Page 4214 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
been followed and that no record had been kept of the incident. Then there is the press release from the Board of Health which made the incredible statement that there was a discrepancy between what Mr Harris had alleged was said to him and what the officer advised in his report.
There is nothing here to suggest that the officer acted improperly by not dispatching an ambulance. There is no doubt here that the patient in this case should have received the benefit of the doubt. There is nothing here to say that it was not up to the officer to decide whether or not to send an ambulance.
If this is not enough, I have obtained - again through my FOI request - a copy of a letter from Mr Len Withers of the Board of Health to Mr Harris dated 29 July, again well after the inquiry had concluded. This letter repeats much of what was in the letter that was sent to Mr Berry. In fact, most of the paragraphs are identical. There is one major exception, however. In the letter to Mr Harris, one paragraph was deleted by hand from the copy that I received. The paragraph reads:
The Officer involved will be counselled by the Director of the Ambulance Service in regard to providing due care and attention to all calls for assistance in accordance with the Ambulance Service Communications Centre procedures.
The question is: Why did Mr Berry fail to mention the fact that the officer involved had not acted in accordance with the proper procedures? Why did the Board of Health issue a press release which failed to state that the officer involved had failed to follow established procedures? Why is it that Mr Harris was sent a letter from the Board of Health which failed to state that the officer involved had failed to follow established procedures? And who asked that the above paragraph be deleted from the text of the letter?
Did Mr Berry authorise the Board of Health press release? Who engineered this cover-up? Why was the cover-up authorised? What power does the officer involved hold over the Minister or the Board of Health? Why was he protected from public scrutiny when his job clearly involves a very large degree of public confidence? Why is he only being counselled? What would ambulance services in other States have done in incidents such as this?
It is clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the officer failed in his duty to provide an ambulance. Not only did he fail to provide an ambulance but he failed to keep a record of the matter and failed to inform his duty superintendent. That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this report. Yet what action has been taken? The officer has been counselled. I believe that the matter needs to be taken further and the officer should, at the very least, be moved to other duties. I call on the Government to ensure that this happens.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .