Quote Of The Year

Quote Of The Year - Paul Shetler - "Its not Your Health Record it's a Government Record Of Your Health Information"

Monday, August 20, 2018

I Am Officially Gob Smacked - WTF Is Going On Here?


I thought I would check out how we are meant to respond to the request for submissions on the myHR.
Look what I found - and note the red type towards the bottom!
Making a submission
You can get involved in a committee inquiry by:
What is a submission?
As part of an inquiry, a committee usually asks for written submissions addressing the terms of reference. The terms of reference for each inquiry are on the committee's website. There are no terms of reference for a bill, because the committee is seeking comments on the bill itself.
Who should I talk to if I have a question about lodging a submission?
Please contact the relevant committee secretariat for further information. Inquiries from hearing and speech impaired people should be directed to the Parliament House TTY number 02 6277 7799.
Committee contact details
Writing a submission
The best submissions:
  • clearly address some or all of the terms of reference—you do not need to address each one
  • are relevant and highlight your own perspective
  • are concise, generally no longer than four to five pages
  • begin with a short introduction about yourself or the organisation you represent
  • emphasise the key points so that they are clear
  • outline not only what the issues are but how problems can be addressed, as the committee looks to submissions for ideas to make recommendations
  • only include documents that directly relate to your key points
  • only include information you would be happy to see published on the internet.
Submissions that include complex argument, personal details or criticise someone may take the committee longer to process and consider.
Submission checklist
Before you send us your submission, check:
Have you commented on some or all of the terms of reference?

Is your submission long? Have you provided a summary of your submission at the front?

Have you provided your return address and contact details with the submission?

Have you made sure that your personal contact details are not in the main part of the submission?

If you do not want your submission published on the internet, have you made this clear on the front of your submission and told us why?

Delivering your submission
As many inquiries attract high levels of interest, committees prefer to accept submissions via the online system. The on-line submission site is secure and is suitable for uploading sensitive and confidential material.
If you upload your submission through the Senate's website, you will receive an email straight away that lets you know that the secretariat has received your submission.
You can submit by email, but please be aware that this is not an automated process and it may take longer for you to receive an acknowledgement that your submission has been received.
You can email your submission to the committee secretariat or to seniorclerk.committees.sen@aph.gov.au
You can also submit through the post by writing to:
Committee Secretary
[Name of committee]
Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
AUSTRALIA
What happens to my submission?
Your submission will be given to the committee members to read. The committee will decide whether to accept your submission and whether to publish it.
Your submission is not automatically accepted and published. Due to high workload, the committee may take several weeks to consider and process your submission.
You should read the terms of reference and structure your submission around these. The committee may decide not to accept your submission if it does not address the terms of reference.
You will be told whether or not the committee has accepted your submission.

  • If your submission is accepted it may be published on the internet with your name.
    If accepted, most submissions are published on the committee's website with the name of the submitter.
    If your submission is published, the information in it, including your name can be searched for on the internet. Your contact details will not be published on the website.
    You cannot withdraw or alter your submission once the committee has published it.
    If you want to change your submission or tell us something else, you can send a supplementary submission.
    The committee may refer to your submission in its report. Committee reports are published on the committee's website and can be searched for on the internet.
  • You can ask the committee to keep your submission private.
    If you do not want your name published on the internet, or if you want your submission to be kept confidential, you should
    • include the word confidential clearly on the front of your submission and provide a reason for your request.
    • make sure that your name and contact details are on a separate page and not in the main part of your submission.
    Confidential submissions are only read by members of the committee and the secretariat.
    Confidential information may be placed in an attachment to the main part of your submission, with a request for the committee to keep the attachment confidential.
    The committee will consider your request but you need to know that the committee has the authority to publish any submission. The secretariat will contact you if the committee wants to publish something you have asked to be kept confidential.
    If you are considering making a confidential submission, you should contact the committee secretariat to discuss this before you send us your submission.
  • Before you show your submission to someone else, check if the committee has accepted it and decided to publish it.
    Submissions are only published after a decision by the committee.
    If the committee accepts and publishes your submission it is protected by parliamentary privilege. This means the content of your submission cannot be used in court against you or anyone else.
    If you publish your submission without the committee's agreement the information in your submission may not be protected in this way.
    See: Senate Brief No. 20 Parliamentary privilege
  • If you write something critical of another person or organisation the committee will write to them and ask them to respond.
    If your submission criticises another person (for example, accusing them of lying or corrupt behaviour), the committee will send your comment to the other person so they can reply.
    The committee may decide to publish your submission and the other person's response together on the committee website.
-----
Now hold it right there! The commission can decide not to accept a submission. Surely it can’t “not – accept” a submission. It can choose not to take notice etc. but surely it must be assessed and any sensible points noted. Or are we in the world that the Government will only hear what it wants to hear???
Do I hear Mr Orwell turning in his grave?
David.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

If that is how contemptuously they are going to treat those that want to respond, why the hell are they bothering?!
Got smacked right along with you David.

Anonymous said...

This seems to be standard practice, look at the $433 million Barrier Reef gift, the NEG sham, inability to act in support of farmers in drought stricken areas. The Government has forgotten how to govern and has lost it rightful purpose. All this agile, innovation crap is just a shield for incompetence and runaway hero’s and saviours akin to the barnyard leaders in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. We also have a troubling trend towards more and more commissioners being appointed and the ADHA is being overrun by ex-military, mining and banking sector employees

Not all aspects of public service are out of control, they just seem to be pushed into a corner and hushed up. I hope that submissions are made in the hundreds and this culture of cowboys is finally removed from public service.

Anonymous said...

The NIB chap is at it again. I recall Tim Kelsey farewell speech stated Timmy-boy wanted to explore this sort of oppertunity

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/edit-their-dna-nib-looks-to-future-as-profit-dividends-rise-20180806-p4zvux.html

Members will be provided with the means to literally edit their DNA to wipe out a potential disease

Anonymous said...

I mean Tim Kelsey NHS farewell speech, not trying to preempt his upcoming farewell speech.

Anonymous said...

Have to agree this is what happens when reactive mentality takes over, this is being rushed and is attempting to analyse a complicated set of issues in a condensed timeframe.

The Government is on a brink of a leadership change. The current raft of policies have been poorly thought through and MyHR has definitely been poorly implemented. I am not sure what the rush is, surely this is to critical to rush and get wrong (again).

Anonymous said...

Outrageous! I've never seen that before in either making a submission, or in reading those lodged by others. What possible reason could a committee have for rejecting certain submissions - without anyone knowing?

Do we now have to ask people/organisations to publish independently as well? Oh wait... they seem to also have a problem with that concept! Just wow!







Andrew McIntyre said...

I am afraid that its pointless trying to give any opinion to these people as they have a track record of not listening and its a huge waste of time. I think the public are the only ones who can effectively send them a message. The public should be outraged at the enormous waste of taxpayers money and the risk they are being exposed to for very little benefit.

We did at one point have individual PKI keys, which contrary to popular opinion could be made to work very well, and this is in my book the only appropriate security model, which laws stating that you you are responsible for any access by you PKI key, so don't give it and your password to anyone else. We no longer have any workable PKI infrastructure.

The quality of ideas generated by the national eHealth authorities has steadily declined over the last decade and a half, tightly correlated to the IT/Health capability of the leadership to the point that it is plainly a cargo cult.

Anonymous said...

Australians’ trust in government at an all-time low

https://www.governmentnews.com.au/australians-trust-government-time-low/

Anonymous said...

I notice Greg Hunt and Susan Ley both back Peter Dutton. It is clear that the trigger for this spill was poor policy, perhaps we should Holt the MyHR policy change. They need time to review the current state and impacts various known changes are going to have.

This will also allow time to make some changes in ADHA, the current CEO must surely be out of favour and deserves the vote of no confidence.

Anonymous said...

The quality of ideas generated by the national eHealth authorities has steadily declined over the last decade and a half, tightly correlated to the IT/Health capability of the leadership to the point that it is plainly a cargo cult.

Fully agree Andrew, I worry the ADHA struggles with basic infrastructure let alone grasp critical infrastructure. As an example the terminology service, probably the closest thing they have as a useful clinical offering, has been slipping in performance and reliability as a service, today it was offline and as always during a critical time for my team. The efforts clearly indicate a lack of knowledge of management. I am not sure who runs their IT but whoever it is might consider other options.

Anonymous said...

Greg Hunt, Sussan Ley & Peter Dutton - all health ministers. So was Tony Abbott. All involved in My HR

Does that tell you anything?

Anonymous said...

Business as usual for ADHA then? Even their website seems to be falling into neglect.

Anonymous said...

@10:13 PM - does that tell you anything? Other than as a nation we are led by poor policy making and we have as many health minister changes as we do prime ministers.

It does give Minister Hunt a way out though.

It is becoming clear that the MyHR poses a national security risk and at best is compromising the safety of our citizens. The government needs to consider if it should simply revert back to setting policy on the adoption of standards and legislation around the use and storage of health information. How it will influence the adoption of standards and how to enforce compliance to government policy. I would sleep better at night knowing the government will take to task anyone who breaks the law or prevents an open and competitive market.

Anonymous said...

Yes business as usual at ADHA. Like others I recently moved on. Not because I lost faith in digital health or MHR. I parted company to a large part due to the stranglehold some have on the ADHA and their ineptitude of a small gang of people who have been appointed based on personnel relationships rather than ability, simply to galvanise control and mask what has been a disaster in establishing a small but important organisation.

Anonymous said...

https://www.digitalhealth.gov.au/about-the-agency/australian-digital-health-agency-executive/executive-remuneration-information

Will all that expensive “talent” you would think a communications project would have been within these people’s capability. Such a hash job of an expensive cash grab for such a hash job.

Still as the above commentary remarks something needs to change.

Anonymous said...

As someone who worked previously in policy for an NGO this is fairly standard disclaimer. Never had any issues with any submissions I've made even when it's all being critical of the government. From what I understand it's a quality assurance process to ensure that submissions actually relate to the terms of reference. Which is more than can be said for questions during hearings.
Definitely not unique to this hearing and it's not a common issue either.
I get the concern around the potential to exclude submissions but they don't need to expose themselves to such accusations when they can simply accept your evidence then ignore it whilst pretending it's been considered and addressed.