Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party will be supporting this legislation and facilitating its passage through the House this evening. This is in keeping with the constructive approach that the opposition has taken since the beginning of this crisis to support things which are worthy of support and point out areas of potential improvement but not to seek areas of disagreement needlessly. The Labor Party has been consistent in supporting the concept of this app. We have not engaged in undermining the app or questioning its impact on privacy or the role of government, like some members of this House have done who aren't in the Labor Party. We have indicated our support in principle for the app, and we support this legislation. We suggested that it would be appropriate to have a legislative framework surrounding the app.

I acknowledge the Minister for Health has brought down a determination under the Biosecurity Act. It is a good determination. It is a strong and robust one, but of course, as honourable members would understand, it is able to be changed by the minister and to provide that further certainty legislation which could only be changed by a vote of both houses of parliament would be a sensible step and this legislation does this. The legislation provides two pillars. One is to ensure that the information gathered can only be used for the purposes intended, not accessed by any other government agency, not even used in a court case for either a prosecution or a defence, not for any other purpose but for the state health agency for contact tracing and ancillary efforts to ensure the app is working as is intended. That is the only intended use and the only permissible use under law once this legislation passes. The other pillar of the legislation is to ensure that it is truly voluntary—not only that it not be a requirement of government to download the app but nor can it be a requirement of an employer to require its employees to download the app. I noticed a few employers have tried that. It is not on. It is not permissible. It is not legal. No employee can be required by their employer to download the app. Even if the phone belongs to the employer it is not lawful. Nor can it be required by anybody else—a shopping centre, a shop or a hospital—for entry. The app must be voluntary in spirit as well as in the letter of the law. This legislation, I am confident, achieves that.

We have made a series of suggestions through the member for Isaacs to the Attorney-General. Most of those suggestions have been taken up by the government changing the bill, and we welcome that. These have been very sensible suggestions by the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General, on our behalf, and I do acknowledge the Attorney-General for taking most of them onboard. They are things such as the clarification and improvement of the role of the Privacy Commissioner, which we do think is sensible, and I know the shadow Attorney-General has also suggested more resources for the Privacy Commissioner, which I think is a very sensible suggestion.

I want to cover a few issues though. Obviously, there is the matter of the take-up of the app. There is international evidence that a take-up of 40 to 60 per cent of the population is required for the app to be truly effective. I asked the Prime Minister about this today. The Prime Minister has previously used the 40 per cent figure himself. I see the government has changed the goalposts a little at various points and changed it to 40 per cent of smartphone users. That to my way of thinking is not the appropriate measure. You can get COVID-19 whether you have a smartphone or not. I note that Australia has one of the highest take-up rates of smartphones anyway at 91 per cent of the population. They are relatively similar figures, but the fact of the matter is that 40 per cent of the population at least needs to take up the app for it to be truly effective. The Prime Minister said there was no target today. I, with respect, differ from that. I think there should be a target and it should be at least 40 per cent.

There are also a range of technical concerns that have been raised at various places, and I note the government has said that they're aware of those and are working to remedy them. It does not work as effectively on old operating systems. In some operating systems, it doesn't work at all on older phones which are often owned by older Australians. That is a problem. It doesn't work effectively, or at least there are some concerns, with glucose monitoring apps that many Australians who are diabetics have on their phones. I know that Diabetes Australia has recommended to members not to download the app for that purpose. That is a concern.

There are concerns around people understanding that it's got to be on, operating in the background, and that bluetooth has to be on. There are many Australians who aren't clear about that. Indeed they're not always simple concepts and not all of us are as understanding of those concepts. I've had to check a few times that the app is on and in the background and that my bluetooth remains on for it to work. I do think these are issues. It could be the case that, if the government had waited for the Google Apple app, some of these matters would not have arisen. That is a matter for the government. They're entitled to make that decision for themselves. Our job as parliamentarians is to provide the legislative framework.

The final matter I will refer to is the government's decision to outsource the data responsibilities for the app to Amazon. This has caused, to be frank, considerable concern in elements of the community. It is referred to in our second reading amendment. Our second reading amendment is of course a statement of principle. We are not seeking to amend the bill in detail. That would not be in keeping with our undertaking to the government to facilitate its passage through the House this evening and facilitate its passage through the parliament this week. But it is a matter for the government to explain as to why Amazon was chosen. As I understand it, Australian providers were not given the opportunity to bid for this work. I think that is unfortunate. I understand the government was in a hurry and I understand that only large and reputable providers can carry out this work, but I do think it's at least arguable that Australian providers could have done so. While they don't deserve to have a leg up, they do deserve to have the opportunity to bid for an Australian government contract. I note that we're advised that this was a decision of the Department of Home Affairs, not a decision of the Department of Health or DTA. I think that is a curious decision, and the government would do well to give more detail about that and the protections. I saw the chief executive of Amazon today saying, 'Well, we'll try and resist if the United States seeks under their legal powers to access the data but we may not succeed.' That's simply to my way of thinking not good enough, and it's important that Australians are reassured about that. Australian law doesn't trump US law, and US law doesn't trump Australian law. This bill does make it clear that the data must be kept in Australia. It is an offence if it's not kept in Australia. I think that's appropriate and it has our support, but there are concerns around the decision to give the work to Amazon. I think my friend and colleague the member for Chifley will expand on some of those concerns and other honourable members may well as well.

I don't wish to detain the House because I do want to leave plenty of time for my colleagues to make a contribution nor take up time unnecessarily that would stop a colleague having time so I will conclude at that point. I do thank the House for its consideration and thank the Attorney-General. You've indulged me and, given two of them are here, I thank the members for Hotham and Gellibrand for their engagement with me personally on the issues as well as the member for Chifley. They are deeply engaged in the technological community and understand the highly technical matters and they've been of great assistance to both me and the member for Isaacs as we navigate through this legislation.

See this speech in context