Page 4849 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Two other elements have been taken out. One is:
… review current ACT Health policies and protocols for visiting hours and overnight stays by partners in shared postnatal wards …
Why would we want to do that? There has been some real concern raised by a lot of people in the community—and, you could contend, experts—who have concerns about those protocols and procedures. Having just had this incident occur, why would we not take this opportunity to review our protocols and procedures? I think it astounding that Ms Gallagher would be so arrogant as to think that there can be no improvements that can be made, that it is all working tickety-boo, that the policies and procedures are perfect and could not benefit from a review.
I am astounded that she would want to take out what is an opportunity to learn from what has occurred—to make sure that this does not happen again or certainly make sure that the risk of it happening again is reduced. It may be that there is no change required, but why not have a review, have a look at the procedures and policies, to see if that is the case?
Finally, what Ms Gallagher has removed is the paragraph on the need to report back to the Assembly. I see no reason not to. Private briefings—we are not talking about the individuals in the case. What I want to know is what the outcome of the review is, whether the procedures are right and whether we have the appropriate protocols in place. Let us have the minister come back to this chamber and tell us that, yes, the review has been conducted and there were breaches or there were not. We do not need to go into names, numbers and specific incidents; we just need to be reassured that the review has been conducted, that we have learned from it and that we are going to do everything that we can to mitigate the risk in the future.
To take those elements out of it weakens the motion. For that reason the opposition will not be supporting Ms Gallagher’s amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (3.37): I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate. Mr Seselja, I thank you for the comments that you made. Ms Gallagher, I am a little bit disappointed by your response. I am heartened to see that you do acknowledge that there have been some problems here and that they are certainly a cause for concern.
Ms Gallagher: I do not think I said that.
MR HANSON: If you did not say that then you do not have any cause for concern.
Ms Gallagher: I extended my concern for individuals.
MR HANSON: If all you said was that you extend some concerns for individuals and you think that nothing could possibly have gone wrong or could be improved on in the future—if that is your position then I am very disappointed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video