House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Mount Barker Hospital MOUNT BARKER HOSPITAL Mr GOLDSWORTHY House of Assembly Kavel Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:40): I want to raise a serious issue in relation to Mount Barker Hospital and associated health care services, which has been a matter of concern in my electorate of Kavel for quite some time. Earlier in the week I asked a question of the Minister for Health about operating theatre procedures at Mount Barker Hospital. The issue was raised initially by a local medical practitioner in the district, who had written to the Minister for Health about a number of concerns; and the minister has initiated an investigation. I asked the minister earlier in the week why it will take up to six weeks for the investigation to be carried out and, secondly, what guarantees the minister will make to ensure the safety of the operating theatres is not compromised (or words to that effect). The minister did not actually answer the question but, rather, launched into a tirade and attack on me and implied that I was saying there was an issue in relation to the length of time of the investigation. I am quite happy to say that I think six weeks is a long time to carry out an investigation. The minister also said that it is the responsibility of the board of the hospital to ensure that these issues are addressed. I contest that assertion of the minister. The board has a responsibility for the overall management of the hospital, but the ultimate responsibility—and I have said this publicly; and it was published in an article in the local paper—lies with the minister. It works up through the line of responsibility, through the administration, Country Health, and the like, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the Minister for Health (Hon. John Hill). He can make any and every attempt to divert that responsibility from himself, but I am saying that the responsibility is his. The finger of responsibility points directly at the minister for these issues. The local doctor knew that was the case, identified that was the situation, and wrote directly to the minister requesting a satisfactory response to his inquiry and the issues he raised. The doctor raised his concerns about not only the number of doctors in the operating theatre for certain procedures but also the adequate training of nursing staff in the operating theatres. I understand that a response has been received from the health service that there are no unqualified staff in the operating theatres, but that does not mean that they are not underqualified; and I think that is the issue the doctor was raising. Some of the nursing staff who attend the theatres are underqualified. Having asked the minister for a response in the house, the minister launched into a tirade and attack on me because I asked the question. He did not satisfactorily answer the question. He said that a review was being undertaken by a certain doctor and he will await the report. That is all well and good; we know that is happening. However, he failed to answer the question. I will await the outcome of that investigation with some interest and I look forward to receiving a copy of the report of the investigation. If not, I will look to act under freedom of information to access that information. Time expired.