The Queensland Department of Health - The department is the State party to the agreement, represented by the chief executive (s 6(1)). It must allocate funds, assess performance, and cooperate with the Mater. The guiding principles require the department to use best endeavours and to fund the services consistently with public sector health services (s 4(a), (d)). The department is also responsible for developing plans and key initiatives cooperatively (s 4(f)). The department’s officers (designated persons under the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011) may disclose confidential information to Mater health professionals for care or treatment of individuals (s 8(1)).

The Mater - The private entity operating the Mater hospitals. It receives funding from the State and must deliver public patient health services as agreed. It is expressly stated as responsible for service delivery (s 4(e)). Its officers may disclose personal information to health professionals delivering public sector health services on behalf of the department, for care or treatment (s 8(2)). The Mater’s corporate governance and public accountability requirements are to be considered in the arrangements (s 3(2)(d)). The Act does not impose any operational obligations beyond what the agreement contains.

The Corporation of the Trustees of the Order of the Sisters of Mercy of Queensland - Recognised in section 3(2)(a) for its major contribution. This religious order is the owner or sponsor of the Mater. The Act does not give it any legal rights or duties, but the recognition may influence the agreement’s terms.

Health professionals - Both those engaged by Mater hospitals and those engaged by the department can receive confidential or personal information for care or treatment under sections 8(1) and (2). The definitions in section 7 incorporate the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 definition of health professional.

Patients - Individuals who receive public patient health services at Mater hospitals. Their information may be disclosed between departmental and Mater health professionals for care or treatment. The guiding principle in section 4(a) says services should be funded and delivered in the best interests of patients, but this is not a legally enforceable right.

Staff of the Mater - The regulation power under section 6(4) allows the government to prescribe matters about funding for staff entitlements that must be included in the agreement. This could directly affect employees’ wages, conditions, or superannuation funding, making staff a contingent interest.

Taxpayers and funders - The Act does not specify funding quantum, but the agreement will determine the amount of public money allocated to Mater. Any inefficient funding or cost overruns (including via extraordinary or emergency funding under s 6(2)(e)) ultimately falls on the state budget.

Chief executive’s duty/right - Section 6(1) gives the chief executive authority to enter into an agreement. This is a power, not a duty. There is no obligation to enter an agreement; if no agreement is reached, the Act provides no fallback. Once an agreement is in place, the department must allocate funds as per the agreement (s 6(2)(c)-(d)). The department has the right to assess the Mater’s performance against measures in the agreement (s 6(2)(h)).

Mater’s obligations - The Mater’s duties arise from the agreement itself, not directly from the Act. Section 6(2)(g) states the agreement may include “the Mater’s obligations to deliver the services under the measures”. The Act does not impose a statutory duty to deliver services. The Mater also has reporting obligations as agreed (s 6(2)(j)). It must comply with information disclosure provisions in part 3, but those are permissive, not mandatory.

Guiding principles as duties? - Section 4 states “the principles intended to guide the achievement of this Act’s main object”. The language (“should use their best endeavours”, “should be committed”) is hortatory, not mandatory. A court would not likely find a breach of statutory duty for non-compliance, but the principles may inform interpretation of the agreement or any discretion exercised under it.

Information disclosure rights - Section 8(1) authorises a designated person (department employee) to disclose confidential information about an individual to a health professional engaged to deliver a public patient health service for a Mater hospital if the disclosure is for care or treatment. Section 8(2) authorises an officer of the Mater to disclose personal information about a patient to a health professional delivering a public sector health service on behalf of the department, also for care or treatment. These provisions override any restriction in other Acts that would otherwise prohibit such disclosure, but only to the extent of the specified purpose. They do not create a corresponding duty to disclose.

Mater’s rights - The Mater has the right to receive funding as per the agreement, including extraordinary or emergency funding if provided for (s 6(2)(e)). It may also vary the agreement if agreed (s 6(2)(b)). The dispute resolution mechanism (s 6(2)(k)) can be invoked.

Regulation power - Section 6(4) gives the Governor in Council power to prescribe matters that must be included in the agreement relating to funding for staff entitlements. This is a delegated right to impose mandatory terms on the Mater, potentially limiting its contractual freedom. The regulation may come later and could be onerous.

Transitional rights - Under section 9, the existing 2002 agreement continues in force. The rights and duties under that agreement remain until it expires or is terminated. This provides certainty but also means that the framework created by the Act does not immediately replace the old contract.

No penalties in the Act - The Mater Public Health Services Act 2008 does not create any offences, civil penalties, or infringement notices. There are no provisions for sanctions, suspension, or revocation. The enforcement mechanisms are contractual: if the Mater fails to deliver services or meet performance targets, the department may withhold funding, terminate the agreement, or seek damages for breach of contract under the agreement’s terms. The Act gives no additional statutory enforcement powers.

Consequences of non-compliance with disclosure provisions - Part 3 is permissive. An officer who discloses personal information outside the scope of section 8(2) may contravene other privacy laws (e.g., Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld), Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) if applicable, or common law duties of confidentiality). The Act does not provide a defence for unauthorized disclosure. Conversely, if a designated person refuses to disclose information that would be permitted under s 8(1), there is no penalty; the provision does not compel disclosure.

Breach of guiding principles - Since section 4 is aspirational, a party cannot sue for breach of statutory duty based on failure to follow the principles. However, if the agreement incorporates a reference to the principles, they could become contractual terms. Even then, the language (“use their best endeavours”) is soft; enforcing best endeavours obligations may be difficult.

Regulation breaches - If a regulation is made under section 6(4) prescribing matters to be included in the agreement, and the parties fail to include them, the agreement might be defective, but the Act does not say the agreement is void. The regulation may be enforceable via administrative law (e.g., judicial review if the chief executive failed to include required terms). However, the Act does not empower the Minister to direct the chief executive to include those terms.

Dispute resolution - Section 6(2)(k) allows the agreement to include dispute resolution mechanisms. Typically, these would involve negotiation, mediation, or arbitration. Litigation in the Supreme Court of Queensland could arise on questions of contractual interpretation or alleged breaches. But the Act itself provides no standing for third parties (e.g., patients) to enforce any provision.

No independent oversight - The Act does not create a regulator, auditor, or reporting requirement to Parliament. The agreement may require reporting to the department (s 6(2)(j)), but there is no statutory accountability mechanism. Public oversight depends on the agreement being made public (it may be subject to Freedom of Information or public disclosure policies, but not mandated by this Act).

Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (HHBA) - Section 7 imports definitions of “confidential information”, “designated person”, and “health professional” from the HHBA schedule 2. This aligns the Mater Act with Queensland’s hospital and health board framework, which applies to public sector health entities. However, the Mater is not a hospital and health board; it is a private entity. The cross-reference ensures that the same information classification applies. Part 3 of the Mater Act provides a specific disclosure authorization that would otherwise be regulated by the HHBA and other privacy laws.

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (and related health complaint laws) - The Act does not mention the Health Ombudsman, but the delivery of public patient health services by Mater hospitals would be subject to that Act’s complaints and investigation provisions. The Mater Act does not modify or exclude that regime.

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) - The disclosure permissions in section 8 of the Mater Act would interact with the privacy principles (IPPs) under the IP Act. The IP Act applies to “public sector entities”, which includes the department. The Mater is a private entity and may be subject to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) or contractual privacy obligations. Section 8(1) authorises a designated person (department employee) to disclose confidential information to a Mater health professional; this would likely be a permitted use or disclosure under an applicable privacy principle. Similarly, section 8(2) authorises a Mater officer to disclose personal information to a departmental health professional; this may be an exception to any prohibition on disclosure the Mater would otherwise have to its patients.

Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) or other state Acts - Not relevant directly, but if Mater receives patients from other states, cross-border information flows may be governed by other legislation.

Employment laws - Section 6(4) allows regulations to prescribe matters about funding for staff entitlements. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and Queensland’s industrial relations laws would apply to the Mater’s staff. The regulation could mandate minimum funding for entitlements (e.g., superannuation, leave, redundancy), but it cannot override federal employment standards. However, it could affect the budget available for wages.

Contract law - The agreement under section 6 is a contract between the State and the Mater. Standard contract law principles apply. The Act is not a code; it only authorises entry and lists permissible matters. The agreement itself determines the governing law and jurisdiction.

Financial management legislation - The allocation of funds by the department would likely need to comply with the Financial Accountability Act 2009 (Qld) and the Queensland Treasury’s financial management policies. The Act does not appropriate money; that would occur via annual appropriation Acts or standing appropriations. The agreement’s funding provisions must be consistent with those appropriation limits.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) - The Act predates the Human Rights Act (2019), but if any provision of the Mater Act is exercised inconsistently with human rights (e.g., privacy in disclosure of health information), the Human Rights Act may apply as a later law that requires compatibility. The guiding principle in section 4(a) (best interests of patients) could be interpreted consistently with human rights, but there is no express override.

The text provided shows only one set of amendments: the definitions in section 7 were substituted by the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (No. 32 of 2011), section 332, schedule 1 part 2, as amended by the Hospital and Health Boards and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (No. 9 of 2012), section 47. This substitution replaced the original definitions (which likely defined “confidential information”, “designated person”, and “health professional” within the Mater Act itself) with cross-references to the HHBA 2011 schedule 2. The effect was to align the Mater Act’s information handling provisions with the broader health information framework enacted for public hospitals and health boards after the 2011 reforms that abolished Queensland Health’s statutory health authorities and introduced Hospital and Health Services.

No other amendments are listed in the provided text. The Act was originally passed in 2008 (as shown by the short title “Mater Public Health Services Act 2008”). Its commencement is fixed by proclamation (section 2). The text does not indicate whether it has been proclaimed; however, the fact that section 9(3) defines “commencement” as the commencement of that section (section 9) suggests that at least part of the Act has been proclaimed, since the transitional provision references a past commencement. The existing agreement (2002) is deemed to have continued under the Act. The Act appears to have remained largely unchanged since the 2011/2012 definition changes. No repeal or sunset is provided; the Act remains in force.

The source text does not refer to any court proceedings, decided cases, or litigation history. As a framework statute authorising an agreement, the Act itself is unlikely to generate direct litigation unless a party challenges the validity of the agreement or a decision made under it. Potential litigation could arise under the agreement for breach of contract, or under administrative law for failure to allocate funding, or for allegedly inconsistent conduct with the guiding principles. But the Act’s 2008 commencement and the existence of a long-running Mater funding arrangement (dating back to 2002) suggest that disputes have been managed through negotiation or contractual mechanisms rather than court interpretation of the Act. There is no public record of a case on AustLII or reported in Queensland Law Reports that prominently discusses the Mater Public Health Services Act 2008. The Act is narrow and operates largely behind the scenes. The possibility of a judicial review on the basis of a failure to comply with the guiding principles (section 4) is remote given the hortatory language. The information disclosure provisions (part 3) might be litigated if a patient or family member claims unauthorised disclosure, but the Act provides an express authority for disclosure for care or treatment, which would be a defence. However, the disclosure must be to a health professional for that specific purpose; misuse could still be actionable under privacy laws. Any litigation would likely be brought against the department or the Mater under the Information Privacy Act or common law, not under the Mater Act itself. Practitioners should search for any administrative decisions related to funding disputes or performance assessments under the agreement, but those are likely kept confidential. In summary, there is no known litigation history directly under this Act, and the source does not disclose any.

No guarantee of funding - The Act only authorizes an agreement; it does not guarantee any particular funding level. Section 6(2)(d) says the agreement may include “details of the department’s funding allocation to the Mater for each financial year”, but the agreement itself is renegotiable. If the department fails to allocate sufficient funds, the Mater’s only recourse is through the agreement’s dispute resolution or contract law. The guiding principle that funding be “consistent with the funding of public sector health services” (s 4(d)) is not legally enforceable.

Guiding principles are not binding - Section 4’s principles use the word “should”. This is aspirational, not mandatory. A party hoping to rely on them to compel behaviour (e.g., “the Mater should use best endeavours to serve patients’ best interests”) will likely fail. They may be used to interpret ambiguous terms in the agreement but cannot create independent obligations.

Existing agreement continues indefinitely - Section 9(1)(b) continues the 2002 funding agreement “until it expires under its terms or is otherwise terminated”. If the original agreement had no sunset or termination clause, it could persist indefinitely. The annual agreement also continues. This means the 2002 contract’s terms (which are not published in the Act) govern until the parties vary or replace them. There is no statutory mandate to renegotiate or review regularly, beyond what the agreement itself provides.

Regulation can impose mandatory content - Under section 6(4), a regulation may prescribe matters that must be included in the agreement relating to funding for staff entitlements. This regulation can be made at any time, potentially imposing new financial obligations on both parties. The Act does not require consultation or agreement. If the regulation comes after the agreement is signed, the parties would need to vary the agreement to comply, or risk the agreement being inconsistent with the prescribed matters. The regulation does not automatically amend the agreement, but failure to include the prescribed matters could leave the agreement defective.

Information disclosure permission is narrow - Section 8(1) and (2) only permit disclosure “for the care or treatment of the individual”. This is a limited purpose. Disclosures for research, administration, billing, or public health surveillance are not authorised by this Act (they may be authorised under other laws). The disclosure must be to a “health professional engaged to deliver a public patient health service for a Mater hospital” or “a health professional engaged to deliver a public sector health service on behalf of the department”. Disclosures to other staff (e.g., receptionists, managers, lawyers) are not covered.

Transitional provision may not cover all agreements - Section 9 only deals with the 2002 funding agreement and annual agreements made under it. If the parties had entered into side letters or subsidiary agreements before commencement, those may not be preserved unless they fall within the definition of “existing agreement”. The Act does not provide a general transitional rule for all prior instruments.

No statutory override of other laws - The Act does not expressly provide that it prevails over other Acts. The information disclosure provisions might be subject to other secrecy provisions in legislation such as the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011, the Health Ombudsman Act, or the Child Protection Act 1999. A designated person should ensure that the HHBA’s disclosure provisions also permit the disclosure, or that the Mater Act’s authorisation is sufficient. There is no clause stating “this Act has effect despite any other Act”.

Staff entitlements funding - The regulation power (s 6(4)) may sound benign but could be used to require the department to fund particular staff entitlements (e.g., accrued leave, superannuation) that the Mater would otherwise have to bear. This could shift costs to the State, increasing the public funding commitment. For the Mater, it may guarantee that staff costs are covered, reducing its financial risk. For the department, it creates a mandatory funding obligation that may not have been in the original agreement.

For the Queensland Department of Health (the department) - The primary compliance step is to exercise the authority under section 6(1) to enter into an agreement with the Mater. The agreement should be documented in writing, signed by the chief executive (or delegate) and an authorised representative of the Mater. It must include any matters prescribed by regulation (s 6(4)), though no such regulation is evident from the text. In practice, the department should ensure the agreement covers at least the matters listed in section 6(2) that are relevant, such as funding allocation, performance measures, reporting, and dispute resolution. The department must allocate funds as per the agreement; failure to do so could be a breach of contract. The department should cooperate with the Mater in developing plans and key initiatives under section 4(f), though this is not enforceable. For information handling, the department’s designated persons (as defined by reference to the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011) must only disclose confidential information to Mater health professionals for care or treatment (s 8(1)). The department should have policies and training to ensure staff understand the scope of this permission and do not disclose for other purposes. The department should also ensure that any performance assessments under the agreement are conducted fairly and in accordance with agreed measures. The existing agreement (2002) is deemed to continue; the department can choose to renegotiate or replace it, but until then must comply with its terms, including annual agreement requirements (s 9).

For the Mater - The Mater must deliver public patient health services as agreed in the funding agreement. It should maintain clinical viability and ensure funding is used efficiently (s 3(2)(b)). The Mater must comply with reporting obligations (s 6(2)(j)). Its officers must only disclose personal information to departmental health professionals for care or treatment (s 8(2)). This requires internal privacy policies and staff training. The Mater should also ensure that the agreement includes appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms and that it adheres to any performance targets or strategies. If a regulation under section 6(4) prescribes staff entitlement funding matters, the Mater must ensure the agreement includes those matters (or if the agreement already exists, it should seek a variation). The Mater should also respect the guiding principles, though they are not legally binding; non-compliance could harm the relationship and future negotiations.

For patients - Compliance obligations do not fall directly on patients. They should be aware that their confidential information may be shared between the department and Mater health professionals for their care or treatment. They have no right to opt out under this Act, but other privacy laws may give them a right to object.

For health professionals - Whether employed by the department or the Mater, health professionals who receive information under section 8 must use it only for the care or treatment of the individual. Unauthorised re-disclosure could breach privacy laws. They should document disclosures and ensure they are made only to authorised persons.

Record keeping and review - The Act does not prescribe specific record-keeping obligations, but the agreement likely will. Both parties should maintain records of funding allocations, performance assessments, and reporting. The department should also document compliance with the guiding principles, particularly cooperation and best endeavours. There is no statutory requirement to review the agreement periodically, but prudent practice would be to include periodic review in the agreement itself (s 6(2)(b)).

Due diligence on regulation - Both parties should monitor any regulations made under section 6(4). If a regulation is proposed, the department will need to ensure any new prescribed matters are incorporated into the agreement, and the Mater should assess the financial and operational impact. The regulation may affect the balance of rights and obligations in the agreement.

Interaction with other laws - Compliance requires coordination with the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (definitions), the Information Privacy Act 2009 (if the department is handling personal information), and the Health Ombudsman Act 2013. The Mater’s health professionals should be licensed and registered as required under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The agreement should also consider obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), though the Mater Act predates it. The department should conduct a human rights impact assessment for any agreement decisions that may affect patients’ rights to privacy and health.

Audit and accountability - The Act does not require public reporting, but the department’s financial statements may need to disclose funding to Mater. The Queensland Audit Office may audit the agreement as part of the department’s annual financial audit. The Mater should be prepared for audit scrutiny of its use of public funds under the agreement.