Page 3771 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 19 September 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We should not be extolling the virtues of people who did not succeed the first time, when they were prepping for a long time in advance. It was a failure of the system and a failure of the minister in her oversight of an organisation that should have been prepared. Hospital accreditation comes around every three years—we know about it. They should have been ready.
The minister says this process will bring about more stress. That is, sadly, inevitable. There will be more stress. No matter what sort of inquiry we have, there will be more stress. But we do not have to have what the minister has described as everyone having to lawyer up. I do not believe everyone has to lawyer up. What people need is protection.
How will Frank tell his story and not be further bullied? I saw the minister on TV last Monday, when she was asked that question, and she gave the commitment that people would not be further victimised. But she has not said how that will be brought about. She needs to say how that will happen. It is not enough to say it will not happen. We have been saying we have zero tolerance—we can see Mr Rattenbury wringing his hands every time he says we have zero tolerance—we have respectful pathways. It is not enough to say it; we need to have more than that.
The minister criticised the Liberal opposition for saying we wanted people to be convicted of perjury. I will ask the other question: is the minister satisfied that people might perjure themselves, that people might tell untruths before an inquiry? The obverse of being potentially convicted of perjury is that if you do not have those protections it is open slather for people to misrepresent what has happened.
A lot was said about what the Liberal opposition has and has not done. I was criticised for fewer than 10 per cent of my questions in estimates being about bullying and harassment. I will go back to some of the questions I asked. I raised questions about anonymous letters that raised serious issues. I asked about those things in a way that was cognisant of the fact that these were anonymous letters.
I am not going to name names and accuse people on the basis of anonymous letters, but I am going to raise those concerns. Mr De’Ath told the estimates committee that he was aware of those issues and that they were under review. (Extension of time granted.) I have subsequently received a letter from Mr De’Ath, who says blandly that those matters have been reviewed. The estimates committee does not know the outcome. The estimates committee no longer exists.
I asked questions about maternity, and we were told by the head of the women’s and children’s hospital that staff in maternity are under unrelenting pressure. That was her phrase—“unrelenting pressure”. I did not make that up; I have not verballed her. They were her words. This is why the Liberal opposition has come to the conclusion that we need a board of inquiry.
It is not that we want a royal commission, but if you are going to have an inquiry you need to have protections. You need to be able to call for documents. You need to have the capacity to have in-camera hearings and open hearings, to protect witnesses, to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video