Page 3593 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
any objective reading of all of the performance indicators used, women should have complete and total confidence in the service offered to them at the Canberra Hospital.
I also note that Mr Hanson said that he believes that the Chief Minister’s seeking of an audit of cases before the Medical Board is considered a witch-hunt—whereas releasing information about a public interest disclosure process around bullying and harassment in the workplace, just as long as you delete the names, is not about a witch-hunt. His inconsistency on those matters confirms what I have always thought about the shadow minister for health on this issue: it is not about patient safety, improving the service at the hospital or actually supporting the staff through what has been a very difficult time; it is all about political gain and attacking me in the process. As I said during question time today, that is absolutely fine; it is expected by this side of the chamber.
I commissioned the clinical services review because we were having women who were preparing to birth or attending the prenatal classes at the Canberra Hospital who were worried about the public commentary about the standard of care at the Canberra Hospital. We need to lay those concerns to rest. And as an Assembly, we need to stand behind the staff at the Canberra Hospital obstetrics unit and be very public in saying that the service that is offered at the Canberra Hospital, at the Calvary Public Hospital and indeed in the private units across Canberra are second to none and that women and their families should have confidence in seeking care and assistance with their delivery in these areas.
The government will not be supporting the motion, for a number of reasons, including the fact that we do not agree with a number of the assumptions included in Mr Hanson’s motion. On those grounds alone, it is impossible for the government to agree to them.
In relation to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, I wonder whether Mr Hanson has actually read the act. He has had a lot of time to do this since this matter was first discussed earlier this year. Let me go to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Let me go to what happened at the time, based on advice from GSO and based on feedback we were getting around the preparedness of staff—not staff in our unit, but staff outside the public system—and their desire to engage in a process. They made it clear that they would only engage in a process where they felt they were protected and their contributions could be confidential. The Public Interest Disclosure Act offers that security to people who want to participate—
Mr Seselja: Those are in the Inquiries Act.
MS GALLAGHER: It does not. Mr Seselja has bowled in here to start interjecting that the Inquiries Act offers the same protections.
Mr Hanson: You can have closed hearings, Katy.
MS GALLAGHER: It does not offer them the same protections. We did look very closely at this. Indeed, I do think—
Mr Hanson: I bet you did: “How can we get out of this?”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video