Page 1656 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
ED waiting times also tell us nothing about patient outcomes. There have been a number of groups and organisations who have made this point, along with an opinion piece on this issue in the Canberra Times by Associate Professor Paul Middleton, an emergency medicine specialist. I will read some extracts from that, because Mr Hanson has referred to how they have led to some good patient outcomes in WA. A number of negatives have come out about these indicators as well. This opinion piece states:
The Four Hour Rule is a policy based on good intentions, however in practice, emergency doctors and nurses are concerned that the imposition of arbitrary targets like these will compromise the care given to patients.
In Britain’s National Health Service, where the Four Hour Rule has existed since 2004, concerns over the implementation and impact of the rule have been significant.
He goes to the issue of Western Australia:
Closer to home, the Western Australian health system implemented the Four Hour Rule in 2009, and research published in the Medical Journal of Australia stated that the policy has been effective in reducing mortality rates and overcrowding, but that it had also led to some staff, especially junior doctors, coming under increased stress and pressure.
It is just worth pointing out those facts. As to the censure motion today against the health minister, it is the Greens’ view that there is no cause for censure as there are not even any specific allegations that the minister acted inappropriately, let alone any evidence of wrongdoing by the minister. The minister made the matter public as soon as was possible and has been forthcoming with information, and I acknowledge that. The minister also then handed over the matter to the Deputy Chief Minister. I think the minister has acted in a proper manner, probably over and above what would normally have been done, I would like to say.
Mr Hanson even admitted in the media that he had no evidence to support his allegations. It is just that he thought something “pretty bad” had occurred. It is the anonymous email all over again, I have to say, and I am astounded to see Mr Hanson has included that in the motion and again referred to it in his speech. I asked Mr Hanson in the briefing that we attended with officials from the health department if he had any idea who the email was for. He did not. “Were they from Calvary? Did they work in the health system?” No idea. Yet this is included in the motion today. This is now the basis on which the Canberra Liberals will move censures, again devaluing the serious nature of what censures stand for.
This really is base politics from the Liberals. Trying to drag a member’s family into their tactics now shows there is no level too low for them in trying to score political points. I guess this is a tactic we possibly can all expect being a target of at some point as the election approaches. Mr Hanson keeps referring to a stench—we have heard that a number of times. The only stench is around the willingness of Mr Hanson to sink lower and lower as the months go on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video