The Time Has Come for DoHA and NEHTA to Abandon Absurd Secrecy.

All over the country we are gradually seeing Governments respond to public pressure for a innocent public information to indeed become public and not held in the tight grasp of authoritarian bureaucrats.

Sadly, despite we pay them and the consultants they use, they seem to feel we are all to ignorant or unimportant to be let into their thought processes and to be allowed to maybe suggest where things could be done better. The arrogance of many of these people – not the staff, but their managers – is really breathtaking – especially their woeful track record of competence, delivery and implementation.

The need for change was made clear in a recent release (June 18, 2009) from the Australian Law Reform Commission.

Review of Secrecy Laws: Discussion Paper 74

Introduction

This briefing provides an overview of the ALRC’s Discussion Paper, Review of Secrecy Laws (DP 74, June 2009).

On 5 August 2008, the Attorney-General of Australia, the Hon Robert McClelland MP, asked the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to conduct an Inquiry into options for ensuring a consistent approach across government to the protection of Commonwealth information and, in particular, to review the secrecy laws currently on the federal statute book. The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry ask the ALRC to consider the balance between the need to protect some Commonwealth information and the need to maintain an open and accountable government through providing appropriate access to information.

The ALRC has identified and considered 507 secrecy provisions scattered across 175 pieces of legislation, including 358 distinct secrecy offences carrying a wide variety of criminal penalties. DP 74 indicates the Inquiry’s current thinking in the form of specific reform proposals. In trying to move towards a more open and ‘pro-disclosure culture’, the ALRC proposes a substantial decrease in the use of criminal sanctions—limiting prosecutions to those unauthorised disclosures in which it is alleged that harm has been caused, or was likely to be caused, to a compelling public interest. In most cases, however, the ALRC proposes that concerns about the protection of Commonwealth information should be addressed through better education and training, improved information handling practices, and public service disciplinary procedures.

The proposals contained in DP 74 do not represent the final recommendations of the Inquiry. The ALRC is seeking further submissions and is undertaking a further round of national consultations on the proposals in DP 74. It is not uncommon for there to be some significant changes of approach between a Discussion Paper and Final Report.

In recent times, the ALRC’s approach to law reform has involved a mix of strategies including: legislation and subordinate regulations, official standards and codes of practice, industry and professional guidelines, and education and training programs. Proposals—and, later, recommendations—may be directed to the Attorney-General, to whom the Report is presented, and also to other government and non-government agencies, associations and institutions.

Vastly more here:

http://www.alrc.gov.au/media/2009/mbp0618.html

The important bit for me is here:

In Chapter 7, the ALRC proposes that the new general secrecy offence should only impose criminal liability where a particular disclosure did, was reasonably likely to, or was intended to:

• harm the national security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth;
• prejudice the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of criminal offences, breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction, the enforcement of laws relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, or the protection of the public revenue;
• endanger the life or physical safety of any person;
• pose a serious threat to public health or public safety;
• have a substantial adverse effect on personal privacy; or
• have a substantial adverse effect on a person in respect of his or her lawful business or professional affairs or on the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation.

Staggeringly Crikey.com.au in an article on the 19^th of June came up with this amazing statistic found in the report.

“At first glance it suggests some sensible changes to the current 537 separate secrecy provisions scattered through 175 pieces of Federal legislation that the Commission has identified.”

Those public servants have been very busy making sure we all “know nothing”!. This is to the great disadvantage of the future of our democracy I believe.

At the same time we have this from the ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/15/2597966.htm

'Systemic secrecy' hampering NSW health

The New South Wales Nationals' conference has heard claims of systemic secrecy in the state's health system.

The conference, which ended in Wagga Wagga on Saturday, called for public reporting of performance indicators such as efficiency, quality of care and infection rates.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Health, Jenny Gardiner, says a culture of secrecy has developed in the hospital system and the performance of hospitals, particularly in regional areas, needs to be more transparent.

"We believe that that's in the interests of patients," she said.

"Patients and their families have the right to know about such information and so we believe that that should be a feature of any reforms of the health system across Australia.

"[We need] more accountability, more information to patients and communities."

More here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/15/2597966.htm

The time has surely come for NEHTA, DoHA, and others, to stop commissioning consultants to do expensive reports on matters of more than some community interest and then refusing to share them with those who paid for them.

They could start with the various e-Health Strategy Documents and Business Cases that in no way fit the criteria above!

For those with a serious interest I provide the following:

“Further information

The full Discussion Paper can be downloaded from the ALRC’s website www.alrc.gov.au.

Hard copies and CDRoms are available from the ALRC.

Submissions on the ALRC’s proposals are due by 7th August. The final report and recommendations in this Inquiry are due to be provided to the Attorney-General by 30 October 2009.”

This issue with NEHTA has become even more important now we have discovered documents as important and non-commercial as Privacy Impact Assessments are being withheld. Just pathetic.

David.