Page 3073 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Ellis supports her claims in the following way: There is no supporting evidence - reference footnote No. 4. On first inspection this did indeed seem to be the case. On closer inspection, however, it became obvious that the footnote had been inserted in the wrong place. This error was corrected in the final report. Thus the footnote refers to the information for which Mr Berry was responsible as being difficult to adduce. Members, if I quote from the transcript, on page 203, I think you would agree that some of Mr Berry's answers were difficult to adduce. The transcript reads as follows:
MR MOORE: We are talking about a broad, general survey. No, we are talking about broad general stuff, which would be a standard epidemiological approach.
MR BERRY: In principle I do not have any difficulty with the approach; I am just trying to anticipate some of the difficulties which - and there are, I think - - -
MR MOORE: It would be better to get - I mean, the question I am really raising is, there is anecdotal evidence that we have far greater waiting lists than we appear to have ...
MR BERRY: Well, the waiting lists themselves are not emergency ones. I mean, emergencies - they are elective.
Further, on page 322 of the transcript - - -
Mr Berry: Wait a minute; it goes on. Why don't you go on? It reads, "Well, the waiting lists themselves are - - -
MS SZUTY: I will run out of time, Mr Berry. The transcript reads:
MR BERRY: No, nobody is saying that we are only screening for two years. What we are saying is that a decision has to be made about future funding by some other budget cabinet further down the track.
MRS CARNELL: So you are saying to me that provision has not been made for mammography after two years because you have not - - -
MR BERRY: No, I am not - no, what that suggests is that we are not going to do it after the next two years. What I am saying to you is that you cannot draw from the fact that the Commonwealth funding runs out after two years that it will not be continued. I mean, it is going to be a decision for future governments - future cabinets.
These examples quoted from the transcript are, in fact, entirely appropriate and support the statements made.
Ms Ellis further comments on paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 and asserts that the Minister acted with propriety in his handling of the answers to members' questions. Again, extensive examples are provided in the report to demonstrate that the conclusions reached by the Estimates Committee can be entirely substantiated.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .