Page 648 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Stanhope: Stick to your speech.
MR COE: It is funny that they should have been quiet for the start of my speech, but it is very interesting that as soon as I start talking about Mr Stanhope’s credibility, his integrity and the fact that he hides behind public servants to shield himself from criticism he should be interjecting at that point. It is very disappointing. I think it is cowardly. You would think that a Chief Minister who has been in the job for almost nine years would have a little bit more faith in his own government, a little bit more faith in the institutions and the culture he has created over the last nine years in the public service departments that he operates. It is simply not good enough for him to say that the opposition cannot criticise government policies and government failures because, if we do so, we will be criticising public servants. We are not criticising public servants. Mr Stanhope is wrong.
The course of action the opposition has proposed in paragraph (2) of the motion is the one we think is most likely to provide the best outcomes for all Canberrans through a process which is fair and approachable and offers protection to witnesses. It is important to note that a board of inquiry pursuant to the Inquiries Act 1991 would have many benefits. For example, the board will have the power to summon witnesses and take evidence; at the hearings the evidence will be under oath or affirmation; and there will be penalties for people not appearing if summoned. There are many other benefits—too many to mention here.
What we need is to get to the bottom of the problems and find out the best way forward. The opposition’s plan is the best way for this to come about. Our plan will make it easier for people to give evidence in the knowledge that they will be protected in doing so. Our plan is far more likely to deliver the truth and give information leading to a resolution than any other option presented in this place or elsewhere in the public domain.
In paragraph (2)(d), Mr Hanson has outlined some of the issues we are dealing with:
… allegations of poor clinical outcomes, bullying and intimidation, poor communication, poor relationships between clinical staff and management, and of a toxic workplace environment across all departments of TCH …
Whilst it would be a great shame if it turns out that the problems extend beyond the obstetrics department of the Canberra Hospital, it is better to know about it so that we can take action than to be left in the dark. We must not be afraid of finding out the truth of these matters. We as elected members have a duty to seek the truth. By passing this motion today we will be fulfilling that responsibility. I urge all members to support Mr Hanson’s motion.
Question put:
That Ms Gallagher’s amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly voted—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video