❓ Ms McHale questions the Minister for Health, Mr Day, regarding confidentiality assurances for the Douglas inquiry into King Edward Memorial Hospital, given the inquiry's concerns and proposed restrictions on information publication. Mr Day defends the inquiry's approach and refers to legal advice.
AnsweredQoN 220Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s claims of 21 September in this place that people “want an absolute assurance that their confidentiality will be protected” by the Douglas inquiry into King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women. (1) How can the minister guarantee this absolute assurance in the light of the inquirer’s expressed misgivings about the legislative framework in a letter dated 4 October? (2) Will the minister table the correspondence from the inquiry members, dated 25 September, in which they set out their position in some detail, and if not, why not? (3) Does the minister agree with or condone the position adopted by the inquiry members to restrict or prevent the publication of information to protect people’s confidentiality? Mr DAY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
(1) How can the minister guarantee this absolute assurance in the light of the inquirer’s expressed misgivings about the legislative framework in a letter dated 4 October? (2) Will the minister table the correspondence from the inquiry members, dated 25 September, in which they set out their position in some detail, and if not, why not? (3) Does the minister agree with or condone the position adopted by the inquiry members to restrict or prevent the publication of information to protect people’s confidentiality? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
(2) Will the minister table the correspondence from the inquiry members, dated 25 September, in which they set out their position in some detail, and if not, why not? (3) Does the minister agree with or condone the position adopted by the inquiry members to restrict or prevent the publication of information to protect people’s confidentiality? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
(3) Does the minister agree with or condone the position adopted by the inquiry members to restrict or prevent the publication of information to protect people’s confidentiality? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
(1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
(1) How can the minister guarantee this absolute assurance in the light of the inquirer’s expressed misgivings about the legislative framework in a letter dated 4 October? (2) Will the minister table the correspondence from the inquiry members, dated 25 September, in which they set out their position in some detail, and if not, why not? (3) Does the minister agree with or condone the position adopted by the inquiry members to restrict or prevent the publication of information to protect people’s confidentiality? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
(2) Will the minister table the correspondence from the inquiry members, dated 25 September, in which they set out their position in some detail, and if not, why not? (3) Does the minister agree with or condone the position adopted by the inquiry members to restrict or prevent the publication of information to protect people’s confidentiality? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
(3) Does the minister agree with or condone the position adopted by the inquiry members to restrict or prevent the publication of information to protect people’s confidentiality? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
(1)-(3) I suggest the member read the Solicitor General’s advice. Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Ms McHale: I have read the report; that is why I am asking these questions. Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Mr DAY: If the member has read the report, I suggest she absorb the information it contains. I have tabled the information. If I still had it on me, I would take up a large amount of question time going through all the points that show that the law provides adequate guarantees for the appropriate protection of people’s confidentiality and identity. The inquiry panel has indicated that it will be able to put that advice into effect. Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Ms McHale: That is by restricting or preventing the publication of information. Where is the accountability? Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Mr DAY: It may be appropriate for the inquiry to restrict the publication of information that might identify people. That is what this issue is about. The inquiry sought a mechanism through which it could restrict the publication of information when it considered that to be in everyone’s interests, particularly those providing the information. That mechanism would be necessary whether the inquiry were a royal commission or established under section 9 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act and section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act, which it is. Establishing the inquiry as a royal commission would make no difference; the issue is about the inquiry having the ability to restrict the publication of information when it is appropriate to do so. I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
I hope the Opposition joins with me in encouraging people who have genuine information about obstetric and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital to come forward and to not be frightened by the debate taking place in this Chamber. Those people can come forward in the absolute confidence that their privacy will be protected. Various remedies under the Criminal Code and other Acts are available to people who seek to provide information to the inquiry in good faith and are impeded by others taking legal action against them. In the unlikely event such a thing occurs, the State has a strong obligation to protect those people and provide them with legal representation, and I will make sure that happens.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.