Page 3125 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Another point that is always made is that our emergency departments are amongst the best in Australia for treating people in emergency situations. It is true that the waits are longer than average for non-emergency patients waiting in an emergency department, but that is what we are going to get if we want to see emergency patients in emergency units receive quality care as a rapid response. If the Liberals are arguing we should prioritise non-emergency patients higher, that would come at a cost. Or the Liberals could be arguing that constituents can have it all. That is something we need to work towards achieving, but, as we have seen from all states, this is an ongoing matter when it comes to emergency departments.
On the issue of quality of care, Mr Hanson has said in hearings that I was trying to perpetuate some myth about the four-hour waiting time being a poor measure. The Auditor-General’s report is highly critical of this measure, and the first recommendation in the report covers this. It is noted in the report that this measure was open to manipulation in the United Kingdom where it was first introduced and is now no longer in use.
It is true that this measure was not in use for the entire period that data was manipulated. However, concerns have been expressed about the EDIS system—the system that was used and is used in just about every other jurisdiction—being misused in New South Wales and Victoria in the past, and these are also raised in the Auditor-General’s report.
The other issue is that Mr Hanson seems to have no comprehension of the impact his constant running down of the health system is having on the people who work in the system every day and work hard to deliver health care. A number of health groups have said to me how they are sick of the focus of the debate and the huge impact it is having on staff morale. The claims that all staff have a cloud over them and using this to score political points shows a major disregard for the people who deliver health care in the ACT.
The second and third clauses in Mr Seselja’s motion argue that the Minister for Health was responsible for the staff member that altered emergency department waiting times and that the Minister for Health failed to disclose her connections with the staff person that altered the data. The Auditor-General has cleared the minister of any wrongdoing throughout this process. The minister is not at all related to the wrongdoings by the staff member, and I believe the Chief Minister has been very up-front about this from the start.
The minister gave evidence to the Auditor-General under oath. To give false or misleading information during examination is a serious offence under part 3.4 of the Criminal Code. I will go to the transcript from the hearing with the public accounts committee on the matter where Mr Stanton from the Auditor-General’s office talks about the implications of giving false evidence. This was in relation to a question I asked:
You pointed out the seriousness of giving evidence under oath and the implications of that. Can you outline quickly the criminal penalties which you referred to? What are the implications of giving false evidence?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video