Karen Dearne: Just How Can NEHTA Operate Without Its Supporting Agreement? The Secrecy Seems To Be Utterly Out Of Hand!

Karen alerted me to this post today.

From: Karen Dearne

May 23, 2013

Dear Ms Forman

I refer to your decision that the MoU on eHealth is an exempt document under section 47B(a) of the FOI Act.

I note that you say: "As the MoU is not yet signed by all parties and is considered not to commence until this has happened, the release of the document may pre-empt jurisdictional agreement and may cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State (including a Territory)".

This is surprising news, as the previous National Partnership Agreement on E-Health, constituting joint commonwealth-state funding arrangements for the National E-Health Transition Authority's work program, expired at the end of June 2012.

A renegotiated e-health agreement was identified as a key priority for the Health Minister when Ms Plibersek took that role.

The Department of Health and Ageing advised the Senate Community Affairs committee that "the eHealth MoU, which replaces the National Partnership on E-Health, was agreed by the Standing Council on Health on 9 November 2012".

Are you advising that there is currently NO funding agreement between the parties for this purpose? If so, on what basis is NEHTA's ongoing program being funded, and by whom?

Can NEHTA legally operate in the absence of a binding agreement between the parties?

While you say the decision to refuse the document's release is due to "the interest in preserving the efficient and proper functioning of government" - clearly this condition cannot apply, as without a
signed agreement there is no "efficient and proper functioning" between the parties on the national e-health program.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that this agreement could go unsigned for so long - unless there are significant objections to its content by one or more of the parties.

Since hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by Australian governments on NEHTA and various commonwealth and state e-health projects, I would suggest, quite strongly, that release "of the document in its draft state" is essential to help "inform debate on a matter of public importance" and "promote effective oversight of public expenditure".

I would appreciate a prompt response to these questions.

Regards

Karen Dearne

See here:

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/the_ehealth_mou_which_replaced_t#outgoing-313

All the previous documents - including the Department of Health saying this is not for the public to see - are found if you scroll up from the link here.

This is a total farce in my view. Culpable maladministration? Could be.

David.