Page 1646 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I quote from Hansard of 6 December 2011, which is just one of those examples:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the year—
and this is after questioning about emergency department data from me—
to October 2011, category 1, 100 per cent; category 2, 83 per cent, which is four per cent above last year’s data at the same time; category 3, 60 per cent; category 4, 54 per cent; category 5, 80 per cent; and overall, all categories on target, 63 per cent. So there is significant improvement.
And so on:
But I think, overall, the EDs are well on track to meeting the government priority which we have established at 70 per cent of all presentations being seen on time.
So she misled the Assembly then. Mr Smyth then asked her to table that data, and she agreed to do so. That is but one occasion of the many where Ms Gallagher has come into this place with falsified data, which she now knows is falsified. She now knows she misled this Assembly, but she has not come into this place, in accordance with the ministerial code of conduct, and corrected the record at the earliest opportunity.
Members, I do not see how, based on what has occurred in this place under her own ministerial code of conduct, which she makes great noise about and has spoken about improving recently, she has not broken it, black and white. There is absolutely no question. Any decision by this Assembly not to censure the minister needs to be explained. I believe the Greens will not be supporting this motion. So I will need to hear from them how they are explaining that—having seen that the minister has broken her own ministerial conduct, has misled this Assembly, has not yet retracted, not yet apologised, not yet withdrawn, how we could possibly not censure.
I turn to the facts of the matter, Mr Speaker, and why we need a board of inquiry. The motion before members today outlines in some detail what has occurred. I think that it is important to understand the facts of the matter. But what we do know is that the emergency department results are important.
The Medical Journal of Australia in February released a paper from some well-recognised clinicians that said that the reduction in waiting times in WA as a result of the four-hour rule had saved 80 lives. So the reduction in emergency department waiting times had saved 80 lives. Recognising that, recognising the importance of emergency department waiting times, all states and territories and the federal government have signed up to meeting targets. Those targets are now linked to financial reward payments to states and territories.
We also know, and I think we would all be intimately aware of it in this place, that Katy Gallagher has been under significant pressure when it comes to emergency department waiting times. They have been poorly performing. In fact, the AIHW came out yesterday and showed that we have the worst results in the nation and, indeed, the worst in the ACT’s history. They are the AIHW figures, which appear to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video