Page 2347 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(i) the median waiting time for elective surgery in the ACT (days waited at the 50th percentile) has worsened from 72 to 75 days, which is 31 days longer than the national average of 34 days;
(ii) the length of time that the majority of people have been waiting for their elective surgery in the ACT (days waited at the 90th percentile) has worsened from 372 to 378 days, which is 158 days longer than the national average of 220 days; and
(iii) the percentage of people who have waited more than a for elective surgery in the ACT has worsened from 10.3% to 10.6% which is more than three times the national average of 2.9%;
(c) patients waiting for surgery that should be completed within 60 days (Category 2A) are included in the numbers of people who have been waiting for over a year;
(d) allegations have been made about possible manipulation or mismanagement of the elective surgery waiting list and that some patients have been downgraded categories; and
(e) the Auditor-General conducted an audit of ‘Waiting Lists for Elective Surgery and Medical Treatment’ in 2004, and is interested in revisiting the subject; and
(2) requests the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of ‘Waiting Lists for Elective Surgery and Medical Treatment’ and consider as part of that audit concerns raised about the management of the elective surgery waiting list.”.
I spoke earlier about the reasons behind the moving of this amendment. We thought the best course of action was to refer the matter to the Auditor-General, given that Ms Pham indicated that this was a topic she was interested in examining. In our conversations with her today she is still keen to pursue this issue and look at the management of the elective surgery waiting lists. That is why we have put forward this option and made the amendment to the Liberals’ motion.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (8.48): I thank Ms Bresnan for her amendment to my motion. The opposition will be supporting Ms Bresnan’s amendment principally because I think it is quite clear that the minister is going to be unwilling to provide the information that I have sought in my motion. I have asked for some very specific information for her to bring back. It is quite clear from her amendment and from her speech that she is not prepared to do that. If we want to get an answer as to what has occurred it is quite clear that we need to go to a third party. I had some discussions with the Greens about this and the appropriate vehicle.
The Auditor-General certainly is an appropriate vehicle to get to the bottom of what has been going on and determine whether we are seeing the true face of elective surgery lists, particularly category 1s, in order to make sure that the lists are actually managed as effectively as they can be by the minister. Although there have been some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video