Page 5301 - Week 13 - Thursday, 29 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
2017-2018 financial year with a breakdown by category and suburb provided in the attached spreadsheet (Attachment A).
(ii) 2018-2019 (until the 26th of October 2018) breakdown by category and suburb
There were 7,707 notifications received through the Fix My Street portal for the 2018 -2019 Financial Year to 26 October 2018 with a breakdown by category and suburb provided in the attached spreadsheet (Attachment B).
(Copies of the attachments are available at the Chamber Support Office).
ACT Health—Director of Medical Imaging
(Question No 1986)
Mrs Dunne asked the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, upon notice, on 26 October 2018:
(1) What reasons, in relation to the answer to question on notice No 1681 (a) were given, (b) by whom and (c) to whom, for approval of the elevation of the classification for the director of medical imaging from senior officer grade A to executive 1.3 level.
(2) Who approved the elevation.
(3) What reasons (a) were given, (b) by whom and (c) to whom, for approval of the amendments of the mandatory eligibility requirements as to qualifications and experience prior to placing the advertisement in October 2017.
(4) Who approved the amendments.
(5) Who were appointed to the selection panel to consider the applications received in response to the October 2017 advertisement.
(6) Who made those appointments.
(7) Who was appointed as the delegate on the selection panel.
(8) Who made that appointment.
(9) Did any of the members of the selection panel have any actual or perceived conflicts of interest in relation to any of the applicants; if yes, did any members with such conflicts declare them; if not, why not.
(10) If the answer is yes at part(9) did they declare those conflicts to the officer who appointed them to the panel; if not, why not and to whom did they make the declarations.
(11) What action did the recipient of those declarations take in response; if none, why.
(12) What measures were put in place to manage conflicts through the selection process to ensure procedural fairness.
(13) What did the (a) director-general and (b) the head of service do to satisfy themselves that the conflicts in no way impeded procedural fairness.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video