Page 3383 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Again, I am sure all present would give the minister leave to stand in this place and simply make an unreserved apology to the family at the time of their great distress.
Ms Gallagher: I have. I have just said it about a hundred times, Brendan.
MR SMYTH: I have not heard you say it. But that is the point; it is the way you make an apology. If you have read their document, they go on to say:
Family members who watched the apology felt—like the written apologies—he did not adequately address our family’s concerns.
I give you full credit, minister; you have acknowledged that there were concerns and you have acknowledged there was failure in the process. And that is a good thing. But what the family is saying—and I will quote their words:
Family members who watched the apology felt—like the written apologies—he did not adequately address our family’s concerns. Therefore, in our minds, the existing apologies did not come remotely close to actually saying sorry.
How could they? I continue:
This situation has left the family members feeling as though Dad was simply a number and no respect was given to him and that we as his family and individuals were treated similarly without respect or acknowledgement.
What I am simply saying is that there are obviously feelings there, feelings that could be easily addressed by the minister simply standing and saying quite clearly, “I, myself, and on behalf of ACT Health, unequivocally apologise for any distress caused to them.” If it is a lack of clarity that is the problem then the opportunity here on the public record is a good opportunity to clear that issue up.
It is interesting that as late as the 18th, according to the Canberra Times, Ms Sewell is quoted as saying:
Therefore, in our minds, the existing apologies did not come remotely close to actually saying sorry.
Obviously, if it is a communication gap, there is an opportunity here simply to close the gap. And that is all I am saying. If there are more substantive problems then perhaps the department needs to take that up with the Sewell family.
I think it is important that we get this right. I think it is important that where something like this goes wrong and then it is exacerbated by the phone call, “Please come and get the patient’s garments”—it must be hard to understand what effect that would have on the family; they are tough times; I think all of us who have lost loved ones know how tough they can be—that insult to injury must be eating at the family and must be quite distressing in that regard.
I think there are a number of simple things that could be done here. Firstly, it would be interesting to hear the minister explain how the process will actually work in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .