Page 3224 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: The last issue I would like to go to is: are these waiting times important? And the answer is yes. Ask the woman with mastitis that we spoke to recently who went to the media about waiting in the emergency department for 10 hours; the person I met at the Mawson shops the other day who talked about her mother who was in the emergency department for about 36 hours; ask members of the community; and listen to the Auditor-General:
Staff generally supported an overall ‘length of stay’ target, as the concept of minimising a patient’s stay in the Emergency Department was widely supported in medical literature and a ‘length of stay’ indicator could consequently serve as a useful quality indicator.
So, as a final measure, let us not buy into the myth that waiting times are not important.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.02): I just want to add a few thoughts in relation to this matter, particularly on one of the recommendations in this report around the apology to Kate Jackson. I think this is an important point of principle, and I am pleased that in this case probably the most independent thinking of the Greens in Ms Le Couteur has obviously used some of that independence to draw some reasonable conclusions, along with Mr Smyth. The idea of apologising to Kate Jackson should be supported; it should occur, and the Chief Minister should do it without delay.
This is an issue where, as Mr Smyth has highlighted, Ms Jackson has done the wrong thing. No one is going to say that she has not. She has done the wrong thing, and that is clear. But she has also done the honourable thing, having done the wrong thing: she has resigned and taken responsibility for what she has done. We believe the absolutely deliberate leaking of her name is a political ploy. It was designed to get her picture and her name on the front page of the Canberra Times, which is exactly what happened. It was done in order to shield the Chief Minister from responsibility.
We do not believe that there should only be one person who resigns as a result of this. We believe she has been made a scapegoat. There are others who were involved. There was political pressure, and in the end the responsibility lies with the Chief Minister. But, at the very least, having not done the right thing but having taken responsibility in the way that Ms Jackson has, I think Ms Jackson is owed an apology. We have been hearing from staff within the hospital. We have been hearing from many staff within the hospital. Many of them have been telling us about serious problems they have with the culture in that place. But I have not heard any of them say a bad word about Ms Jackson. And that suggests to me that her reputation for good work and hard work was a well-deserved reputation.
Whilst this decision that she made to alter data was the wrong decision, she has taken responsibility for that, and I think that the decent and right thing to do now would be for the Chief Minister to offer an unreserved apology for seeking to make Ms Jackson a scapegoat—as the scapegoat for this scandal. She is not the only person involved, she is not the only person responsible, but she is the only person who has copped any
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video