The government has refused to release information about alleged violence towards public health staff because of ACT health privacy laws, while admitting it has not begun a review of these laws due to "competing priorities".
The Canberra Times in July submitted freedom of information requests about alleged incidents at the Dhulwa Mental Health Unit, a Symonston-based inpatient service for adults with complex mental health issues.
These include allegations by a former nurse that staff were strangled, taken hostage, attacked with a broken tray and threatened with hot coffee.
The government refused four separate requests for information on the basis details "would be personal health information" under ACT law.
The government also said a complaint submitted by a staff member about an alleged incident would likely also be considered a health record.
ACT health privacy laws came under scrutiny in early 2022 when the media sought information about COVID-19 patients and fatalities, such as vaccination status.
After strong public and media criticism, ACT Health Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith indicated the laws should be reviewed.
However, after being told of the Dhulwa information being blocked, she said a formal review had not begun because of "competing priorities".
"However, this remains an open conversation with both the ACT Health Directorate and Canberra Health Services when relevant matters arise," she said.
ACT government bureaucrats are expected to provide information that helps inform the community about public health matters, the minister said.
"My expectation of ACT government directorates is that they will provide data and information that helps inform the community about public health matters wherever that is possible, taking into account the very legitimate need to protect the privacy of patients and staff," Ms Stephen-Smith said.
In the ACT, any information held by a health service about a consumer is considered a health record.
The Canberra Times was not seeking personal details and had specified that documents could be redacted after consultation.
Many laws governing health privacy in Australian states are intentionally broad, Melbourne University privacy law expert Dr Megan Prictor said.
"In most cases, [the laws across jurisdictions] more or less line up," she said.
"It's intended to be a broad definition that encompasses a broad set of information ... for instance, a person's name and address as well as their actual diagnosis. [Generally] there's a lot of weight given to patient privacy, and I think that's entirely appropriate."
She said the law was designed to be clear and broad so there was no "splitting of hairs" about what was or was not health information.
Alleged violence at mental health unit
The freedom of information requests related to allegations made by a former Dhulwa nurse.
Carol Sandland was sacked for sending patient information to the nurses' union.
Ms Sandland, who claims she was unfairly dismissed, made allegations health management did not take workplace safety seriously during a Fairwork Commission hearing.
She claimed one patient tried to strangle a driver, after she raised concerns to management about his behaviour.
A patient threatened to throw hot coffee on a nurse, and another broke a tray into shards to threaten staff, Ms Sandlands alleged.
She also said a patient barricaded a door to their room, effectively taking staff members hostage, and claimed another allegedly absconded after she warned her bosses not to let him out on day leave.
A 2022 inquiry into the mental health unit found it had a dysfunctional work environment.
'Vulnerable' and easily identifiable
Privacy laws are essential to protect "vulnerable" mental health patients, an ACT mental health advocacy group says.
Canberra's small size makes it very easy to identify patients with even limited information, Mental Health Consumer Network's acting chief executive Jen Nixon said.
The threat of having private details leaked could stop people from seeking help, she said.
"The privacy of people in a mental health unit should be very, very well-monitored and be very, very, very strong. It's too easy to identify people, in Canberra especially, with any information that's released," she said.
"The stigma around mental health is still massive."
Ms Nixon did not support releasing information such as patient names, suburbs, diagnosis or details of an incident that led to their hospitalisation - information The Canberra Times indicated in its FOI requests it had no interest in.
She did support the release of "general data about incidences in mental health units or the numbers of people in there or the number of seclusion and restraint."
Health privacy laws were designed to ensure patients felt safe to disclose intimate details with health professionals, Dr Pictor said.
Transparency must be weighed up against confidentiality obligations, Ms Stephen-Smith said.
"ACT government agencies must balance the importance of transparency, and the need to provide relevant information to the community, with their legal and ethical obligations to respect the confidentiality of health records," she said.
"Records protected under the Health Records ACT are some of the most sensitive personal information, and the government takes this very seriously."
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
