Page 2655 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think it is reasonable to say, “Here we go again.” Let us make sure that this is the right decision. If the evidence and the experts are saying something contrary, I think now would be a nice time to know so that we can make informed decisions. And this is all about open and accountable government. In opposition or in the community we do not have access to all the information. I do not have access to the experts.
We do freedom of information requests. We ask questions on notice. We work diligently. Indeed, it was only through a freedom of information request that we secured the strategic plan. Katy Gallagher said, “This is just a low-grade, minor sort of report.” No-one saw that. But the addressees on it include Ian Thompson, who is a very senior health official and is now running the hospital, Mark Cormack, who was the previous chief executive, and a number of other very senior health officials. So I think it is a little disingenuous for the minister to say that this is a strategy that does not have much of a part to play, when the strategy said very clearly that this should not be considered as something that would improve ED performance. Based on what the review has said, it did not.
Let me go to the review and what it found. Despite seeking evidence to inform development on the UK walk-in centre, the evidence was not fully used and some clear lessons were ignored, resulting in much of the evidence being lost in translation. There is no evidence from the national evaluation that co-located walk-in centres had any effect on attendance rates, process costs or outcomes at ED. This lack of evidence had significant implications for the establishment of a walk-in centre at the campus with a tertiary hospital, with a stated rationale of relieving pressure on the ED. Contrary to this rationale, the location of the ACT walk-in centre actually resulted in a net increase in ED activity.
This is not the Jeremy Hanson theory on what happened. This is an analysis that has been done. And it is interesting that Mr Gentleman and Dr Bourke were spruiking the report and the evaluation that was done of the walk-in centre—and they are happy to quote from that and rely on that—but when I quote from this document, the academic research, they say, “That’s just a report. That’s just someone’s opinion.” You cannot have it both ways.
What are we to rely on, if not experts from the Journal of Health Services Research and Policy who actually did a detailed analysis? If we are not going to accept their evidence, whose are we going to accept? Are we just going to simply say, “We will take Katy Gallagher at face value and we will just agree with what she says”?
We will not be supporting the Greens’ amendment because, once again, what we are seeing is a Greens’ amendment that ignores the nub of the motion. It is not going to provide us the evidence that we need regarding the paediatrics and it is not going to give us what we need, which is an independent performance review or audit of the emergency department.
The ministers say, “The Auditor-General can do one whenever she wants. She watches the debate. She is informed. She can do one when she wants.” But what the Auditor-General would be doing is watching the debate, looking at what the various
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video