House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Medical Records Medical Records Mr PICTON House of Assembly Kaurna Medical Records Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Health. What correspondence has the minister received regarding proposed amendments to the Health Care Act? The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly Playford Minister for Health Minister for the Arts Minister for Health Industries Medical Records The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:46): I thank the member for Kaurna for a very insightful question, and I can confirm to the house that I have received a very, very interesting piece of correspondence which I will read to the house, to the benefit of members: Dear Minister, You may recall the incident [that] occurred in August 2014 when my mother died suddenly at the Noarlunga Hospital. At that time Mr Wade, the Opposition Health spokesman obtained or received confidential information from her personal medical records which he used to create a false allegation that she had died as a result of not receiving proper care at the hospital. I note with interest that Mr Wade is now seeking to criminalize the conduct that he sought to benefit from in 2014. Whilst I do not condone in any way what occurred in the [high profile case last week], I consider his current position on the matter to be demonstrably hypocritical. I note with particular interest his statement in his press release of 3 March 2016 'If you are admitted to hospital, you have the right to your personal information being kept private.' My family believe it is a pity that Mr Wade didn't apply this philosophy when he chose to disseminate information that had been unlawfully provided to him in 2014. If Mr Wade believes that this type of conduct is criminal, was that also his belief in August 2014? If so, then why was he prepared to use the product of criminal conduct for his advantage? Furthermore, if he did believe this was criminal conduct, why didn't he disclose the identity of the person to the appropriate authority? Alternatively, if Mr Wade's belief has emerged subsequent to that event, what was the epiphany event that brought about his change in philosophy? Is it the result of self-reflection on his unconscionable conduct and his willingness to exploit someone's confidential medical information for personal gain? Does Mr Wade's proposal also extend to those who, without reasonable lawful excuse, take possession or further disseminate that type of information? If so, does this mean that Mr Wade would consider that he had committed a criminal offence in August 2014? If he receives any information of this nature in the future, will he refrain from using it and forthwith report the 'offender' to the appropriate authority? This piece of correspondence speaks for itself. The opposition speaks with a forked tongue on matters when it comes to privacy of patients. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Before the next question—could the deputy leader be seated—I call to order the member for Mitchell, who interjected during that answer; I warn the member for Kavel, but not because the Deputy Premier beseeches me to; and I warn the member for Chaffey for the first time and for the second time. A supplementary.