Page 3338 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The nature of the Calvary debate in this chamber is more akin to policy differences than mismanagement, and so the Greens cannot agree to a no-confidence motion on this matter. There are things that have gone wrong along the way, but it appears they have been outside the minister’s control. Take, for example, the intervention by the archbishop or the time it would take for the Catholic Church to discuss and approve any proposal. These are things outside the minister’s control. Also out of her hands is the introduction of the new accounting standard. But, given its introduction, we think the minister has acted appropriately.
In concluding the Greens’ response today on the matter of Calvary, can I say how pleased we are that we did not agree to the proposal that the hospice be part of the deal. The Greens sought to break the nexus between the Calvary hospital and the hospice, and we remain glad that we stood our ground.
Moving to the issue of the obstetricians, this is much more a debate of management rather than policy differences. Part of the problem with the recent obstetrician issues has been how the history of this conflict has continued to impact on how more recent allegations have been assessed. I take the chamber back to the events of 2003 to 2005.
In 2003, the Chairman of the ACT State Committee of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists made similar allegations about clinical outcomes and the obstetrics unit at the Canberra Hospital. The health commissioner conducted an investigation and found the allegations to be false. The commissioner also recommended that private obstetricians be reminded that they should use the proper process available to make complaints about other obstetricians.
The health commissioner’s report, while appropriate at the time, is likely to have been the cause of some confusion for those outsiders who were more recently involved in trying to determine whether there was any truth in the allegations of poor clinical outcomes and bullying and harassment within the obstetrics unit.
The questions about the minister’s actions come down to how she responded to the latest allegations of bullying and harassment. It seems reasonable for a person, having heard about the allegations that were raised in February of this year through the media, to assume that the latest set of allegations had a link with those that had been raised in the past and had been found to be unsubstantiated, although one would need to be cautious as something may have changed since then.
Statements that the minister made in February of this year implied that the allegations were all part of the ongoing conflict between the private and public obstetricians. She did not completely discount their substantiation but implied that their substantiation was unlikely. A summary of some of the things she said on 18 February to the media include: “If there is an issue let’s deal with it. But if there aren’t any issues that can be substantiated, stop throwing stones and damaging the unit.” “Obstetrics in the ACT has a long and troubled history over a number of years; the politics go back 15 years.” “I don’t want to discount anyone raising issues.” “At this point all I’ve seen is a lot of mud being slung around and no substantiation.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video