Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr President, the Australian Labor Party will be asking that you put the question separately in relation to the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and the related bill. The opposition will not be supporting the exemption from the cut-off for the National Cancer Screening Register bills. We believe there is merit in referring a bill that is as consequential as this one is to the relevant committee for further considered review. Senator Watt and Senator Di Natale have given notice of a motion to refer the provisions of the bills to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 October 2016. This motion is on the order of business for later today. As such, we do not believe that this bill should proceed to be debated.

In principle, Labor does support the establishment of the National Cancer Screening Register. We do see value in consolidating the nine existing registers, including the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and the registers maintained by the eight states and territories that form the National Cancer Screening Program. We are cognisant that the register aims to reduce unnecessary duplication and improve the prevention, identification and treatment of cancer in Australia. These are initiatives that I am sure all in this chamber can support. However, the arrangements proposed within the bill for how the National Cancer Screening Register would function differ markedly from how governments currently administer the existing cancer screening registers. They would see the federal government for the first time entering into a commercial agreement with a for-profit company to administer a cancer screening initiative of this scope and importance.

As this is uncharted territory for the departments and agencies involved, and as the bill goes to something as vital as the health and wellbeing of Australians, it deserves the fullest attention and scrutiny of our parliamentary processes. Labor's concerns go to key elements of the bill. These include reservations about the impact of the bill on individual privacy, the adequacy of the security arrangements for extremely sensitive health information, and the nature and appropriateness of the commercial relationship entered into by the government with Telstra Health.

In relation to privacy, in order to effectively perform its function the new national register would hold sensitive information about every Australian who is eligible for the cancer screening programs. This includes individuals' personal details such as their name, address, contact details, date of birth and gender; but the register will also contain extremely private health data that would be unprecedented to hand over to a for-profit company, including an individual's Medicare number, Medicare claims information, preferred GP or other health provider, human papilloma virus vaccination status, screening test results and cancer diagnoses.

Telstra Health has never operated a register like this. There are legitimate reasons to believe the register is far too sensitive to conduct with their training wheels attached. Telstra's track record with regard to data security also leaves a lot to be desired. There is a questionable track record of keeping private data secure, including an incident in 2011 where the personal details of almost 800,000 Telstra customers were compromised online for eight months. As the existing registers are operated by governments and not-for-profits with longstanding expertise, there are well-founded reasons for this parliament to examine whether outsourcing to Telstra Health is in the best interests of the Australian public.

Labor also understands that the government's contract with Telstra Health is for five years and includes a facility for a 10-year extension. This means that, if the parliament does not do its due diligence now whilst establishing the National Cancer Screening Register, we may not have the opportunity to revisit it for 15 years.

Issues such as these, I think, self-evidently warrant further consideration by this parliament and this chamber. Our request in this instance is neither unprecedented nor unreasonable, and I urge the Senate to oppose exemption of these bills from the cut-off and support further consideration of them by the legislation committee.