Page 5926 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(2) calls on Members of the Assembly to:
(a) respect the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 and those victims of workplace bullying that do not wish to have their workplace matters made public; and
(b) recognise that, if the investigation into a public interest disclosure is concluded, under clause 24(3)(d) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994, the people who made the public interest disclosure can ask for a progress report which shall include the authority’s findings and any action it has taken or proposes to take as a result of its findings; and
(3) calls on the Government to provide to the Assembly details of any changes to bullying policies or procedures, as well as any changes in the manner in which bullying policies or procedures have been implemented, in ACT Health since February 2010.”.
I would like to address the amendments which I have put forward. Going to paragraphs (1)(a) to (1)(e), it seems that there is still some misunderstanding about when the complaints were first raised and when their substance was provided. The comments that have been attributed to the minister are correct. Ms Gallagher did say at first that the complaints were a part of doctor politics and mud-slinging and that there had been a 10-year war in obstetrics. They are facts of the matter.
Going to paragraph (1)(b), it seems inappropriate for us to say that a number of doctors have moved on due to workplace conflict, because we do not know if that is true. We simply do not know the circumstances around each doctor’s departure; to write about the departures in our public Hansard in the way that Mr Hanson has suggested is an inappropriate way to place their employment status on the public record.
Going to (1)(f), Mr Hanson asserts that the minister made threats to review 10 years of Medical Board outcomes in an attempt to intimidate doctors who made complaints. Most of us here know that doctors are quite capable of lobbying and advocating for their needs. They would not put up with any threats and are quite capable of saying no. Yet in this case the obstetricians willingly provided their statistics to the clinical outcomes review. I find it hard to agree to (1)(f), as what Mr Hanson asserts does not seem to be the case at all.
Going to (1)(g), it is true that the Canberra Liberals called for an open, public inquiry into the complaints. To be specific, however, the Liberals called for a board of inquiry pursuant to the Inquiries Act 1991 that would have seen victims forcefully subpoenaed and would have been a grossly inappropriate way of dealing with concerns about bullying and workplace conflict.
I do agree with item (1)(h) in Mr Hanson’s motion, which notes:
… the Review of Service Delivery and Clinical Outcomes at Public Maternity Units in the ACT stated ‘The review panel identified an apparent systematic and long-standing reticence by management to address disruptive or inappropriate behaviour by certain medical staff’ …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video