Royal Commission into Health Complaints
PAGE: 7983
Mr JOHN BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [11.30 a.m.]: I move:
That this House calls on the Government to establish a royal commission into health complaints in New South Wales.
The pathetic response of the Carr Government, particularly the Premier and former Minister for Health, Craig Knowles, to the revelations yesterday in the interim report of Bret Walker, SC, has only deepened the Opposition's commitment to establish a royal commission into the health complaints system. Mr Walker's report destroys the credibility of the Health Care Complaints Commission, whose operations for 3½ years under the former commissioner do not have a shred of credibility. The Opposition sheets home the blame, by association, to the Government for its failure to do anything about genuine and ongoing concerns about the performance of the Health Care Complaints Commission. Indeed, it simply does not wash that Craig Knowles, the former Minister for Health, kept sending case after case down to the Health Care Complaints Commission expecting a proper inquiry but got nothing back and sat at his desk thinking there was nothing wrong. It is not believable.
Members of the Opposition, individuals representing their communities, will attest that on numerous occasions they sent genuine complaints from members of their local communities to the Health Care Complaints Commission. In all honesty and having the best interests of their constituents and their families in mind they said, "I will send this matter to the Health Care Complaints Commission. It is an independent body and it will properly investigate this matter for you." We now know that was never the case in the 3½ years under the former commissioner.
The most damning indictment of the Health Care Complaints Commission is that in not one of 70 cases reviewed by Mr Walker that had been allegedly investigated by the commission did the commission comply fully with its statutory duties. In short, the watchdog became a lapdog and the Government sat by and let it happen. The Government selected Amanda Adrian because it wanted a quiet life. It knew that the previous commissioner, Merrilyn Walton, was a watchdog and was happy to use the powers of the Health Care Complaints Commission to bring the Government to heel in relation to health care in New South Wales. The Government did not like that. The tactics of intimidation, threats, bullying and harassment by Craig Knowles would not work on somebody like Merrilyn Walton.
When the opportunity presented itself the Government looked for a quiet option. It looked for someone who was known to have views that opposed the name-and-blame culture, as she referred to it, of a watchdog and who decided to take a more educative role. The commission took a systemic approach of not blaming individual doctors or health practitioners for their failings but of trying to solve those problems by fixing the system. There is not a woman in New South Wales who did not reel with horror with the revelation that a Macarthur Health Service operation resulted in a woman having the wrong breast removed because of cancer. It is self-evident that every woman in New South Wales would reel in horror to learn that that could and did happen in a New South Wales hospital and that the Health Care Complaints Commission, the State's premier watchdog, did nothing to pursue the bureaucracy or the health professionals involved in a such a shocking, appalling and heart-wrenching disaster.
The Government happily presided over that because, as we know from its actions, it did not want to be embarrassed by the Health Care Complaints Commission. As the honourable member for North Shore, the former shadow Minister for Health, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the present shadow Minister for Health, and members of the Opposition know, the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into re-referring these allegations to the Health Care Complaints Commission and then to establishing an independent inquiry.
If Bret Walker, SC, found that 70 out of the 70 cases he reviewed were not properly investigated, it is clear that the more than 8,000 complaints and the more than 1,000 investigations finalised by the Health Care Complaints Commission during the previous 3½ year tenure of the former commissioner could also have been poorly investigated. It is not a leap of faith: it is a simple line of logic to argue that if 70 out of 70 were wrong at Camden and Campbelltown, then undoubtedly 1,000 out of 1,000 investigated across the State were wrong, because the whole culture of the organisation was to not properly investigate matters. That is why there must be a royal commission into health complaints in New South Wales.
The House will recall that almost exactly 10 years ago this State was under enormous pressure to create a royal commission into the police service. If the Police Force was corrupt in 1994, the health system is corrupt today. And it is corrupt right through the bureaucracy up to the top, to the former Minister for Health, and to the Premier, who both happily sat by and saw a corrupt complaint system stay in place because it provided them with a political advantage. On 11 May 1994, almost 10 years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, Bob Carr, said:
… a royal commission has that additional focus. If there were any reservations about the stand the Opposition would take, the Premier's trepidation … his defensiveness when faced with the prospect of a royal commission, would, I am afraid, tip the balance. Let … whistleblowers come forward with the full range of protection being offered by a royal commission.
Isn't that fascinating? This is the Government one of whose Ministers harassed, intimidated and bullied whistleblowers when they came forward. Those whistleblowers lost their jobs for telling the truth. And thank God they told the truth, and thank God they stood their ground, because otherwise those problems would never have been exposed. I quote again the Premier:
Do not let it be on our consciences that we walked out of this Parliament tonight not having provided for the fullest investigation of the matters that have been placed before this Parliament. A royal commission provides a focus—some guarantee to the community that these matters will be exhaustively explored. I believe the case is overwhelming. I believe the balance of probabilities pushes towards the inevitability of this full, comprehensive and powerful public inquiry into the matters before the House today.
Despite those words, the Premier would tell us that the matter is now closed and we need to move forward. On Sydney radio this morning the Minister for Health indicated he has concerns about the appropriateness of the previous 8,000 cases but said we have got to move forward. Tell that to the people whose parents died, whose loved ones died, or who themselves received unacceptable treatment under the health system and were not given justice by the Health Care Complaints Commission. If the Premier ignores this Parliament, ignores calls for a royal commission and refuses to appoint a royal commission, this issue will dog him to his last day as Premier. He cannot avoid his responsibility to do his job.
Though the Premier will not answer questions in this Chamber, he cannot avoid the fact that as Bret Walker has discovered that 100 per cent of cases he reviewed from two hospitals alone were not properly investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission, there is a question mark over the 8,000 complaints investigated by the commission in the same period of time. Those could be complaints about any part of the health system in this State, be it Tweed Heads, the South Coast, across suburban Sydney—anywhere! The Premier cannot wash his hands and walk away from this issue. He must grant the people of New South Wales a royal commission into health complaints in this State.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Minister for Health) [11.40 a.m.]: I will start by dealing with the 8,000 complaints that the Leader of the Opposition paraded before the House to justify his call for yet another royal commission.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Opposition members will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Interestingly, the motion called for a royal commission. In the Chamber yesterday when I heard the words "royal commission" I waited for the addition of the words "into the health system", because that was the cry of a couple of months ago. But the call yesterday was for a royal commission into the health care complaints system. The Opposition, because it and the crossbenchers have the numbers in the Legislative Council, has been parading so-called health care complaints before the Legislative Council committee that should be inquiring into the health care complaints system. That inquiry provides a perfect opportunity for any staff member, any bureaucrat or any member of the public concerned about a matter that they have raised in the past, or would like to raise now, to bring the matter before the upper House inquiry. Yesterday's call by the Opposition was not for a royal commission into the whole of the health system. That is because when the Opposition first raised the cry of "royal commission into the health system" and started to parade and exploit individuals—
Mr John Brogden: Point of order: You did not mind exploiting that woman and her baby when you dragged them in from the North Shore.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! There is no point of order.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That outburst by the Leader of the Opposition was for the benefit of the gallery, because he has an audience. The health care professionals who work in our health care system have been telling the Leader of the Opposition why morale in the system has taken such a nosedive, that morale is being eaten away because of the constant undermining of the people who work in the health care system. That is why yesterday the Leader of the Opposition did not call for a royal commission into the health care system but a royal commission into the complaints handling system. Bret Walker's interim report, delivered yesterday, was a confirmation of the action that the Government took some months ago to change the leadership, management and structure of the current complaints handling system—a system that the report delivered yesterday confirmed was badly in need of reform. That is why the Government has reformed it.
A special commission of inquiry has been investigating complaints handling matters related to the Macarthur Area Health Service, and that has shown that the complaints handling system was in need of reform. The Opposition wants a royal commission that will tell us what a special commission of inquiry has already told us: there is a need for reform of the complaints handling system. The Government has set about reforming that body. The Opposition would spend another $100 million to tell us what Bret Walker has already told us: that body is in need of reform. The Government is interested in reform, and has already commenced that reform. The stock standard response of the Opposition to any issue to do with health care is to call for a royal commission. That is, it calls for a continuation of the status quo for two or three years and the spending of an additional $100 million, not on our hospitals but on a freeze of the current system. It wants not reform but a freeze on the current complaints handling system for two or three years—and then have another inquiry, on top of all the inquiries that we already have.
At present we have a special commission of inquiry, with the powers of a royal commission. People who come forward and participate in that special commission of inquiry have protection and privilege. That is inquiry number one. The terms of reference of the upper House inquiry relate to complaints handling, but a reading of the transcripts makes it clear that not a lot of the evidence taken has been about complaints handling. It has been a trawling expedition. Nevertheless, it is an upper House inquiry into complaints handling. That is inquiry number two. Another inquiry is investigating other allegations made about Macarthur, relating to documents and other matters relating to staff. That is inquiry number three. I understand matters are also with the police. That is inquiry number four. So we have the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiries, the Bret Walker special commission of inquiry, an upper House inquiry, three standing committee inquiries, with the terms of reference of the upper House inquiry specifically relating to complaints handling.
Yesterday the Opposition was saying there was now a need for a royal commission into the complaints handling system. It got nowhere with its call for a royal commission into the whole of the health system because the health care professionals gave the Opposition the answer on that one; that is why the Opposition has backed away from that call. Let us have a look at the supposedly 8,000 matters that are all now thrown into doubt. The fact is that only 9 per cent are referred for investigation because most of them are dealt with by way of conciliation.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Opposition members will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Forty per cent of cases were referred to the relevant assessment and investigative bodies, such as the Medical Board and the Nurses Registration Board.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! I call the honourable member for Bega to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Thirty per cent went to conciliation, or were resolved by some other means. That is the advice I have. But the Leader of the Opposition would bring into question all 8,000 cases. It is not as though this has not been in the public domain or the subject of strong public debate ever since criticisms were made of the Health Care Complaints Commission investigation into Macarthur and the delivery of the report in December. It is not as if there has been a secret about the HCCC report delivered in December or a lack of media or public focus, or media, public or political debate. People who are concerned about previous matters have had ample opportunity to come forward.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Right now there is an upper House inquiry into the very matter the Opposition is bringing forward calling for a—
Mr John Brogden: Pretty pathetic, Morris.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What?
Mr John Brogden: It's pretty pathetic, your performance.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to call the upper House inquiry pathetic, that is good. His colleagues are participating in that inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition is only interested in looking back. He will never talk about a health reform agenda. He is always freewheeling when it comes to spending money on royal commissions of inquiry. But we never hear anything from him when it comes to a health reform agenda that involves expenditure of dollars on front-line health services in our hospitals to support our nurses and doctors. We only ever hear from him when he is looking backwards; he never has any plans to go forward or for reform.
Yesterday the sentence in the motion was adjusted. The reference to the whole system was removed and "into the complaints handling system of New South Wales Health through the HCCC" was inserted. The report of the Walker inquiry confirms the actions of the Government in reforming the HCCC, in restoring public confidence in the HCCC and in establishing a body that not only the public but the staff that work in the system can have confidence in when they have concerns about health care. The Government is determined to implement all of the recommendations of Mr Walker, whether they relate to complaints handling or any other matter.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.50 a.m.]: The Minister for Health has demonstrated that not only is he the portfolio successor to former Minister for Health, Craig Knowles, but he is as politically bankrupt as Craig Knowles. He gets up in this place and smiles after we revealed yesterday the bankruptcy of the Health Care Complaints Commission investigation into complaints from the public about the State's hospital system. His defence is, "It is not 8,000 complaints, it is 4,000." I remind the House that Bret Walker investigated 70 complaints, and for that the Government was happy to establish a special commission of inquiry after media and Opposition pressure.
If 70 complaints can lead to a special commission of inquiry, why, on the Minister's argument, can 4,000 complaints not lead to a royal commission? Why do we want a royal commission into health complaints in New South Wales? We want a royal commission because there are no health successes. Despite the Minister's protestations to Alan Jones and others—"I'm sorry, Alan. I understand there are problems. I'm trying my best"—he has revealed himself to be cut from the same cloth as Craig Knowles—a cloth woven by the Premier, Bob Carr; a cloth woven with lies and a lack of care for the public. The golden thread that goes through that cloth is, "How the hell do we stay in office? How the hell do we continue to enjoy the benefits of office?"
Ms Peta Seaton: Whatever it takes.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is, as the honourable member for Southern Highlands says, a whatever-it-takes approach. Why would that not be the case when one considers that the Minister worked for Graham Richardson, a former Federal Minister, the man who brought that phrase into the Australian lexicon? For all those who held out hope that Morris Iemma would bring a fresh approach, he has shattered their hope and that illusion today. Unlike other Ministers who have taken over other portfolios, we have seen that he is incapable of saying that the former Minister got it wrong, the former Minister was happy to have a dysfunctional Health Care Complaints Commission, the former Minister was happy to have a health care complaints body to which he could throw complaints from time to time as they arose in the media because he knew he would never get back reports. As the Leader of the Opposition said previously, the former Minister was happy not to have a health care watchdog but a health care lapdog.
Every time there was a media problem—whether it related to switchboards at Concord Hospital, deaths or problems with the Ambulance Service— the former Minister would refer it to the Health Care Complaints Commission. He did that knowing full well that he would never receive a report, that accountability would never be brought to bear, that there may well be cover-ups and that the Health Care Complaints Commission at the time would not expose the fundamental corruption of the Department of Health. To his credit a former Federal and State public servant, John Menadue, was happy to do it. He claimed that no-one was managing the State's hospital systems because in the New South Wales Department of Health under Craig Knowles the management worked upwards to protect the Minister from political fall-out. It did not work downwards to provide the quality health care to patients that they deserve.
Morris Iemma stands condemned because of his approach today: a smirking contribution that, even on his figures, concedes that 4,000 health care complaints are unlikely to have been properly investigated. He then seeks to say that we do not need to address that. The Government continues to raise costs, an issue that I know the Premier, Bob Carr, never dealt with during the debate on the proposed police royal commission because of the importance of public safety to the operation of this State. The reality is that there could be no more important State service than health. By saying no to a royal commission, that it is moving prospectively, that it has reformed the health care complaints body, the Government is saying that the system will pick up prospectively the duds and the problems in the system.
In other words, the new health care complaints body will not pick anyone up because it is not going back to look at the 4,000 or 8,000 complaints until a doctor, nurse, system or public servant has caused more deaths, more injuries and more adverse outcomes for the families of those in the State's hospital system. It is like having a new building regime but allowing shonky builders to remain licensed: the only time they will be disciplined is when they next come before the tribunal. That is the approach the Government is endorsing. It is an approach that says to some families across this State, "Expect people to die, expect there to be no accountability until those systems, doctors and nurses who may be at fault come before the new body." Morris Iemma stands here with a smirk on his face and says that 4,000 complaints do not need investigating. His attitude is the reason they need investigating. He is a complete and utter hypocrite; he is a logical successor to Craig Knowles. [Time expired.]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Members of the Opposition will come to order.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [11.55 a.m.]: I am at a loss today—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! I call the honourable member for Bega to order for the second time.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: —to understand why the Opposition is calling for a royal commission into the health care complaints system that would cost $100 million over two years, rather than looking at what we need to fix in the system. Let us look at what $100 million would provide in the public health system. I note that of all the people in this Chamber I am the one who has had some experience with negotiating terms and conditions for nurses throughout New South Wales. Let us look at the recruitment and retention of our nurses. The sum of $100 million would go a long way towards increasing wages for our nurses. I know that we have the best-paid nurses in Australia, but they deserve more. The sum of $100 million would go a long way towards increasing on-call allowances, shift allowances and overtime.
Mr John Brogden: Are you going to advocate on behalf of nurses, are you?
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: Yes. All public sector nurses come under the Public Hospital Nurses State Award, which will be up for negotiation in the next two to three years and we want to make sure that money is being spent in our budget rather than chasing our health professionals and trying to reduce their morale. Anyone who has ever seen nurses and doctors working in our hospitals would understand the immense pressure they are under. A royal commission would demoralise them. Those opposite want to pick on every single public hospital in New South Wales and demoralise our staff. That is wrong! The Labor Government will stand up for its health professionals. We will be there, by their side, listening to their concerns and working with the community to ensure that money is put into the health care system when matters need to be rectified. This Government is not about targeting our health professionals. There are adequate disciplinary procedures in the awards and there is the Nurses Registration Board as well as the Impaired Nurses Panel, so the structures exist.
Let me examine professional development, which is one of the most important issues for nurses in New South Wales. Honourable members know how far $100 million would go toward providing every conceivable avenue of training that is needed for our nurses. The development of medical technology is increasing at a rapid pace. We need to ensure that doctors and nurses have access to professional development and that they are given adequate support which will enable them to attend professional development courses. Let me tell members of the Opposition what we are up against now. There is a nursing shortage because the Federal Government will not provide funding for university places. When nurses have to take sick leave, annual leave and long service leave, there is no-one to replace them. They are forced to work double shifts because there are not enough nurses in the system.
Notwithstanding that, members of the Opposition do criticise our nurses and call for a royal commission. The $100 million that it would cost for a royal commission will go a long way toward assisting and supporting our doctors and nurses. Workplace child care is also an important issue for doctors and nurses. Do members of the Opposition know how far $100 million would go in enabling our health professionals to balance their family responsibilities with work responsibilities? That money would go a long way toward assisting our health professionals, but the members of the Opposition do not want to deal with that because they are not interested in supporting our nurses and doctors. Members of the Opposition are interested only in tearing apart the system.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! There is too much noise from the Opposition.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: The wonderful Concord hospital is situated in my electorate of Drummoyne. Fortunately, as a result of the State Government and its commitment to the residents of New South Wales, a magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] machine will be delivered some time in August.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: The Labor Government allocated $3 million to purchase that machine, but the Federal Government has denied the Medicare licence that will enable people to use their Medicare card when they are treated by that machine. If the Federal Government has not granted that licence by August, I will be telling my residents that they will have to pay $500 for a scan. I will not tolerate that on behalf of the pensioners in my community. Why should we not have a royal commission? The fact is that the Opposition is trying to throw the entire health system into disrepute.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: The interim report of the Walker special commission of inquiry has fulfilled its terms of reference and will deal with improvements to the Health Care Complaints Commission. The Government should be given the chance to examine the reforms recommended by the Health Care Complaints Commission as well as the reports from other inquiries, and should implement those recommendations. This attempt by the Opposition to launch a royal commission is no better than an attempt to spend $100 million to pursue personal tragedy for the Opposition's own political gain. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has just had a son, which is why it is more disgraceful. There is no focus on improvement.
Mr John Brogden: Point of order: I invite the honourable member for Drummoyne to withdraw that personal comment.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Leader of the Opposition has taken a point of order. The honourable member for Drummoyne merely stated that the Leader of the Opposition had just had a son.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: To the point of order—
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: If the Leader of the Opposition is offended by the joyous event of his son being born—
Mr Barry O'Farrell: To the point of order: The honourable member for Drummoyne is not entitled to withdraw in a qualified sense. She either withdraws or she does not, and I would be happy for her not to do so because I would like to debate this matter. The honourable member for Drummoyne clearly sought to tie the birth of the child of the Leader of the Opposition with the tragedies that have occurred in the Government's hospitals.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: I withdraw the comment.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The comment has been withdrawn.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [12.00 p.m.]: What this really comes down to is: What price a life? What price many lives? The Government is into its cover-up again. We have seen not only the smirking response by the Minister for Health, which was breathtaking, but also the charade performed by the honourable member for Drummoyne. It is absolutely shocking that both members of this House spoke the way they did, and that their colleagues sat in silence, indicating that they support their Minister and the honourable member for Drummoyne, who preceded me in this debate.
Mr Bryce Gaudry: Point of order: The honourable member for North Shore is imputing motives to Government members who are sitting in the Chamber. She is referring to their views but they have not expressed their views on this matter. I ask her to confine herself to the debate rather than impute motives to members on this side of the House.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I uphold the point of order.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I will merely say that I believe the performance of Government members who have spoken in this debate—I note that a number of them have been sitting silently—has indicated their discomfit at the revelation of the cover-up by this Government and the lengths to which it will go to keep quiet the events that are occurring in our public health system.
Mr Bryce Gaudry: Point of order: The honourable member for North Shore is misleading the House. As the Minister for Health pointed out, a special commission of inquiry was established. There is no way at all that the matter is being covered up. The matter is the subject of a protocol of investigations by Mr Walker, SC, and yesterday the Minister for Health made it clear that when the full reports are presented to him, he will make an absolute determination on them.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! There is no point of order.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: This motion calls for a royal commission into the complaints processes applied to health matters. I assure the House that as a former shadow Minister for Health I referred many matters in good faith to the Health Care Complaints Commission whenever people raised their concerns with me about treatment they had received in hospitals. In good faith I referred those matters to the Health Care Complaints Commission, and I am absolutely disgusted to now find that those matters were merely swept under the carpet. The findings brought down in the interim report, which was released yesterday, show that 100 per cent of 70 matters investigated were improperly dealt with. As the Leader of the Coalition has pointed out, 8,000 matters were dealt with by the Health Care Complaints Commission, yet there is no guarantee that any of them have been dealt with appropriately. That is why an investment in a royal commission is not only desirable but is obligatory to restore the public's confidence in the system. It is about complaints being dealt with appropriately and reforms being implemented to ensure that adverse occurrences do not recur.
The Government's cover-up continues. It began when the whistleblower nurses came forward with information about what was happening at the Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. I had a meeting with those nurses immediately after they had met with the former Minister for Health. The nurses told me that they had been told by the Health Care Complaints Commission that it was a body that could not examine their concerns. The former Minister referred those matters to the Health Care Complaints Commission. Does he now believe that the Health Care Complaints Commission was the right place to which those matters should be referred? Surely he cannot believe that, because the inquiry established by the Minister's successor has shown that the process was flawed. The former Minister, in compliance with the Commissioner of the Health Care Complaints Commission—a lap-dog who had no intention of coming forward with anything that would be politically damaging to this Government—engaged in a cover-up for reasons of political expediency. Again I ask: What cost a life? People who were in the care of our health systems and died would be alive today if matters had been dealt with properly. [Time expired.]
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [12.05 p.m.]: I support the Minister for Health in opposing the call by the Opposition for a royal commission. Speakers who have preceded me in this debate have already pointed out the cost of more than $100 million for a royal commission.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: How do you know it is $100 million?
Mr GERARD MARTIN: I know from the lessons of history and the estimate that it will take about 10 years to complete it. I would have thought that members opposite would be well versed in the magnitude of lawyers' fees, which is the major cost component in the cost of a royal commission. The Minister stated and put his case very well. This morning the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission was sitting in Parliament House and, interestingly, not one member of the Liberal Party turned up at the meeting. Yesterday the Liberal Party was calling for the chairman of that committee to resign and was accusing the previous Minister of appointing—
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I do not raise the same point of order raised by the honourable member for Newcastle. The honourable member for Bathurst has been a member of this House long enough to know that on sitting days, particularly on Thursdays when we have private members' business, the House takes precedence over the sitting of any committee. My second issue is, why sit on the committee of the—
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! That is not a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr GERARD MARTIN: Earlier in the day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition called across the Chamber and said, "The next speaker won't get two seconds. We are just going to take point of order after point of order." That is his tactic, and we know about it.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I am incensed now. I point out that the honourable member for Bathurst had spoken for two minutes before I raised a point of order¯and that is hardly second by second.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! There is no point of order.
Mr GERARD MARTIN: Yesterday in this House the Opposition called for the resignation of the chairman of the parliamentary committee and also claimed that the previous Minister appointed the chairman who had been sacked.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! There is far too much noise in the Chamber.
Ms Peta Seaton: Point of order: The substance of this motion is about a royal commission. We have heard from the honourable member for Bathurst all sorts of discussions about committees—
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! What is your point of order?
Ms Peta Seaton: We have heard all sorts of discussions about points of order and about what happened yesterday. We are not hearing from the honourable member for Bathurst about the substance of this motion, which is to do with whether there should be a royal commission.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! There is no point of order.
Mr GERARD MARTIN: On the point about a royal commission, the Government is opposing the Opposition's motion for a royal commission because, quite frankly, we do not think it is necessary. Processes are in place to reform the HCCC, and the Minister explained that chapter and verse. What the Minister said was quite right; let us get on with this. The Government is about reform and about managing change and improvement. And that is what is happening, and has already been demonstrated. This morning the word "hypocrisy" was heard in the Chamber. When the Liberals were in government in 1994 it desperately opposed a royal commission into police. Suddenly things have changed down the track. There was a lot more evidence then and evidence is available now for a royal commission. The Liberal party, when in Opposition, was able to bring the royal commission about because it had real, meaningful evidence to give.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Don't you care?
Mr GERARD MARTIN: Of course we care. That is why changes are being raised, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition is being exposed for his cheap gutter politics. Two Opposition members are expert on that point. Two members of his party are trolling around the place saying how disgusted they are about his gutter tactics.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I understand that the honourable member for Bathurst is disappointed that he is not going to Japan, but that has nothing to do with this debate.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows that that is not a point of order.
[Time expired.]
Mr JOHN BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [12.10 p.m.], in reply: There could be no better evidence for this Government to put in place a royal commission than the damning evidence uncovered by Bret Walker in the commission of inquiry into only two hospitals. In those two hospitals alone, of the myriad of public health facilities in New South Wales, he reviewed 70 cases and found that the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] had failed to properly investigate all 70 cases. If the system is rotten in two hospitals, it is rotten across the State. There can be absolutely no doubt that, of the other 200 or more hospitals in New South Wales, if 1 per cent gets wrong the handling procedures under the HCCC that is likely to be replicated in some form across the State. Indeed the entire argument of the Government from this pathetic Minister for Health down is: Let's draw a line and move on, we have fixed it for the future—and that is yet to be fully determined. We are dealing with the past in relation to two hospitals, but the other 200 will be ignored.
That is not good enough. Let it be on the conscience of each and every member of the Labor Party in this Chamber when they go home to their electorates and face their communities that they failed them on the very simple point of actually seeking to unearth a potential outrageous situation across a number of hospitals in their local communities. The sadness in today's debate is not that some members spoke, but that other members failed to speak. The honourable member for Camden and the honourable member for Campbelltown did not front in the Chamber or speak in the Chamber, and that is appalling. The former Minister for Health, who continues to avoid questions on this matter, was not here to defend his administration of the health system or his relationship with the HCCC under the former commissioner, and that is equally appalling.
Today the Government has an opportunity to come clean, to say that the Health Care Complaints Commission did not get it wrong only in Camden and Campbelltown, but there is every chance it got it wrong in the other 200 hospitals and the nearly 8,000 cases it investigated and the other complaints it received. It is not plausible for the Government to argue that this disaster happened in only one discrete area of the State. Today the Government has been found wanting. When questioned in the House yesterday, the former Minister for Health, Craig Knowles, refused to answer whether he was happy with the performance of Amanda Adrian, or whether he had concerns. The Premier gave no commentary. After nine years in government, the Labor Party thinks that people have short attention spans and do not have memories. The Government thinks that people will pick up today's paper and confidently trust the Government to move forward and fix the problem.
The people of New South Wales have no faith in Premier Carr and Minister Iemma's handling of the health system in New South Wales. Their patience has run thin. The Government has had nine years to get it right, to provide quality health care in New South Wales, and to ensure that the watchdog body had real teeth and pursued real problems in the health system. But it failed dismally. The Government failed dismally again today. It keeps going back to the old chestnut of how much it will cost. That is seeking to put a dollar sign above the head of someone who was treated inappropriately in a hospital or who died unnecessarily in a hospital. I tell every member of the Labor Party in this Chamber that if that happened in their electorate, and the Health Care Complaints Commission failed one of the constituents, they will never be forgiven.
Mr Paul Crittenden: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition should tell us where and how many hip replacements should be cut to fund the royal commission. He is not doing that in this debate. He should tell the people of my electorate how many hip replacements will not occur¯but he is not doing that, he is simply playing politics.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I uphold the point of order.
Mr JOHN BROGDEN: I am sure that the people of New South Wales would be willing to sacrifice from the health system what it would cost to effect the personality replacement that is needed by the honourable member. There is an enormous amount of duplication in the health system. This Government has failed the New South Wales community. [Time expired.]
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 29
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Brogden
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts | Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R.W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Noes, 53
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Draper
Ms Gadiel
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Knowles
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McGrane
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell | Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Dr Refshauge
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Torbay
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Pair
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.