Page 650 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is, without question, a breakdown in the complaints process. What we know is that obstetricians made complaints, raised their concerns, to the Canberra Hospital management. We know specifically that Dr Gallagher spoke with the general manager of the Canberra Hospital, raising these complaints. We know that she subsequently resigned, that she has outlined some of the concerns that she had in terms of the workplace culture and bullying. But what we heard from both the Acting Chief Executive of ACT Health and the minister was a denial that there were any complaints that had been made to ACT Health.
What is apparent is that the complaints were made but the complaints did not make it where they should have made it. There is a breakdown in the systems. What it means is that people with legitimate complaints are not being heard and the minister and, it appears, the chief executive does not know what is going on within the department. And they are most serious concerns. How can the minister responsible control what is going on in her department if she is simply unaware of the serious incidents where complaints are being made?
There is a desperate need for this inquiry under the Inquiries Act. I thank Mr Coe for outlining in his speech some compelling reasons and some very good rationale for an inquiry under the Inquiries Act and that the powers that it would have would be far superior to the review that is apparently now going to be conducted by the government.
The obstetricians that I have spoken with—and I have summarised those concerns and I will summarise them again—have put forward some very serious complaints. They are that nepotism has put patient safety at risk, that clinical mistakes are being covered up, that there is a culture of abuse and bullying, that there is a deliberate strategy not to put anything on paper and that there are problems in the relationship between the bureaucracy and the clinical staff. These are most serious allegations and they are worthy enough to warrant an inquiry under the Inquiries Act.
Let me read now from an email that was sent to both the minister and me yesterday by Dr Foote. Before I do so, the minister was casting aspersions on Dr Foote’s authority, whether he is really respected—I do not know; it might not be quite the word—but whether he really speaks—
Ms Gallagher: On behalf of the college nationally.
MR HANSON: My apologies, whether he speaks on behalf of the royal college nationally. He is the ACT representative; he chairs the committee. There are five members, as I understand, on the local committee. If you go to the website, you will see who those members are. He speaks for the regional committee in the ACT and he is the representative, more broadly, of the royal college in the ACT. So to cast the aspersion: does Dr Foote even speak for the college nationally—
Ms Gallagher: I did not.
MR HANSON: We can review the Hansard to see what your form of words was. But this is what you were intimating, clearly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video