Page 805 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 28 March 2023

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Let me answer a couple of points here. Firstly, when Ms Stephen-Smith became aware that she had indeed misled this place, that there had been a breach and there had been a nurse that had provided information to the union, as we had asked, she could have come in here and explained it. She just said she does it all the time. Well, why did she not? Why did she not come in here and say, “Members, yesterday I said this has not happened in Australia and that there is no evidence of it happening elsewhere. I have been advised that is not the case. There has been. I correct the record.” Why not correct that? That is the form in this place. She said in her speech that it is what she has done before. That is what we would expect, that would be normal, that is reasonable, and we would get on with our business.

The next point, and this is a bit more tricky from the minister, is—and I provided the words so we could read it; it is all before you—she said the word “deliberate”, but, when she was quoting from Ms Castley's question, she started saying “deliberately”, and then that the other breach was “accidental”. That was never part of the question, nor part of the answer. To be frank, if you are a patient who has had your records leaked inappropriately by someone to the union, I am not sure you care whether it was an accident or whether it was deliberate, or over which period it occurred. The minister has inserted the inflection that it is okay, it was completely different, because what Ms Castley was talking about was something deliberate and this was an accident. That is not what we asked. That is not what Ms Castley said. “There has been a leak of information. Has this happened elsewhere?” The minister said, “No, that is not true.” That is the nub of it.

I notice there is an audience here that does not get to speak but listens to us waffle on about this, so I will keep my comments short now. If there had been a misleading, it would have been a simple thing for the minister to come and correct it. In her speech, she has tried to infer a meaning and insert words that Ms Castley did not infer, and that is pretty rank to be honest. I commend this motion to the Assembly.

Question put:

That the motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 7

Noes 14

Mr Cain

Mr Braddock

Dr Paterson

Ms Castley

Ms Burch

Mr Pettersson

Mr Cocks

Ms Cheyne

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Hanson

Ms Clay

Mr Steel

Mrs Kikkert

Ms Davidson

Ms Stephen-Smith

Ms Lawder

Mr Davis

Ms Vassarotti

Mr Milligan

Mr Gentleman

Ms Orr

Question resolved in the negative.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video