SENATE

48 SENATE Thursday, 13 October 2016
Let's be clear: Telstra is a for-profit company, whereas the intention of the register is to save lives. Telstra has
never operated a register like this. In fact, the Senate inquiry heard that a for-profit corporation has never managed
a cancer-screening register anywhere in the world.
As I have mentioned, the register will hold extremely sensitive information about our health: human
papillomavirus vaccination status, screening test results and cancer diagnoses. Certainly, this is not information
that most Australians would be comfortable disclosing to a telecommunications provider. There is a clear question
for this parliament: do we think that outsourcing this private and sensitive health information to a for-profit
company is a good step for the future of our health system?
As the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents 33,000 GPs, said at the inquiry into the
legislation:
RACGP would be far more comfortable with it being operated by a government, tertiary institution or a not-for-profit entity
that has little interest in how the data in the registry might otherwise be used for pecuniary reasons.
So let's be clear: there is no question about the value of the register. Labor strongly supports the register and the
improvements to the bowel and cervical cancer screening programs it will enable. But as we have heard time and
time again during the inquiry there was a question about the government's decision to outsource operations to
Telstra.
The government knows it is a substantial change. This is why they rushed into signing a contract but could not
bring themselves to mention it in the parliamentary debate. They rushed to sign the contract before caretaker
kicked in and before the legislation had been introduced to parliament. The repercussions are clear: it has been a
bungle.
These amendments would restrict the operation of a register to a government agency or to a not-for-profit
organisation. Our amendments would allow the register to be operated by one of the organisations that actually
have experience and expertise in this area, like the Commonwealth Department of Human Services or the
Victorian psychology service. I commend Labor's amendments to the Senate.
Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals, Minister for Regional Development,
Minister for Local Government and Territories and Minister for Regional Communications) (13:26): I can
indicate to the chamber that the government does not support the amendments moved by the opposition.
Successive governments have successfully partnered with the private sector to deliver many programs and
services, and continue to do so. Implementing these amendments would be an extraordinary limitation on any
government's ability to continue with these partnerships, and would certainly send a concerning message to the
private sector.
The proposed amendments would negatively impact on the government's ability to deliver the register by 20
March 2017 for the National Bowel Cancer Screening program and by 1 May 2017 for the renewed National
Cervical Screening Program. Significant delays in the implementation of the register will have significant
consequences for the renewed National Cervical Screening Program as well as for the introduction of MBS items
for the new HPV test, which has been recommended by the Medical Services Advisory Committee and supported
by jurisdictions as a more effective screening test for protection against cervical cancer in women.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:27): I am just interested in seeking
some clarification about the timing of the contract with Telstra—in particular, when that was signed and why,
indeed, that was signed prior to any legislation being passed by the Senate?
Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals, Minister for Regional Development,
Minister for Local Government and Territories and Minister for Regional Communications) (13:28): Thank you,
Senator. While I am just waiting for the actual date for you, my understanding is that it was very much a timing
issue. Given the very real length of time that it takes to actually put these arrangements in place and with the dates
we were trying for to attain delivery of this, it was a timing arrangement to have that in place.
The date of the contract I will provide to you very shortly—
Senator Polley: It was 4 May, actually, Minister.
Senator NASH: It was 4 May 2016. Thank you very much your assistance, Senator!
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:28): I am specifically interested in
why the contract was signed in the absence of any specific legislation that would allow this contract to actually
operate. I understand the timing, but it is a massive risk—it is a leap of faith to come in here and expect the Senate
to pass legislation when what is happening is that we are entering into uncharted territory. We are handing over
sensitive health information on Australian men and women. We are providing that information to a for-profit
CHAMBER