Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When Labor last considered the My Health Record in 2015, the shadow minister, the member for Ballarat, moved a second reading amendment to the government's bill. It called on the House to note the inadequacy of that bill in making real improvements through a national electronic health record system. The government voted that amendment down, and here we are again today. Labor raised concerns about the implementation, but we were prepared to give the government and the new Digital Health Agency a go, to get this right. But, from what we are reading in the media and hearing in this place, it is clear that the government has screwed this up. Instead of getting this right, right from the start, as we said—having a secure and efficient health record system—we have critics saying that there are real security concerns. And that's a real concern. This includes some honourable members on the government's own side and ranks, and now we find the government coming back to the chamber with legislation that's basically a clean-up exercise.

I want to be clear. We support a national digital health record. Labor established the personally controlled electronic health record under the leadership of the member for Sydney. If the government can eventually get this right, we believe that My Health Record could save money and, most importantly, save lives. Here's the problem: the government has already tarnished the My Health Record system. You only need to listen to programs such as Leon Byner in South Australia on FIVEaa or the ABC in the mornings in Adelaide to know that people are worried about the integrity of their information. Let's remember that this is the government that gave us the census fail and the robo-debt disaster—two IT projects that were completely messed up. Therefore, you can understand why people would not have the confidence that another massive project such as this will be tight and ensure that people's personal records don't leak out to different sectors of the community. I was very proud of the work I did as the member for Hindmarsh to expose the harassment techniques used by the minister's agencies through the robo-debt debacle. On top of that, Medicare and PBS data leaked, and the government spent millions outsourcing the National Cancer Screening Register to Telstra.

Why are we here again today with this legislation? Because in mid-July, when the opt-out period for My Health Record began, it became very clear that the government had bungled this vital program in two fundamental ways. The government seemed to have refused to communicate with the public about, first, the risks and benefits of the My Health Record and, second, what the actual opt-out system means in practice. The opt-out model is a big change from Labor's opt-in system. Every Australian will now get a My Health Record unless they tell the government they don't want one. The minister was woefully slow not just in explaining the benefits but also in reassuring that the public's records are safe on this. The system was called into doubt, eroding confidence in this particular system. So, what we needed was television ads and a public campaign, but of course the government refused to run any ads on TV. Some critics might argue that it's a waste of money to educate the public about such a fundamental change to health. But it's important that the public are aware and that they know what their rights are and what the benefits are of the Digital Health Agency and a system that will keep their health records. Wouldn't it be a surprise to learn that the Digital Health Agency spent $81 million on consultants last year alone, when some of this money could have gone towards educating the public, informing the public and notifying the public of what their rights are, of what they can and can't do and of the great benefits of a system like this. The minister wouldn't explain the benefits, public opposition from cyber commentators and privacy advocates grew, and the trust started to evaporate.

On this side of the House, we're trying to help the government. We're trying to assist, because we know how important this is, and we're trying to get this back on track. The legislation before us today tries to make two changes to the My Health Records Act 2012. First, the bill first amends the act to require a court order or a consumer's express consent to disclose health information from their My Health Record to law enforcement agencies or other government bodies. I today here join with the member for Ballarat by congratulating the AMA, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and others that have advocated for that exact policy to be enshrined in this legislation.

Firstly, the bill also sets out a range of conditions under which a judicial officer may make a court order to disclose health information, including that the disclosure is reasonably necessary and that the requested information is not available from any other source. It also exempts the Auditor-General, the ombudsman and the Information Commissioner from the requirement for a court order. The government argues that this is necessary because these agencies have unique responsibilities, and they have unique responsibilities to ensure the privacy and security of the My Health Record system.

Secondly, this bill amends the act to require the permanent deletion of health information for all consumers who opt out of the My Health Record. I can tell you that I've had more than a few inquiries from constituents about this, as I'm sure everyone in this House has had. The former president of the AMA, Dr Kerryn Phelps, has described the government's changes as 'woefully inadequate' and 'minor concessions'. I suppose defending on how things go in Wentworth, perhaps Dr Phelps might be able to come to this House and express her views on this very floor.

Something I've been worried about, and many of my colleagues have been concerned about, is that we need to make sure that the private health insurers are never given access to people's health records. The last thing we need, in this nation, in this country, is a class of Australians that is either uninsurable or facing rising premiums due to a perceived increased risk. We are not saying that this is going to happen with the way the legislation is currently written, but who knows what a future government could be capable of doing? This is a government that's hell-bent on outsourcing, just like we have seen with Centrelink call-centre staff, Home Affairs and a whole range of other things that have been outsourced. The public needs to understand that there's a huge price to pay when it comes to outsourcing; we pay for it with reduced integrity data. Our information can go overseas and into the hands of private companies with vested interests and perhaps nations overseas that have different types of democracies than we do. We should be supporting, of course, Australian workers and a strong public service here.

All that aside, there are massive advantages with having an integrated system, which the minister failed to promote when the backlash began. And this is where the government has failed. They needed to educate the public. They needed to inform the public about the importance of this system. Let's say you are interstate and fall ill or have an accident. You will be able to go to a hospital, GP, doctor or health provider and not explain your previous treatment. You may not know what your previous treatment was or you may not be conscious at the time, but all of your records will be there for every health professional to see so that they will be able to give you the treatment that you require. This, most importantly, as I said at the beginning of this speech, will save lives. It will save lives and it will assist people. You will be able to go anywhere in the country to see a doctor and not have to go through the same rigmarole of trying to explain what treatment you've had, what medication you're on and what doctors' consulting notes are saying. This will all be there. It will be a great assistance for the medical professional to be able to give the treatment that's required.

I have to say that only this government could take such a great policy and great idea, which would benefit our health system and would benefit Australians, and turn it into a fiasco. While doubts remain from experts in the health and IT sectors, we still firmly believe—and I certainly firmly believe—that the opt-out rollout should be suspended until all of these concerns are fully addressed and a new comprehensive, public information campaign is launched. And when I say 'a public campaign', we need TV ads, radio ads and advertisements in the newspapers. We need people to come out and talk about it. We need the minister himself to promote it and do all that he can to get that information out to the public so that people understand it. Most people, I think, would be fairly comfortable knowing that their data—their private information on health—is safe and cannot be leaked out to private entities, multinational companies or insurers. They would be comfortable knowing that, at a time of emergency when they're perhaps away from their local GP or not at their local hospital, when something goes wrong and they fall ill or have an accident, their health information, which is absolutely critical to their treatment, would be accessible to any health professional who can look at it, analyse it and know exactly what treatment that patient is getting or what new treatment he or she may be able to offer.

While doubts remain, as I said, for experts in the health and IT sectors, it's really important that a public information campaign is launched. It's the least that this government can do to make sure that we get this system right. It is so important, as I said, that this system be perfect. We need it to be perfect. And we know there was a public outcry at the start of the opt-out period for the My Health Record in mid-July. The government agreed to make those two changes and provide the privacy protections, and that's what we need. We need to ensure that the Australian public has absolute confidence that there is protection for that data, that none of that data will be leaked and, certainly, that none of that data will ever be outsourced to a private company that could perhaps then onsell it to someone else for a profit. You can just imagine the danger to Australian patients in terms of insurance, occupational health, compensation claims et cetera or in terms of employment, when people are applying for work. You can imagine, if an employer got hold of their entire health record, how that could adversely affect people. So we need the public to be absolutely guaranteed that this government is doing all that it can to protect that private information and that that private information will only be able to be accessed by medical professionals and only for the purpose of giving treatment to people.

It's a great thing. It's a fantastic thing to be able to go anywhere in the nation—and we are a nation, after all. We're not a section of six different countries with a couple of territories. People should be able to access their records at any health centre, at any GP or at any hospital anywhere in the country. And this, as I said earlier, will save lives, so we need to ensure that the government informs the public, lets them know how this will work, informs them of the importance of it, and absolutely guarantees that it is tight and that nothing will be leaked.

See this speech in context