Page 965 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
absolutely relevant stakeholders in this debate. I would have thought that all parties in this place would want to listen to the people who received the services and the support and get something out of this debate today that was relevant to those people, the people that really are the ones that matter when it comes to this discussion. But that is clearly not what the Liberal Party want. What they want is to bang on; they want to score political points, and the original language of Mr Hanson’s motion is absolutely testament to that.
Mr Hanson said he was not sure that he had received the answers to the questions in his motion. That is why Ms Bresnan, when she put forward the amendment she has, asked for a reporting date back to the Assembly, which Mr Hanson apparently does not agree with. He certainly did not bother putting that in his original motion, and I think this underlines the absolutely political nature of his original motion. He asked the minister to explain, but he did not bother putting a deadline in; he did not bother outlining a date on which he expected these answers. It is basic common sense: if you want something, you put a deadline on it. That is why all of our standing orders for questions on notice have deadlines. If you do not put a deadline on it, you do not get it. That is the way it seems to work in politics, which is perhaps not ideal, but that is the way the system goes.
In light of Mr Smyth’s comments, it is worth going through Ms Bresnan’s amendment line by line because, as per usual with the Liberal Party, it appears they have adopted the lazy approach and have not actually read what is before them. They also do not seem to have listened to Ms Bresnan’s speech, because there is a lot of substance in the amendment Ms Bresnan has suggested. She has identified at paragraph (1)(a)—I am going to read it out just because they may listen this time—
Mr Hanson: You’re not time-wasting, are you?
MR RATTENBURY: No. It says:
at least 27 patients suffering from cancer in Canberra were forced to travel interstate to receive radiotherapy treatment as a result of six radiotherapists resigning from The Canberra Hospital Radiation Oncology Unit;
That is a statement of fact, and actually rather more substantive than Mr Hanson’s “numerous patients”. Ms Bresnan has actually done the research. The next point in Ms Bresnan’s amendment is that:
ACT Health employed poor communication in advising patients they would have to travel interstate to access radiotherapy services;
That identifies the flaw that I think most of the members in this place share as a concern. Paragraph (1)(c):
there was a lack of communications between the Chemotherapy and Radiation Oncology units about patient treatment plans;
That is a very specific point that identifies the problem in terms of setting up a motion that can then actually see something done about it because the specific point has been identified. The next point is that the Assembly notes that:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video