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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1433 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Their problem, I am advised, was totally to do with the traditional close-down period. The numbers have subsequently improved at that hospital as well. To the end of April, Calvary has reduced its numbers by more than 100.

Mr Speaker, I am more than happy, as I have said in my amendment, to table all of the data, and that includes the ministerial briefs involved that I have in my office. Normally in this place those opposite have opposed tabling ministerial briefs in their entirety. Mr Speaker, I have no problems in doing that. There is also a PAQ that I was given on this issue as well.

The documents that have come to my attention are very clear. I will explain what is here, Mr Speaker. There is the waiting list for elective surgery by specialty. They run over every month from July 1996 through to February 1997 at both hospitals, and all hospitals put together. It also has footnotes to explain the number of patients that were in the categories that I explained. In other words, Mr Speaker, in December 1996, say, it shows that it excludes 50 "not ready for care" patients who cannot be categorised, and so on. It actually outlines the number of people who were excluded in each month, back to July 1996, that we believe now should not have been excluded but should have been included under the national health data dictionary guidelines. All of that information is there. We then give, under this brief, the throughput data for January and February, including categories 1, 2 and 3, and the number of patients in each area, again at Canberra Hospital, at Calvary Hospital, and at all hospitals. This is the information that I have been given in this area.

Mr Speaker, we have tabled monthly data in this place ever since we came to government. We have been absolutely up front about this. We do not have 3,000 phantom operations. Waiting lists have not doubled, Mr Speaker. None of those things have happened. But, as part of an appropriate approach that we have taken, under our purchase agreements there is a requirement to relook at the way we do things in the departments. None of this is subject to anything but an internal approach.

Mr Berry: Well, why do you not give me all the details and agree with it?

MRS CARNELL: Because what are details? What is a detail, Mr Speaker? The reason I am moving this amendment is to make clear what is actually required here. I do not know what a detail is. A detail could be anything, for all I know. Mr Speaker, I think the information that I am tabling does outline the number of people that we believe were taken off inadvertently in the "not ready for care" category. That makes very clear how much our waiting lists were undercounted in that particular category. I assume that is the information Mr Berry wants.

What this information does show is that our hospital area is being very definite about getting the right information, Mr Speaker. Instead of going, literally, months and months - in fact, even longer, potentially years - without actually knowing how many operations they were doing, Mr Speaker, we do regular relooks at these things. These are not things that come to the Minister, necessarily, until the results come forward. It is just good management to have a relook every now and again at how you are counting, to make sure you are doing the right thing. I think that is an appropriate approach.

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