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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 979 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

We now have an accredited hospital that does an extraordinarily good job. There is no doubt, though, that we have some problems, predominantly access problems and financial problems, but certainly not professional treatment problems. I suggest that Mr Berry, when he closes this debate, should withdraw that comment because it is unacceptable.

This is a motion from somebody who stands accused as a Minister for all of the things that happened at Woden Valley Hospital while he was in charge - similar incidents to this one, four budget blow-outs out of four, which is a pretty good effort. What did he do about it? What did Mr Berry do about four out of four? He stopped being Health Minister; I suppose that was something. I am somewhat stunned by this motion. Perhaps Mr Berry should stop treating this as a joke and milking it politically for everything he can.

There are significant problems associated with health - there is no doubt about that - and this particular incident is totally unacceptable to everybody in this house and to almost everyone in the community. There were a few letters to the Canberra Times from people who thought it was all right; but I think they were unusual ones, to say the least. Everybody is saying that this is unacceptable behaviour. The good part is that the two doctors involved have also admitted totally that it is unacceptable behaviour, and they are cooperating with the inquiries that are under way. In fact, there are four separate inquiries under way. Mr Berry did not seem to be terribly interested in that. He just wanted another inquiry to look at something different.

The allegation centres upon the inappropriate use of hospital facilities at Woden Valley Hospital by medical officers who treated a dog - one dog; not dogs, animals, thousands of them, as Mr Berry has said - on 20 March this year. Quite clearly, this action was contrary to policies and procedures of the hospital. The two doctors involved have already been counselled and chased up and down their drives by people with cameras and all the rest of it, and I think they deserve everything they get. That is certainly my view. But the matter does not stop there. At the instigation of my office, a series of investigations have been launched into the incident and other unsigned allegations, which I am sure other members of this Assembly have also received.

Senior management at the hospital are currently conducting a preliminary inquiry, the results of which are expected later this week. An authorised officer under the Public Sector Management Act has been appointed. I do not know how Mr Berry can think for a moment that our fraud prevention unit in the Office of Public Administration is not independent. Quite seriously, if our fraud investigation unit is not independent, then we should not have a fraud investigation unit; but I know that it is. It was set up under the Public Sector Management Act, which we all passed in this place, exactly for a situation where it is alleged that public assets are used inappropriately, where there is inappropriate performance by people while working for the ACT Government in any area. Our fraud investigation unit is that independent body and has the powers to be so. Following this report, that is, the Public Sector Management Act report, a bill will be sent to the doctors involved requiring payment for the use of facilities and the professional time involved. I have said time and time again that I expect them to pay, and I expect them to pay big. I expect that this account will run into many thousands of dollars.

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