Medical Records

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (14:40): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the shadow minister for health a question about the information contained in private medical records.

Leave granted.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My question is to the shadow minister for health. On 1 March, he announced that he and the Liberal Party will introduce legislation to amend the Health Care Act 2008 to make it an offence for a person to improperly access or use personal information. My question is in relation to a letter received by the health minister, the Hon. Jack Snelling, stating:

Minister,

You may recall the incident occurred in August 2014 when my mother died suddenly at Noarlunga Hospital. At the time Mr Wade, the opposition health spokesperson, 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 criminalise the conduct 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 the press release of 3 March 2016:

'If you are admitted to hospital you have the right to have your personal information kept private.'

My family believes 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 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 subsequently to the event, what was the epiphany event that brought about his changed 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—

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Point of order, Mr President: the member has sought leave to make a brief explanation. How long is question time going for? How long is this going for?

The PRESIDENT: We've had longer. The honourable member.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sooky lala. The letter continues:

Does he consider that he had committed a criminal offence in 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?

My question to the shadow minister, the Hon. Mr Wade, is: does he accept that in August 2014 he broke the very law that he now wants to legislate?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:44): Two years ago, the Minister for Health commissioned an independent inquiry into matters that were raised then. I would challenge him now to accede to the requests of the victims of the chemotherapy dosing for them to have their opportunity for an independent inquiry.

In relation to the minister's answer to the question in the house yesterday, I was very disappointed that the minister is apparently already rejecting, even before it has been tabled, an opportunity to strengthen the protection of patient records. The fact that the minister chose to play politics in the House of Assembly yesterday I think is disappointing and actually calls into question—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The opposition health spokesman has the floor.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —the depth of his commitment, which he says he has, to protect patient privacy.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would remind honourable members of the point I made in the context of that press conference that the current legislation does not deal with people who are employed in our hospitals who are not public servants. So, if the honourable minister believes it's appropriate that contracted workers within health facilities can provide information to other parties, then of course he is entitled to oppose the opposition bill.

Considering that that was a direct allegation that was made in the media last week in relation to a patient at The QEH and a private security guard, I think it's completely appropriate that the opposition suggests ways that our patient privacy laws can be strengthened. If the government is not interested in that, that's the government's choice. In terms of the details of the bill, I would ask the honourable member to wait for the bill to be tabled.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Supplementary; the Hon. Ms Gago has the floor.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Listen and learn!

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Stephens, you are making some very physical gestures there, and it seems to offend your colleague the Hon. Mr Dawkins. Please refrain from that. The Hon. Ms Gago has a supplementary.