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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1893 ..

MR MOORE (1.00): Mr Speaker, I rise to disagree with Ms Tucker when she said that this is a waste of time. Indeed, one of the reasons why a substantive motion is needed is that an allegation was raised. It was raised and dealt with in question time yesterday, it was on the front page of the paper this morning, it was the subject of significant community debate on radio, and it is of significant community interest. That is probably not the context Ms Tucker had in mind when she said that it was a waste of time, but certainly it is - - -

Ms Tucker: I meant if it had not been raised in the first place.

MR MOORE: Indeed. Once it has been raised, then the substantive motion has to be put and the case dealt with as quickly as possible. In fact, my perception is that it is a matter that probably ought to have been dealt with yesterday afternoon, once it had been raised in question time; but I believe that all people involved wanted to look at the information more closely. Had the issue been dealt with quickly, then I think we would have seen a very different report in the paper this morning and a very different response in the media. It is important that such an allegation be dealt with in a substantive way and as quickly as possible. That is why when we suspended standing orders I was prepared to allow Mr Humphries or Mrs Carnell - I did not care who - to put the allegation. I thought it was sensible that the issue be dealt with as quickly as possible, even if it meant using up time we had set aside for private members business.

The issue, as Mrs Carnell put it in the substantive motion, is that Mr Berry had misled the Assembly on a series of things: The day surgery figures were double-counted; the figures were available and were published; the Assembly had been informed that all was going well, and Mrs Carnell quoted from Hansard of October 1993 to illustrate that point. I draw attention to the fact that October 1993 is actually before the time that we are talking about, before the time covered by the motion. However, there is the issue of Mr Berry saying that the hospital was effectively improving.

Whether these figures were available and published is, to a certain extent, the kernel of the debate here. Just how available were they and how could we have expected a Minister to make himself conscious and aware of them? I think that is where the issues that Ms Tucker raised really come into play. If it was so important for Mr Berry to have made himself aware and conscious of these figures, why was it not the case that the current Minister for Health was aware and conscious of the fact that operations under her system had in fact reduced significantly - as Mr Berry pointed out, by 2,095? That is what the figures would have been indicating. Indeed, Mrs Carnell stood up in this house and said that it was Mr Berry raising this figure of 2,095 fewer operations under the Carnell Government which motivated her to ask her chief executive, "What is the truth? What is going on?". Finally, some significant time later, some action is taken.

As an aside, I mention that there are a couple of questions that have yet to be answered. I would hope that within the next few days, certainly within this sitting period, Mrs Carnell will explain to the Assembly, first of all, how the mistake was made. Did an ASO3 count incorrectly, or what happened?

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