Page 154 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
removed from that long-wait list because they have been waiting longer than they should have been waiting. That is good news for those 300 Canberrans and other people because they have got their surgery. We are targeting approximately 1,000 additional people to get their surgery; 1,000 people who have been waiting too long for their surgery and who are now going to get it. That is between now and the end of this financial year.
But, as I said to the Assembly yesterday, we are also putting in place a broad range of measures to ensure the sustainability of this level of performance because I do not want this to be just a one-off; this has to be a sustained level of performance to improve timeliness and access to elective surgery. That is why yesterday I outlined a very broad range of measures about what we are doing in this space and why I was so very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to say about all of those issues that I raised in the debate yesterday in this place. (Time expired.)
MADAM SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mrs Jones.
MRS JONES: Minister, does the federal ROGS show that across Australia as few as 1.8 per cent of elective surgery patients wait more than 365 days for surgery and as many as five per cent of patients in the ACT wait over a year?
MR CORBELL: It is the case, and I thank Mrs Jones for the question, that we do not see the levels of timeliness that we need and expect when it comes to elective surgery. That is why we are putting in place the measures that I have outlined. If the Liberals were so concerned about this issue and felt it was important to litigate these issues, they had a prime opportunity yesterday. I set out in a comprehensive statement to this place all the steps that are being taken to improve timeliness and efficiency in the delivery of elective surgery in the ACT. What did those opposite have to say about it? Nothing. No-one got to their feet. No-one had anything to say. No-one had any contribution at all.
I set out very clearly this government’s agenda to tackle this problem and to tackle it sustainably. I listed—
Mr Hanson: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
MR CORBELL: They don’t like it, Madam Speaker. You don’t like it, do you, Jeremy, because you have been called out?
MADAM SPEAKER: Point of order. Sit down, Mr Corbell. Stop the clock.
Mr Hanson: On a point of order on relevance, the question is about why patients in the ACT wait inordinately longer for surgery—that is, the long wait patients—than the rest of the nation, not what the opposition said or did not say in response to a ministerial statement.
MADAM SPEAKER: My recollection, and Mrs Jones can correct me if I am wrong, was that the question was: does ROGS show that 1.8 per cent across Australia wait as opposed to five per cent in the ACT? That is not quite what you said, Mr Hanson. But I will ask the minister to be directly relevant under standing order 118(a).
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video