Page 128 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
category 1 than could be clinically classified as meeting the category. Doctors not following elective surgery waiting list policy or taking ownership of the policy make the situation very difficult. The situation is made more difficult because VMOs are in a very strong position in the ACT and they know it.
Given all this, and I know Mr Hanson has this information too, I find it incredibly hypocritical of Mr Hanson to base this motion today on a letter from the head of the VMOs to the Chief Minister calling for Ms Gallagher to step down. The manner in which Mr Hanson’s motion mimics Dr Hughes’s letter is startling and Mr Hanson must be held accountable for the public statements he makes. Mr Hanson acts as a tool for the VMOs.
While I agree that there have been some problems identified in our public health system that include the elective surgery waiting list and cases of bullying, I have also come to believe that two organisations representing private doctors have, in conjunction with Mr Hanson, nurtured public debate in an inflammatory manner as a result of their views on public health issues, including salaried medical officers. There is doctor politics occurring. Mr Hanson has picked a side on a fear that, if no-one is willing to speak out against it, the public patients will remain unaware of the truth and will not see improvements in public health services.
In fact, Dr Peter Collignon, who is head of ASMOF, gave evidence to the Calvary inquiry with reference to VMOs and staff specialists and their working together. And he said:
In fact, I almost did not come to Canberra when this place had a reputation for the VMOs and staff specialists hating each other. I heard of one episode where somebody’s tyres were slashed.
There was a lot of animosity—so much so that when I was still a registrar I took advice from somebody that left Canberra who worked at Westmead where I was at. I said, “Should I go there? I want to be a staff specialist. The sorts of things I want to do, which is teaching research, you can’t do as a VMO very easily.” He told me, “Yes, when I was there it was a problem that had gone.” I must say that is the case.
…
I might say that all these things are complicated, but even with this obstetrics issue, the bullying stuff at Canberra—not that there is not behaviour that needs to improve—some of it is this VMO-staff specialist business, not having staff specialists running the units and having VMOs running them again. I think it is quite appropriate for VMOs to run some units. My bias most of the time is that it is likely to be staff specialists because you are just there all the time and it is difficult.
Take for example the case, as has already been mentioned, of the obstetrics review where the Liberals proposed a board of inquiry. Key representatives from the doctor organisations, including Dr Foote, talked to the Greens and said they were happy to see the inquiry process that we had proposed go through instead of the board of inquiry. In fact, they much preferred it. And yet Mr Hanson continued with his media views that these organisations were very willing to criticise the proposed inquiry process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video