Page 5292 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, although there are plenty of precedents for this type of secrecy provision, in a modern age it really is no longer appropriate. Modern privacy commissioners, well versed in these issues and with a degree of expertise on privacy matters, ought to be asked to have another look at this type of secrecy provision and to say whether it is still appropriate for legislation which is to carry us into the 1990s and beyond.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (10.16): Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not catch what Mr Connolly was saying about the matter. I do not know whether he made reference to the Privacy Commissioner. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had some concerns raised - - -
Mr Connolly: I was just wasting my breath.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is a common problem for the Labor Party in this place. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government hears what those opposite say about this provision.
Mr Connolly: You just said that you did not hear.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am saying that in general terms we hear the tenor of your concerns and we are not insensible to them. It is important to protect people within the hospital system and to preserve the confidentiality of people's records; that is the intention of this provision. I think that the title of "Secrecy" to this clause is unfortunate. I think from memory that this is not a part of the Bill that can be amended separately from the Bill. I think the title is part of the Bill, so perhaps that should be changed.
Nonetheless, Mr Deputy Speaker, I propose that this provision should be enacted as an important part of the protection which is, I am advised, provided in every piece of legislation of this kind in the country. I would be reluctant to take it out merely because there are some concerns about it at this point; but I would be very happy to refer matters of concern in this, particularly as far as privacy is concerned, to the Privacy Commissioner. I have spoken with the Attorney-General and he has indicated to me that he would be pleased to make a reference to the Privacy Commissioner in those terms.
I realise that that does not leave the situation in a state of any perfection, but I appeal to those opposite to bear in mind that it is more important to have protections for people in there than to leave that clause out and provide no protections whatsoever. As I have said before, I would be very happy to come back to this place and put forward and support amendments to legislation when defects raised by those opposite have been shown to have been validated.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .