Page 3528 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provide a sample of their own urine for drug testing. It was installed in the ceiling of the toilet to protect the equipment from damage. Already some clients have attempted to interfere with the operation of the lens. The personal observation of urines is essential in order to ensure that urine screen results from program clients are reliable, as these reports are necessary for both medical safety and legal reasons
Use of a camera for supervising urine screens is consistent with national practice in methadone programs. Mr Russell Bayliss, the ACT Government Solicitor, advises that the installation and use of the camera in the toilet at the methadone clinic at Woden Valley Hospital, under the circumstances outlined above, does not breach either the Privacy Act or the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.
MRS CARNELL: I ask a supplementary question. Taking into account his answer there, could the Minister explain why the memo to all clients, dated 19 November 1992 - the day, by the way, that the question was asked - tells the clients, to my knowledge for the first time, that it is happening? In fact the first sentence reads: "We have been trialling the supervision of urine test sample collection by remote video over the past few weeks".
MR BERRY: It says, by Mrs Carnell's own admission, that it had been trialled and the - - -
Mrs Carnell: They were told after it had been done for a few weeks.
Mr Humphries: Why were they telling them then?
Mr Kaine: You said that it was after consultation.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Please let Mr Berry finish the answer.
MR BERRY: In response, I will repeat what I said earlier. This is my advice in relation to your question, Mr De Domenico. All clients were notified about this proposed change several months before its introduction, and the matter had been discussed at a staff-client forum before the camera was put into use - several months before.
Ms Follett: I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper, Madam Speaker.
Health Services Consultant
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, on 21 and 22 October Mrs Carnell asked the Minister for Health a series of questions concerning the employment of Ms Annie Austin and whether the provisions of the Public Service Act had been complied with in relation to her employment. As the matters relate to the staffing of senior positions and SES processes, Madam Speaker, I am responding as Minister responsible for public service matters.
The response is that the Head of Administration has advised me that Ms Austin was engaged under professional service contracts. She did not hold an SES position. She was not appointed under the Public Service Act and did not exercise delegations under that Act. Ms Austin used the title
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .