1. Who made the 'go' decision for a 'controlled shooting' of the kangaroos? What was the decision process, timeframe, and options considered? Why was the 'controlled shooting' acted upon, despite a "working group" to relocate the kangaroos? Was the 'controlled shooting funded by taxpayer money?
2. At any time, was the bushland site owner Westfield consulted about the kangaroos, and if so, what was their preference for resolving the situation? At any time, was Westfield a factor in the decision to use 'controlled shooting' to resolve the situation?
3. Given that "the health and safety of these kangaroos was at risk" and that the 'controlled shooting' was viewed as a "tough decision":
(a) Why was 'relocation' not acted on as an alternative to the 'controlled shooting'? and
(b) Why were there no other contingency plans acted on that would have kept the kangaroos alive?
4. What was the status of the "working group" formed to relocate the kangaroos? Why was the "working group" not consulted or informed about the 'controlled shooting' until after it had happened? Again, why was 'relocation' not pursued as an alternative?
DSE's clarification on these matters would be most appreciated, thanks for your time.