Page 3790 - Week 10 - Thursday, 14 September 2017

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

advised that expanding the capacity of the Franklin Early Childhood School was being considered as a component of the overall planning for the whole of the East Gungahlin region. This is still the case.

(2) While schools in Gungahlin are facing enrolment pressures, there is no “shortage” of places. The ACT Government provides a place for every ACT child that seeks a place in their neighbourhood public school. The 2017-18 Budget invests more than $24 million for expanding schools in Gungahlin as well as planning for a new school. Communities will be engaged in discussions at appropriate points as these projects progress. The Future of Education community conversation, that is already underway, has a broad scope and the government welcomes discussion of the role of a school in its local community and school choice as part of this discussion.

(3) Any stakeholder with an interest is welcome to be a part of the current discussion about education in the ACT, including current and future parents, teachers, students, graduates, community sector groups, school staff, unions and academics. The process is outlined at

Canberra Hospital—electrical systems
(Question No 446)

Mrs Dunne asked the Minister for Regulatory Services, upon notice, on 4 August 2017:

(1) In relation to the answer to parts (3)(b)-(e) of Question on Notice 296, what were the details of the incidents of (a) electric shock (inspected 3 January 2014), (b) electrical shock to client (inspected 29 October 2014), (c) uncontrolled leakage of a substance (inspected 4 March 2015), (d) electrical incident (inspected 7 September 2015), (e) Nitrous Oxide release (inspected 23 and 25 August 2016) and (f) kitchen fire (inspected 21 February 2017).

(2) For each incident listed in part (1), (a) what notices were issued, (b) was WorkSafe ACT satisfied that The Canberra Hospital (TCH) complied with the notices; if not, what action did WorkSafe ACT take to ensure compliance, (c) was WorkSafe ACT satisfied that TCH complied within any timelines specified in the notices; if not, what action did WorkSafe take in response, (d) what other action did WorkSafe ACT take and (e) what were the outcomes, including for any third parties involved.

Mr Ramsay: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:


(a) A staff member reported the electrical shock. Following a subsequent medical assessment they were cleared to return to work immediately. Testing did not find any fault. WorkSafe engaged with The Canberra Hospital (TCH) to update testing records and schedule to ensure regular testing of Residual Current Devices (RCD) – circuit breakers. No notices were issued.

(b) A staff member received electrical shock that was determined to be only 24 volts and was potentially only static electricity as testing did not find any fault. However, the Test Date for Body Protected Electrical Areas was out of date by 2 months. Testing conducted immediately after event by TCH on direction of WorkSafe ACT. No notices were issued.

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