Back in the late 1990's I did a review (with Paul Clarke and some really good people) of General Practice Computing.
You can read all about it here:
http://ozhealthithistory.wikispaces.com/General+Practice+Related+Files
The report was partly suppressed and parts re-written at the demand of the Department of Health and Ageing. Funny the same Secretary of the Department is still in place!
Since then the GP Report has been seen as being pretty useful!
I am now hearing mutterings the same may be happening with the PCEHR Review. The Department has form in my direct experience so who knows? Are they up to it again?
Rumours or facts might be really fun!
David.
5 comments:
Yes Minister…you might think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment…
The process is being CORRUPTED therefore the process is CORRUPT.
1. a leaked version of the report is in the national interest
2. an immediate 1 week probity review of process is in the national interest
3. Rejecting an FOI application in the face of a $1+++ billion failed project corrupts the purpose and intent of FOI in every way.
Linda JACKSON, assistant secretary eHealth policy branch, states “disclosure of the report would be contrary to the public interest”.
There are two sides to this argument. They are:
1. IF the report POSITIVELY supports the PCEHR, including the approach and processes involved in its development, it is in the public interest to publish the report in full forthwith.
The public taxpayer has over $1 billion invested in the project and given the extensive media coverage around the PCEHR it is in the public interest to provide immediate reassurance the money has been well spent. The best way to do that is to publish the report in its entirety.
2. IF the report is CRITICAL of the PCEHR, including the approach and processes involved in its development, it is in the public interest to publish the report in full as a matter of urgency and to freeze further expenditure on the project as part of the national fiscal constraints now being imposed in the lead up to the Federal Budget.
Either way the report should be released forthwith FOI notwithstanding.
Furthermore, the bureaucrats should not be permitted to sanitize the report, as to do so will badly compromise the Minister to the point of embarrassing the Government should the original version of the report submitted to him subsequently find its way into the public arena.
What Linda JACKSON, assistant secretary eHealth policy branch, meant to say was “disclosure of the report would be contrary to the public service's interest”.
There's a big difference.
Time for an investigative journalist to get stuck in, this time the target being not ministers but corrupt senior bureaucrats across two two governments. 1 billion of public money wasted, and no accountability. Labor won't dig because there are no points against current government and they'd get some blame. Current govt could do it but has already been hanging on to the report for too long, and having had a couple of recent scandals with ministers, is probably in total defence mode. But they could - they are doing it with pink batts. Are there any journalists left?
Post a Comment