Page 3767 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 19 September 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of the allegations. These are the sorts of things that we cannot sit here and prejudge in this place. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed when it comes to the matter of public or private hearings. I anticipate that if that authority and that empowerment is given we will see a mixture.
There will be some witnesses who will come forward and ask to give their evidence in camera. That will need to be judged and then, after the fact, those conducting the inquiry will need to form a view as to the evidence that has been given and how they then treat it, given that the person giving it sought to give it in private, or in public as the case may be.
I strongly support the need for appropriate privacy and confidentiality protections as part of the process so that staff can feel comfortable coming forward and sharing their experiences freely and honestly. I believe that the right balance between the needs for both transparency and confidentiality can be best met through an independent inquiry process. I also believe that it is fundamentally important that the final report of the inquiry is publicly released and that the government responds to that report in a timely manner and then continues to report on its progress against those recommendations.
All of these features can be achieved through an independent inquiry in a way that ensures our health workers and the Canberra community can have faith in the process and the outcomes and in a way that ensures there is transparency around what changes have been made as a result.
It is important to acknowledge that while some in the medical community have been vocal in their calls for a board of inquiry, it is not a unanimous view. As Minister Fitzharris noted in her earlier remarks, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, the Health Care Consumers’ Association and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, or the ANMF, have all taken positions that, while a review is needed, one at the level of a board of inquiry is not warranted.
It is also important to acknowledge that, while the initial accreditation result earlier this year was disappointing, the work done to remedy those issues in the following months is a credit to the hardworking staff at ACT Health. The accreditors noted significant improvements to both governance and culture in their final report. While this does not negate the need for an independent process to deal with existing complaints, it does suggest that the organisation is moving in the right direction.
The ACHS final report noted that the staff at ACT Health:
… demonstrate commitment and focus to drive sustainable positive change in the culture of the organisation. They have moved from a fragmented divided organisation to one of cohesion, teamwork, focused on what is best for the patient and the organisation to achieve great outcomes for all Canberrans.
I was particularly pleased to see such a strong acknowledgement of improvements made by our mental health staff through the accreditation process. The accreditors highlighted and complimented the mental health division for “adopting, innovative approaches to creating a sustainable system of the production of timely patient discharge summaries” as well as addressing ligature risks and improving handover
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video