Page 3332 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
every single thing I have ever done in relation to Calvary and that this government has ever done has been about the long-term best interests of the health system of this city. That is what has been directing it. I stand here and say that I do not think it is in the long-term best interests of this city’s health system to have two separate operators of two public hospitals. I have formed this view after years in this job and looking at where we need to be in the future. It is a view that I still hold.
However, regardless of my personal opinion about that, we will seek to resolve this with Little Company of Mary as quickly as we can to ensure that the north-side hospital, whatever form that takes, is the hospital that suits the needs of this community, and the government negotiations will be directed to that line alone.
I cannot predict where Calvary will go. I do not think there is a clear pathway through. But the argument that we have not invested in Calvary because of this is simply incorrect. We have invested. It just has not been an open blank cheque in moving forward. It was not able to be sustained off our bottom line.
In relation to the obstetrics review, I have been verballed a number of times by the opposition in relation to this. I think Mr Hanson had better have a look at his media release around some of the slant that the Liberals have put on comments that I made. Mr Seselja, I think, repeated the claim today that I bullied people who came forward to make complaints. That is incorrect. I have not. The comments that you use in relation to my response around doctor politics, I have to say, I still stand by. I think there is a fair bit of doctor politics in this. I do. I said it to all the doctors involved. I have seen evidence of it. I have seen written evidence of the doctor politics alive and well in this debate. I stand by that. However, the review that I commissioned—and let us remember I commissioned this review—
Mr Smyth: Yes, under pressure.
Mrs Dunne: Under pressure.
MS GALLAGHER: No, not under pressure. Not under pressure—seeking to respond to the issues that have been raised that again attacked confidence in our health system. Let us remember what I was responding to. The clinical review was not responding to issues of bullying and harassment. The clinical review was responding to claims of inadequate quality of care being delivered through the public health system’s maternity service. So let us just get that right from the beginning. That is what I was responding to. We had women fronting up at Canberra Hospital worried about the quality of care they would receive. That is what I was responding to.
What has the clinical review found? It found that there are no concerns around the quality of care at the Canberra Hospital. Indeed, it found that the quality of care at Canberra Hospital on 16 of the 19 indicators assessed is superior to any other maternity service benchmark. That is what the review found, and that is the concern that I was responding to.
Let us look at the review and go through some of the issues that the review has found. I think it is relevant to go through what led to these issues being raised. The review asks: why now? It states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video