Page 3140 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is important to note, when you read this report, that there are four recommendations about general processes. It is about making sure that this is addressed, not just here but at the national level. It is about making sure that the government responds quickly to the report. It says that all departments should look at how they respond to Auditor-General’s reports. It says that what we should have is the emergency access targets and that we should have this further inquiry.
With respect to recommendation 13 of the report, it is interesting to hear the Chief Minister bleating about how people’s rights have been trammelled. But what about the officer responsible who was outed by her department, who accidentally photocopied this poor person’s name how many times? “We accidentally photocopied your name, attached it to the front of the press releases and gave it to all the press.” The claim is that they have apologised. Well, they have not. Go back and review all of the data, all of the words said in the estimates and on the recall day—and yet again here is a minister being recalled to the estimates committee to answer for what has occurred. People have said, “Yes, it happened in our office and we take responsibility,” but there was no apology whatsoever. Again it is this deception: “Well, we said we apologised.” But when you check the record, the record never lives up to what is said by this Chief Minister. I bring recommendation 13 to the attention of the house:
The Committee recommends that, given the Health Directorate’s failure to protect the privacy of the Executive who admitted to altering data—prior to any civil, criminal or administrative proceedings—the Health Directorate should: (i) issue a public apology to the individual concerned; and (ii) take appropriate steps to acknowledge the individual’s contributions to the operation and administration of the Canberra Hospital.
If one thing has come through to me from all the people that I have spoken to when I have been out at shopping centres or door-knocking since this scandal broke it is the number of people who say, “Kate Jackson was a good nurse.” So how is it that such a good nurse feels so pressured by what is wrong in the system that this minister has presided over for the last six years that she felt compelled to change up to 11,700 records? She did not do it on her own. She quite honestly said: “Yes, I did it. They’re the ones that I’ve done. I couldn’t have done all of those.” I cannot understand why those opposite choose not to find out what truly went on.
It goes to one of the other recommendations, recommendation 12, which states:
… a prevailing organisational culture at the Canberra Hospital contributed to the circumstances surrounding the alteration and misreporting of performance information.
That culture starts at the top. That culture is set by the minister. That culture is the product of her lack of leadership. That culture is the product of the way she does business. And we know how this Chief Minister does business. Before the 2004 election, of course, “No, we will not touch schools,” and that work started six weeks after that election. Before the 2008 election, “All our plans are on the table,” except the $77 million one to purchase Calvary hospital. Forgot to mention that one. “I do apologise; I forgot that one. What a slip-up.” Of course we now know from the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video