Page 5289 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
day there are things happening that are going to be announced by disgruntled employees, and so on and so forth. It is about people being bound to say nothing about individual instances where they ought to be able to say something.
Would the Government gaol a doctor for blowing the whistle on a colleague? Under these provisions, I suggest that it would.
Mr Humphries: Quality assurance should cover that.
MR BERRY: What quality assurance? There is not any. Would this Government gaol somebody for telling taxpayers that they are being ripped off by a corrupt tendering process? Would the Government gaol somebody for exposing another Dr McBride? I think that under this legislation it would. If this Government supports cover-ups of that magnitude, then the answer to all of those questions is yes, yes, yes and yes.
If the Government is concerned about the protection of patient confidentiality, and if that is what it is saying it is concerned about, then we agree with that. But you have to have privacy legislation which is not so draconian, and that is what this boils down to. What I would be seeking from the Government is an indication that it would be prepared to go to the Privacy Commissioner to look at the development of more modern legislation which was not as draconian as that proposed here.
This is reminiscent of what went on in the Dark Ages. It strikes me that if the Government wants to do something positive in relation to this legislation - and it has not demonstrated that it has a willingness in that direction so far - it could say to us, "We are going to the Privacy Commissioner. We will consult with you and the community about the introduction of new and more modern legislation". Then the Labor Party would drop off the issue and wait for an improvement in the situation.
If the Minister is prepared to give that sort of indication to us - and the indication that I am looking for is that there would be an approach to the Privacy Commissioner to introduce more modern legislation - then the Labor Opposition would be prepared to drop this matter for the moment. I think that there needs to be a closer look at this issue, and I would like to hear what the Attorney-General says on this matter. Nobody would argue against the protection of confidential material. There is no doubt about that. But it has to be done in a more modern way, and that is certainly not the case under this legislation. Personal confidentiality is gone.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .