Page 1505 - Week 05 - Thursday, 12 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell then raised the criticism that we have cast the net too wide and that there is a flaw. We thought we needed to open it up. Mrs Carnell says that we have opened it up too wide and suggests all sorts of sinister motives behind why we have done so. In fact, we have opened it up, using the model of the Health Services Act 1990 brought in by Mr Humphries. The provision that we have sought to insert here is the provision that appeared in the legislation that Mr Humphries brought into this house and had passed when he was Health Minister. Mea culpa, we have done the wrong thing; we have used a Liberal model for a confidentiality clause. I make that political point in response to your political point.
When we get rid of the political nonsense, the reality of the matter is that we do have a need to expand access to information. The Government is prepared to accept Mrs Carnell's amendment. The key bodies to pass this information to are the Health Insurance Commission or the Auditor-General. When Mrs Carnell raised this matter this morning I had some concern that we may, in fact, be narrowing it a little too much because when we go beyond a mere survey into potential matters of fraud it may well end up having to go to the Federal Police. There was some discussion, which is apparent from the crossed out points on the circulated amendment, that perhaps we should include the AFP. My understanding is that that is unnecessary - and Mrs Carnell and I had a discussion about that - in that the Health Insurance Commission is the key body. We may need to liaise with New South Wales on this. My understanding is that if the New South Wales Government approached us about fraud, or if we approached the New South Wales Government about concerns about fraud, the best way to operate would be through the Health Insurance Commission as they have both our records and New South Wales records.
It appears to us that this is a narrowing that allows us to get on with the job and would not prejudice any prosecutions. In a discussion with Mrs Carnell this morning I did indicate that if it turned out to be a problem, that if we had cast the net too narrowly, we may need to come back into the chamber and seek to expand it. At the moment it seems to be appropriate. We do have some consensus here when we remove the politicking from it. To the extent that Mrs Carnell says, "Shock, horror! You have drafted a terrible, oppressive, full of sinister motives Labor Party type clause", I have to respond by saying that we simply copied a clause that was used by Mr Humphries when he was Minister. Beyond the froth and bubble, this is an important Bill in that it allows us to ensure that everything is run totally above board.
To the extent that the giving of information to a person or body could be abused by generally making information available to anyone, we accept that we can narrow it right down. Again I would say, though, that the issue of how much we pay out in consultancies and contracts to doctors is no more a matter of health confidentiality than how much we pay out to contractors for electrical work in Urban Services or for briefing fees in the Attorney-General's Department. That sort of information was always available to this Assembly through Estimates Committee processes. Saying that we pay Dr Brown $3,000 to treat Mrs Smith's such and such disease clearly would be a breach of confidentiality, but not simply saying that globally we paid out these sums of money.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .