DI2006-240 (LR, 2 November 2006).
Water Resources Act—Water Resources Amendment Regulation 2006 (No 1)—Subordinate Law SL2006-46 (LR, 26 October 2006).
Supplementary answer to question without notice
Ambulance service—crews
MR CORBELL: I have an answer to a question without notice taken on notice by me from Mr Smyth on 15 November. He asked me:
You were recently quoted as saying that the ACT ambulance service has seven ambulance crews fully operational around the clock. If this is the case, why, on Saturday, 4 November 2006, was it necessary for ambulance service management to hold back day-shift crews for the night shift and, even so, they still failed to have more than five fully manned ambulance crews available after midnight?
The answer to Mr Smyth’s question is: in regard to ACT ambulance crew levels on the evening of 4 November, I can advise the following: on Saturday, 4 November there was a requirement to hold one day shift officer back until midnight; there were 6½ crews available until midnight, six stretcher ambulances and one single-response unit; and there were 5½ crews available after midnight. Projected crewing levels were adversely affected by access to unplanned sick leave and leave of a personal nature, despite all attempts being made to cover vacancies at that time.
Aged citizens—mobility issues
Discussion of matter of public importance
MR SPEAKER: I have received letters from Dr Foskey, Mr Gentleman, Ms MacDonald, Mr Mulcahy, Ms Porter and Mr Smyth proposing that matters of public importance be submitted to the Assembly. In accordance with standing order 79, I have determined that the matter proposed by Mr Mulcahy be submitted to the Assembly, namely:
The current challenges related to mobility issues for aged citizens in Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .