House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Hospital Management Investigation Hospital Management Investigation Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Hospital Management Investigation Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): Can the minister inform the house when the breach was brought to his attention? The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly Playford Minister for Health Minister for the Arts Minister for Health Industries Hospital Management Investigation The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:04): Well, as I said, I'm not going to do anything that would tend to reveal the— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Patient privacy may not be important to the opposition, but it is— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is important— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is important— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Would the minister be seated. Now I've said that I give the leader great scope as the locomotive of the opposition to interject, but I call him to order, and I wouldn't like to see him depart for the second day running. Minister. The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Patient privacy is paramount. Indeed, why I'm so angry about this breach is that it was an invasion of the privacy of a patient and that patient's family. I will not say anything to compound that by providing further information that might tend to identify that patient. I make no apologies; I make no apologies for that. I can say that I am disgusted by the behaviour of these clinicians who— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: If the— Mr Marshall interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I would have thought— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The leader is warned. The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: This is a serious issue, and I would invite the opposition to take it seriously and not attempt to make cheap political points out of it. The simple fact is: I invite the opposition to take this matter as seriously as I do and not try to make cheap political points. I invite the opposition to give these questions the respect they deserve to give this issue the respect it deserves and not scream out— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —during questions and try to shout me down. I invite the opposition to do that. People can reflect on the opposition's behaviour and how seriously they take this matter by their behaviour in the chamber today. Mr Speaker— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Mr Speaker, I take— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I take this matter very, very seriously—even if the opposition doesn't—and the fact is that 13 staff have inappropriately accessed a patient record. In the last 12 months, a further eight have accessed other patient records over the last 12 months, two of whom have been dismissed, which shows the importance and the gravity with which the Department for Health views inappropriate access of patient information. I'm not going to reveal the exact details, but I can say— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I can say, however, that the only reason this came to light was because of an audit that the department carried out about who had accessed a certain patient's records, and whether they had done so— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —whether they had done so appropriately. When it had been found out that those staff—a certain number of staff—had done so inappropriately, those staff were subject to the appropriate disciplinary procedures. As to why the department did not make a decision to go public at the time, it is a decision I entirely support. The reason was that to do so at the time would almost certainly have identified the patient involved and been a gross intrusion into the privacy of that patient and that patient's family. Now that to me is an appropriate course of action the department has taken. I entirely support it. I believe, and this side of the house believes, that the privacy of patients should not be cheap political fodder out there in the public. Members interjecting: