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:
- Writing to the committee — this is called a submission
- Attending a public hearing.
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
[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.
-----
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.
If that is how contemptuously they are going to treat those that want to respond, why the hell are they bothering?!
ReplyDeleteGot smacked right along with you David.
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
ReplyDeleteNot 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.
The NIB chap is at it again. I recall Tim Kelsey farewell speech stated Timmy-boy wanted to explore this sort of oppertunity
ReplyDeletehttps://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
I mean Tim Kelsey NHS farewell speech, not trying to preempt his upcoming farewell speech.
ReplyDeleteHave 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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).
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?
ReplyDeleteDo 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!
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.
ReplyDeleteWe 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.
Australians’ trust in government at an all-time low
ReplyDeletehttps://www.governmentnews.com.au/australians-trust-government-time-low/
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.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteFully 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.
Greg Hunt, Sussan Ley & Peter Dutton - all health ministers. So was Tony Abbott. All involved in My HR
ReplyDeleteDoes that tell you anything?
Business as usual for ADHA then? Even their website seems to be falling into neglect.
ReplyDelete@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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
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.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.digitalhealth.gov.au/about-the-agency/australian-digital-health-agency-executive/executive-remuneration-information
ReplyDeleteWill 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely 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.