In tabling the Committee’s Alert Digest No. 3 I particularly draw the Senate’s attention to the Committee’s comments on the National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill.

One aspect of the bill is that it grants the Minister a broad discretionary power to terminate the appointment of a National Health Performance Authority member ‘at any time’.

The Committee’s view is that this discretionary power should be exercised according to a structured dismissal process and confined to relevant grounds. The Committee will be seeking the Minister’s advice about this and a number of other provisions in the Bill.

Several other Bills also contain issues of potential concern under Standing Order 24 and I draw the Senate’s attention to all of the Committee’s comments in Alert Digest No.3.

In relation to scrutiny concerns raised in previous Digests the Committee recently received detailed replies to all of its requests for advice and thanks Ministers for their attention to the issues raised and for the corrective action proposed. These replies are discussed in the Committee’s Third Report.

I particularly draw the Senate’s attention to two significant scrutiny issues mentioned previously in Alert Digests about which the Committee has continuing concerns. The first relates to the Customs Amendment (Serious Drugs Detection) Bill which allows customs and border protection officers to undertake an internal body scan using prescribed equipment of a person who is reasonably suspected to be internally concealing a suspicious substance.

The Committee had expressed concern that the requirement for prescribed equipment to be locked to prevent access to broader scan functions than those needed for the purpose of this bill is not reflected in the primary legislation.

In response the Minister has suggested that if locked calibration is needed (depending on the capability of the equipment procured) the requirement will be prescribed in regulations. The Committee thanks the Minister for his consideration of the issues but retains some concern about the proposed solution: although the regulations would be disallowable, given the significant potential to trespass on personal rights and liberties, the Committee remains of the view that the principle of appropriately limiting equipment capacity should be included in the primary legislation. The Committee will seek further advice from the Minister on this matter.

A second issue arises from the Human Services Legislation Amendment Bill. Items 74 and 76 will reduce the obligations on the Chief Executive of Medicare to notify a patient that their records have been seized as part of a Part IIID investigation. The Committee was concerned to ensure that any patient whose records are scrutinised is required to be notified. The Minister has provided a detailed response and advised that ‘every patient whose clinical details are actually scrutinised would still need to be notified.’

The Committee thanks the Minister for her consideration of the issue and her advice, but will seek further advice to check whether there could be any patients whose records are accessed and other (non-clinical) details such as personal or financial information are obtained. If so, the Committee is interested to know if there is an obligation for these patients to be notified that their records have been seized and scrutinised.

I commend Alert Digest No. 3 of 2011 and the Third Report of 2011 to the Senate.