Page 1571 - Week 04 - Thursday, 25 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Members are aware of the recent complaints of harassment at the Canberra Hospital obstetrics department and are equally aware of Mr Hanson’s absurd allegations of a secret obstetrics review. Members would have heard that we will undertake two reviews into these matters. The first review will centre on the clinical outcomes of the unit and will be undertaken by an independent obstetrician and an independent midwife.
The second review will be a review in relation to the workplace environment, undertaken by an independent specialist. ACT Health has advised that this will be under the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which provides legislative protection against reprisals for anyone participating in the review.
These two reviews will enable any issues to do with bullying and harassment to be uncovered and dealt with while also supporting staff. It also will enable the Canberra community to continue to have faith in the service provided by the obstetrics unit at the Canberra Hospital. However, these reviews will not be played out in public. Obviously, these kinds of allegations are serious and warrant a full investigation and there are good reasons for conducting the investigation in the way we are.
Firstly, we need to protect the privacy of both the victims and the accused. The Public Interest Disclosure Act requires ACT Health to treat all disclosures confidentially. People may not feel comfortable coming forward if they do not believe that confidentiality will be assured. Also, it is vital to ensure that proper process is followed in these kinds of investigations to ensure the integrity of the outcome of the findings. I can assure members that the government takes any allegations of this nature very seriously and will ensure that the reviews are conducted appropriately and with respect for the privacy of the individuals who are involved.
As part of our commitment to open, honest and accountable government, we support the provision of answers to questions on notice and FOI requests. Last year’s budget estimates hearings resulted in approximately 2,550 questions on notice. Just in the current term of this government, we have fielded a total of 970 questions on notice in the Assembly. There is of course a difference between a genuine request for information, a genuine interest in the answer, and the kind of omnibus, multipart questions which seem to be the speciality of those opposite.
Freedom of information is also a crucial element of open and accountable government but just as the Latimer principles can be subverted and abused, so can FOI. In the area of FOI requests, the Chief Minister’s Department alone has been forced to grind through 40 FOI requests in this financial year, 30 from the opposition. We are getting those costed so that we can actually determine the costs of some of this transparency. The amount of work required to comply with each of these requests is enormous. Indeed, I understand there was one request of the LDA which cost the LDA $30,000 to respond to.
I notice the opposition’s obsessive interest in question time today regarding front-line officers and essential public servants. I wonder whether they would consider the poor public servants toiling over these FOI fishing expeditions to be essential. I do urge the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video