Page 958 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is a statement of fact. Why are we deleting things that we know to be true? Because it is inconvenient. Because it makes the case. Because, as a minister, we do not have an answer. Because “we from the Greens do not have an answer to it because we are here covering up for the minister yet again”. The motion continues:
(i) despite being alerted to the situation by the media on Friday, 26 February 2010, when interviewed on Tuesday, 2 March … the Minister … was unable to explain key aspects of what had gone wrong, nor how many patients were required to travel interstate for treatment …
Again, it is a statement of fact. Why is it appropriate to remove facts like this from these motions? Because it is a cover-up for the minister, in the case of the Greens, and because, from the minister’s point of view, they just have on the record her ineptitude.
Let me go to part (2), which calls on the minister to do a few things. We ask the minister to:
(a) explain:
(i) the cause of the communication breakdowns that occurred within ACT Health and between ACT Health and patients suffering from cancer …
It is not an unreasonable ask. What went wrong? Before you can genuinely fix something, you normally need to find out what went wrong. Minister, if you are doing your job, the first thing you ask is: “What went wrong?” “Okay; let’s rectify that situation. If it is something we can control, let us fix it. If it is beyond our control, let us have a look at how we can ameliorate the impact.” Let me go to (2)(a)(ii). It says:
(ii) what action she—
that is, the health minister—
has taken to ensure that the breakdowns in communication have been resolved and will not occur again …
I am not sure what is wrong with that. We have got a problem. We are having this debate today. We all know there is a problem. We are asking the minister what she has done. Why would you delete that? Why would you get rid of asking the minister to explain how she is being a minister? It is either covering up for her ineptitude, as the Greens are doing, or, as an inept minister, that you just want it all to go away—as the minister has gone away from this debate. Here we are, having a substantive debate on health, and the minister leaves the room. Let me go back to the motion. Part (2)(a)(iii) asks the minister to explain:
… why at least six radio oncology staff resigned at short notice …
What analysis have you done? What have you put in place to make sure that this does not happen? Let me go to part (2)(b):
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video