Page 1121 - Week 03 - Thursday, 18 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS GALLAGHER: I have already acknowledged that under the original proposal it is late, but that proposal has changed significantly. For example, the building that we sought to build for adult mental health facilities was larger than it is going to be now, and that was based on some very lengthy consultations that I held with consumers, who were very unhappy about the proposed size of the building. We then took a decision to have a smaller adult inpatient unit and co-locate it with a secure facility. There was some unhappiness about that in the mental health community—about co-locating those facilities. At the time I believed it was the best option to have them co-located due to the smallness of their size.
When we got to the detailed design work of the adult inpatient facility, it became clear that both buildings would potentially be compromised on that block because of the need to provide some confidentiality and protection from the rest of the hospital. Then the government took the decision to move the secure unit, which I think has been welcomed by mental health groups, but we had to then go through a process of consultation about where to place that secure unit. We have now finished that consultation process. We have now got the block of land identified. I hope that it continues to go smoothly and that we will be able to start construction of that building within 12 months.
Canberra Hospital—obstetric unit review
MR HANSON: My question is to the Minister for Health and relates to the secret review into allegations of bullying within the obstetric and gynaecology unit of the Canberra Hospital. Minister, what was the selection process to select the reviewer, who selected the reviewer, and has the reviewer undertaken reviews under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 previously; if so, how many?
MS GALLAGHER: I reject and find offensive Mr Hanson’s preamble of a “secret review”. There is not a secret review.
Mr Seselja: You won’t even reveal the name.
MS GALLAGHER: This is the information that is available to everybody—that it is an independent person with experience in handling workplace issues, doing a public interest disclosure process with staff that have requested very strict confidentiality requirements to participate in it. And nobody else is complaining about this apart from Jeremy Hanson. Jeremy Hanson and the opposition are the only people who are continuing to try and interfere with this process. Nobody else is.
In relation to the person that is doing it, it is beyond me why they keep perpetuating this myth that it is a secret review. I cannot think of one review quite like this that has got the kind of attention that this has. The terms of reference are out there; the contact officer is out there; anyone who wants to participate is encouraged to participate and we have—
Mr Smyth: Encouraged?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video