Page 2654 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Burch: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think he was asked to withdraw. You asked that they be referred to—
Mr Smyth: She did, he did. Wake up!
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, I will—
MR HANSON: Can you stop the clock, if that is possible? This is dragging on a bit.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we will stop the clock, please. Mr Hanson, would you like to formally withdraw those comments please?
MR HANSON: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. But the point I want to make is that Dr Bourke and Mr Gentleman, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally, are missing the point of the motion. The motion is not: do we like the walk-in centre or not? Is it providing a service to a lot of people in our community or not? Do people, when we are door-knocking, like it or not? The point of the motion is that the evidence drawn from the national health service and the analysis by Katy Gallagher’s own department shows that the walk-in centre, if you put it at the Canberra Hospital, will cause problems at the emergency department, will increase activity. It has been found in this report to have increased activity at the ED. That is the point of this motion. That is what we are talking about.
So the point Mr Gentleman needs to consider is: if you had knocked on doors and said, “Do you like the walk-in centre but are you aware that the analysis is that they are going to increase pressure at the ED and your children will wait longer at the ED, and the minister is out there telling them something different?”, I wonder whether you would have got the same response. Perhaps not. And this is where the members either intentionally or unintentionally are trying to spin this into a “do we like nurses or not” type motion. That is not the nub. The nurses in the walk-in centre do a good job, work hard, are very well qualified. The issue is not about them.
The issue is about the fact that a service was put at the Canberra Hospital that the evidence has found has increased activity at the ED. The department said it would increase activity at the ED, and the minister was out there spruiking the opposite, the minister was out there saying, “It’s going to fix the problem. It’s going to release the pressure on the ED,” and it simply was not true.
What I am saying, through this motion, is that we now have another situation where, based on what is obviously a conversation between Katy Gallagher, the minister, and Ross Solly, she has been boasting about how she has gone off and ignored her department’s advice. Health officials have warned against having a paediatric ED but she is going to do it anyway and she has gone off and secured some money. And the point I want to clarify is: is history repeating itself? Are we going to have the same situation where Katy Gallagher has been only telling one side of the story and, you could say, mis-telling it or certainly putting a gloss on it?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video