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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 169 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

On the same day Mr Berry also referred to his quarterly activity reports as "the only figures that were tabled in this place in relation to the performance of hospitals while I was Health Minister". I am just quoting from Mr Berry last year. In other words, there were no monthly reports for either Calvary Hospital or Canberra Hospital; no actual waiting list figures, only quarterly averages; and no monthly financial reports, Mr Speaker. That is the reality of what we had under Mr Berry. Apart from the monthly report produced for November - and I have already acknowledged that the sitting period caused us a problem in that situation and we were a couple of days late - monthly reports have been produced four to five weeks after the end of each reporting period. Figures have been produced for Calvary. For Mr Berry to get up today and say that is not acceptable, when you consider what he did when he was Health Minister, is not acceptable.

We are also providing monthly data for the whole of the ACT financial system. Unfortunately, Mr Berry, when he talks about financial reports, forgot that he voted for the Financial Management Bill last year. Of course, that meant we moved away from cash-based accounting. All of the things that Mr Berry was talking about in a financial report simply are not even collected anymore, Mr Speaker. He voted for the Bill; he agrees with the new outputs-based accrual approach. He would not have voted for it if he did not agree with it. That information simply is not there; it does not exist.

I think you have to compare the whole situation under this Government with the situation that actually, really and truly happened under Mr Berry. Let us look at some of the dates involved. How timely were Mr Berry's quarterly reports, Mr Speaker? Remember that there were no monthly reports, just quarterly reports. The December 1993 quarterly activity report was actually tabled in the Assembly on 23 February, seven weeks after the end of the reporting period - not 15 days; seven weeks. It was a quarterly report. We actually had not had any figures on that particular quarter for three months plus seven weeks. The March 1994 quarterly activity report was actually tabled on 10 May, six weeks after the reporting period; again, not 15 days. The June 1994 quarterly activity report was tabled on 24 August, almost two months after the end of the reporting period - not 15 days; two months. The September 1994 quarterly activity report was tabled on 30 November, two months after the reporting period - not 15 days; two months.

Why was this the case, Mr Speaker? Why could not Mr Berry produce his quarterly reports - they did not even bother with monthly reports - in a more timely fashion than somewhere between six or seven weeks and two months? The reason was that the data does actually take a quite long time to put together. Mr Berry would know that; otherwise he was just stringing the Assembly along and was not willing to give us the information. That could have been the case, but the reality is that it does take time to put this data together; it takes time for information to come from each specialty area; it takes time for the various computer systems to have their information put together. If we were to report on a 15-day basis, Mr Speaker, I can tell you what: We would end up with the most patchy data you had ever seen. If Mr Berry is concerned that in some of the more complicated areas of our activity reports - that is, the individual reporting areas, such as the occasions of service area - if he thinks that is a bit of a problem now, I can promise that at 15 days it would be significantly worse.

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