SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

48 <strong>SENATE</strong> 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
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 49 company, which is not something that we have ever done before—particularly within the cancer registry space. It is a big decision to do that. Traditionally, these registers have been managed by government, and have been managed by specific forpurpose NGOs created specifically to manage this information. To hand it over to a for-profit, large telecommunications company is a big step. It was undertaken without any guarantee that the legislation would be approved by the Senate. So on what basis was the contract signed and why was it done before the passage of any legislation? 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) (13:30): I reiterate what I was saying earlier. I think most people who have been following this are well aware of the timing and the hard marker dates that we are trying to get to in terms of delivering this. Without an operating register for the renewed NCSP there is no safety net for women participating in cervical screening, which risks their health and safety. There are a number of factors that have come into play where I think it is common sense to take into account the timing, the end marker and the period of time it will take to put those arrangements in place. So I appreciate your concern, Senator, but given that very timely issue, and in terms of those hard marker dates, it was simply appropriate to begin the process. Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:31): But existing state registers would have continued to operate, so that information would have been collected. I agree with the intent of this legislation. I think it is important that we try and consolidate this information into a single national register. We certainly agree with the intent here. But I just want some clarification. The existing state registers would have continued. I am not sure about the timing imperative. 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) (13:31): My understanding is that the states are not able to collect all of the information required, that only some of that information can be done by the states. Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:31): I can indicate that I and my colleagues Senators Griff and Kakoschke-Moore will not be supporting this amendment. We understand the sentiment and the intent behind it. I believe the opposition and the Australian Greens have every reason to be concerned about the whole tender process being dealt with before the legislation was considered. That is something I hope the Auditor-General will be looking at in due course. Of course, it is for the Auditor-General to consider whether his office goes down that path. But the deal has been done. There is an opportunity for greater scrutiny of that through the ordinary courses of the parliament. To rip up this deal now would, I believe, trigger the just compensation provisions in the Constitution, which could mean that the Commonwealth would end up paying twice. So in economic terms I do not believe this is a practical amendment, although I do understand the very serious concerns as to why this amendment has been moved. Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:32): I would like to ask the minister why, when this was already in the 2015 budget, it took until 5 May to introduce the legislation, which is now causing the imperative that we deal with it so quickly? 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) (13:33): My understanding is that a privacy impact statement had to be undertaken to assess the state and territory legislation. Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:33): Referring specifically to the proposed amendments by the Labor Party, I am interested in what they seek to do—at least, the issue around penalty units and also the amendment around data breaches. They try and bring this legislation in line with My Health Record. That was one of the recommendations from the Information Commissioner at the inquiry that was held. Given that that was a recommendation from the Information Commissioner, I am interested in understanding the basis for opposing the legislation around increased penalties and data breaches. 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) (13:34): In relation to the higher penalty for breaches of the privacy provisions, firstly it is considered unnecessary. Under the Privacy Act, there is capacity to penalise up to $1.8 million. That is my understanding. I think it has to be taken into account as well that while obviously Labor is targeting this at Telstra Health we may well see family GP practices—and I am sure you would understand this, senator—also subject to the proposed increase in penalty should they make a breach. I think we have got to take into account also that Telstra are going to be very well CHAMBER
Page 1 and 2:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Ha
Page 3 and 4:
FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSIO
Page 5 and 6:
Senator State or Territory Term exp
Page 7 and 8:
Title Minister Minister for Health
Page 9 and 10: Title Shadow Minister Deputy Manage
Page 11 and 12: CONTENTS—continued International
Page 13 and 14: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 1
Page 59: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 47
Page 111 and 112:
Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 99
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125:
show all

SENATE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?