Ms MARTIN - 1999-10-20
Yesterday the opposition tabled a report from Dr David Green which spelled out the Country Liberal Party’s failure to properly resource and maintain the accident and emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital. In his pathetic response yesterday, the minister’s only defence was that the CLP Cabinet had approved or was still dithering about or was thinking about the building of a new accident and emergency department.
Today on ABC radio’s Fred McCue program, Dr Paul Bauert, president of the Territory branch of the AMA, echoed the concerns expressed in that document. He cited, among other problems, repeated bureaucratic bungling which had seen the approval for an upgraded facility but no action taken, the resignation of 2 emergency physicians, the potential for legal action arising out of negligence, and the department being granted accreditation for 6 months instead of the normal 5 years, and said the current facilities were worse than second rate. Territorians can’t wait for a new accident and emergency department. What is the minister doing to address these concerns now?
ANSWER
Mr DUNHAM (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Speaker, I welcome the question. I didn’t get to hear Dr Bauert this morning, but I understand one of the things he did say is that, unlike Dr Green, he would happily take his family there for treatment. So would I. In fact, I have done so. I have sat in accident and emergency. It is not a pleasant place to sit, but I have sat in there waiting for kids to be sutured or whatever and I have been confident in the treatment they have received.
Before I go further, I table for the benefit of honourable members the real letter of Dr Green. Unfortunately, as happens from time to time in this House, the letter that was tabled yesterday is actually not Dr Green’s letter. I will say that the actual letter that was received by the medical superintendent is, in nearly all cases, pretty much the same for all intents. So I won’t say it’s a forging-and-uttering problem. But I will say that I believe we should be quoting from the letter that Dr Green sent, rather than the facsimile that was produced yesterday. This one is actually signed. The one yesterday was unsigned. So let’s start there.
Mr Stirling: They’re substantially the same.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, substantially the same. The difference is that one is signed and one is not, and the date is changed. There are a couple of minor things in there. I think one must be accurate in this House, and that’s what we’re attempting to be this morning.
The Leader of the Opposition has run the case that she’s not sure whether we’re dithering and whether the money is really there. She sat through the appropriation debate. She knows those numbers are real. She knows that the $6m is as good as having it in the bank. The opposition sometimes accuses us of a lack of consultation. When we do consult, when we do talk to people who have an interest in something, they call it bureaucratic dithering. We’ve consulted and we’re proud that we’ve consulted.
The original proposition was to substantially modify, alter and renovate the existing accident and emergency department. When we - including Dr Green, I might add - looked at that in more depth, we found that it was really better to get back to taws, start with a greenfield site and build an accident and emergency department that was contemporary. The present one is now 19 years old and was designed substantially before that. We didn’t anticipate that we’d be getting the throughput we get now. That’s not ‘we’ so much as the Commonwealth, which had capacity in this place at that time. And emergency medicine has changed remarkably. It’s now a speciality whereas previously it wasn’t.
Yes, 19 years down the track we have decided we will build a new A&E. I think it is an entirely responsible thing for the government to talk to the other stakeholders in it - not just the emergency specialists but also the other departments that hang off it like the imaging department and the intensive care unit. There is also some scope for us to look at a better relationship with our next-door neighbour, Darwin Private Hospital, making sure that when we build this facility we maximise the opportunities for the 2 hospitals to be in a win/win situation.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to tell the House all this. We have already told the shadow spokesman. He sat in my office. He’s seen the plans. He knows that what we’re doing is a good, reasonable and responsible thing for government to do. In consultation, I even speak to the opposition. I even allowed the opposition to have a look at this. I think that is a good thing for a consultative, open, transparent and responsible government to do.
Today on ABC radio’s Fred McCue program, Dr Paul Bauert, president of the Territory branch of the AMA, echoed the concerns expressed in that document. He cited, among other problems, repeated bureaucratic bungling which had seen the approval for an upgraded facility but no action taken, the resignation of 2 emergency physicians, the potential for legal action arising out of negligence, and the department being granted accreditation for 6 months instead of the normal 5 years, and said the current facilities were worse than second rate. Territorians can’t wait for a new accident and emergency department. What is the minister doing to address these concerns now?
ANSWER
Mr DUNHAM (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Speaker, I welcome the question. I didn’t get to hear Dr Bauert this morning, but I understand one of the things he did say is that, unlike Dr Green, he would happily take his family there for treatment. So would I. In fact, I have done so. I have sat in accident and emergency. It is not a pleasant place to sit, but I have sat in there waiting for kids to be sutured or whatever and I have been confident in the treatment they have received.
Before I go further, I table for the benefit of honourable members the real letter of Dr Green. Unfortunately, as happens from time to time in this House, the letter that was tabled yesterday is actually not Dr Green’s letter. I will say that the actual letter that was received by the medical superintendent is, in nearly all cases, pretty much the same for all intents. So I won’t say it’s a forging-and-uttering problem. But I will say that I believe we should be quoting from the letter that Dr Green sent, rather than the facsimile that was produced yesterday. This one is actually signed. The one yesterday was unsigned. So let’s start there.
Mr Stirling: They’re substantially the same.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, substantially the same. The difference is that one is signed and one is not, and the date is changed. There are a couple of minor things in there. I think one must be accurate in this House, and that’s what we’re attempting to be this morning.
The Leader of the Opposition has run the case that she’s not sure whether we’re dithering and whether the money is really there. She sat through the appropriation debate. She knows those numbers are real. She knows that the $6m is as good as having it in the bank. The opposition sometimes accuses us of a lack of consultation. When we do consult, when we do talk to people who have an interest in something, they call it bureaucratic dithering. We’ve consulted and we’re proud that we’ve consulted.
The original proposition was to substantially modify, alter and renovate the existing accident and emergency department. When we - including Dr Green, I might add - looked at that in more depth, we found that it was really better to get back to taws, start with a greenfield site and build an accident and emergency department that was contemporary. The present one is now 19 years old and was designed substantially before that. We didn’t anticipate that we’d be getting the throughput we get now. That’s not ‘we’ so much as the Commonwealth, which had capacity in this place at that time. And emergency medicine has changed remarkably. It’s now a speciality whereas previously it wasn’t.
Yes, 19 years down the track we have decided we will build a new A&E. I think it is an entirely responsible thing for the government to talk to the other stakeholders in it - not just the emergency specialists but also the other departments that hang off it like the imaging department and the intensive care unit. There is also some scope for us to look at a better relationship with our next-door neighbour, Darwin Private Hospital, making sure that when we build this facility we maximise the opportunities for the 2 hospitals to be in a win/win situation.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to tell the House all this. We have already told the shadow spokesman. He sat in my office. He’s seen the plans. He knows that what we’re doing is a good, reasonable and responsible thing for government to do. In consultation, I even speak to the opposition. I even allowed the opposition to have a look at this. I think that is a good thing for a consultative, open, transparent and responsible government to do.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016