Page 222 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is interesting that the minister says, “Look, there’s been a 25 per cent shift over the last five years.” But apparently she did not notice that. She did not notice a 25 per cent shift over five years and did not notice the other number from 34 per cent in 2006-07 to 24 per cent in 2011-12. Private births reduced by a third—not in the last year, not since the hospital had commenced to be built, but in 2006-07. Well before the planning for the hospital was being done, the numbers were shifting then, but no-one in the government noticed. This is the point that Mr Hanson seeks to make, and this is why his recommendation that the review is conducted by an individual organisation independent of the ACT government is so important.
The Greens’ agreement talks about undertaking to ensure an accountable and transparent government that is responsive to the community. There are community concerns, in one way, through the nurses federation and in other ways through mothers who had been shunted out of the full women’s and children’s hospital before they felt they were ready to go. As one woman said, she was moved out, the breast milk that she had expressed for her twins was being cleaned up by the cleaner as she was made to sit in the waiting room. That is not how to conduct a women’s and children’s hospital. That is not a women’s and children’s hospital that respects mothers that have just delivered their children, and it is not a women’s and children’s hospital that one would expect in the nation’s capital of one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
The question is: how did we get it wrong? And the government, aided and abetted by Mr Rattenbury, as the Green, independent minister—I am not sure what he is today, whether he is Green, independent, government minister or crossbencher—has answered, “Yes, it’s okay for the government that I am now a part of to investigate itself”. We have seen the minister’s record on this where critical investigations were undertaken and never saw the light of day. It is very important that Mr Hanson’s paragraph 2(a) at least is included.
Releasing it? We think it should be released as quickly as it has been received, and we believe the terms of reference should be circulated at least to members and made public as soon as they are finalised. Certainly the terms of reference will have a great impact on this.
The Chief Minister and health minister said, “I’ve been judged and I have won that.” Worse than the hubris in this is the denial, the absolute denial, to take some criticism that is outlined in Mr Hanson’s motion. None of it has been shown to be wrong. None of the facts in 1(b) (i) to (vii) have been shown to be wrong. In 1(c) Mr Hanson refers to “previous problems with obstetrics”. That is not wrong. In 1(a) he refers to the review being commissioned on 15 November. That is not wrong. So all of what is in paragraph 1 of Mr Hanson’s motion is correct. It is factual. None of it has been disproved, but we are going to delete that. Perhaps there needs to be a change to the standing orders that says you just cannot delete everything in a motion and put in something that is the antithesis of the motion so that, because you have got the numbers, you ramrod it through. Take your knocks if you have to, but disprove the case. To avoid the case is to make the same problem again in the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video