Page 3347 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I just draw your attention to a few of the actual things the inquiry would do. The terms of reference include: to review and evaluate internal governance and management practices and procedures; to evaluate the organisational and administrative arrangements; to assess any current impediments; to assess the adequacy of things like beds and related equipment; to assess the adequacy of suitably trained qualified staff to provide the services required, especially in emergency; to evaluate the government’s strategies to meet the future needs of the population for hospital services; and, finally, to consider and evaluate any other related matters.
The process is important, too, because the inquiry calls for submissions from key stakeholders. It will analyse available sources for insights in relation to governance, management, administration and organisational arrangements. It will collect data and facts, present specific questions of fact and interpretation to stakeholders, agencies and individuals requesting responses. It will do follow-up questions and conduct public hearings and cross-examinations of any interested parties. It is very thorough. It is basically a very thorough core process. The inquiry will prepare an interim report, which will include a draft concept, framework and process to implement sustainable hospital governance, management and administration and organisational arrangements. It will analyse submissions on the draft report and finalise the report to deliver to the government.
It is a very thorough process. The Gallop inquiry was a very thorough process. The government did not necessarily like it. The government probably thought Gallop went overboard in a few things, and there were complaints—and I recall them—about the inquiry. But at the end of the day it was thorough. There were recommendations for improvement, and those recommendations could not have been made in such a thorough way had it not been such a powerful inquiry. It was an inquiry conducted under the Inquiries Act. It was independent of government and there was no way that anyone could allege that the government could interfere with it, as people might allege if the government is doing some sort of internal review. It was open, accountable, in the public—in your face, if you like—and very, very thorough to ensure that the issues were canvassed.
The inquiry I propose would not just be reacting to one issue; for example, a tragic death or an outbreak of some infection in a particular ward or something like that. Rather, it would be a systemic inquiry. That is what is needed because, of all the areas of government, health is one of the most difficult. We all know that. Anyone who has been in government knows that. That is just a fact, and it is not going to get any easier. But if you want to make it that a little bit easier than it is now, if you want to ensure that your service delivery and your systems match the challenges that we are experiencing now and will experience in the future—I think we have a pretty fair idea of what they are—then you will do yourselves a favour by actually having an inquiry. You will be showing that you are accountable for a change. You will be showing that you are not hypocrites. You led the charge for an inquiry in relation to three tragic deaths in disability services. Mr Stanhope said:
This is an inquiry into service quality, service monitoring and accountability, consumer protection, and resource allocation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .