Page 3679 - Week 12 - Thursday, 13 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: This could be a bed here.
MR STEVENSON: That is right. Why could it not be? That is the point. How do we know what a bed is? We have to look at the definition, first of all, before we can tell. I would appreciate it if the Minister - and I am certain the Assembly will give him leave to do so - stood up and let us know the exact definition of a bed. If he is accused of not indicating the correct bed numbers, we have to know what it is that he did or did not include. It is another relevant point that, if the number is increased by a reclassification, that data has to be given. You cannot say that you have more of something when you did not really have more; you have counted different forms of the thing. I would appreciate the Minister handling that point specifically.
Mr Humphries certainly grants that the Minister correctly passed on the figures that he was given by the Health Department. Mr Kaine makes the point strongly that that is not enough; that a Minister, any Minister, has a responsibility to make sure that those figures are correct. If it was just a question of one situation, one could understand that the responsibility may not be very high. If a Minister is asked again and again about a specific area - in this case, bed numbers - it is reasonable that he not just get figures from the department, but go the extra mile and do whatever is necessary to make sure that those figures are correct; and then stand by them. It is also a valid argument that the Minister makes that hospitals use as many beds as they can - I can understand that - for Federal funding. It makes sense. Those details need to be explained clearly in this house.
Apparently, there are some things that are agreed upon. It was agreed that the Minister said that there were 24 beds coming on stream immediately. We all understand what "coming on stream" means. It means "going to be here". If the adverb is "immediately", they are going to be here right now. They were not. We know that. The Minister also has an obligation to explain why something does not happen. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that; you simply explain it. If there were - and I am not 100 per cent sure - seven paediatric beds opened and then closed, you cannot really count them as being available in the ACT. There is also the question of the neonatal beds. At this time, I am not certain either way. However, I am certain that there are more matters that need to be explained, and I am also certain that it is difficult to hear when other people are talking in the Assembly.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.51): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I want to express my total confidence in Mr Connolly as a Minister. I regard him as an exceptionally capable Minister, any way that you want to measure that. He is certainly a Minister who has thrown himself into the health portfolio with a great deal of vigour, intelligence and integrity, and at a time - as I am sure every Health Minister in the country would agree - when it is extremely difficult for any Minister to handle this large and complex portfolio.
Madam Speaker, what we have seen over the course of the past week or so is a concerted attack by the Opposition on this Minister - an attack which has consisted of continually raising one allegation after another about different aspects of bed numbers, different aspects of health budgeting, different aspects of patient treatment, and so on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .