Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator McGrath, move:

That the provisions of paragraph (6) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016

Corporations Amendment (Auditor Registration) Bill 2016

Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2016

Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2016

National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016

National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016

Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill 2016

Statute Update Bill 2016

Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens will also be asking you to put the question separately in relation to two groups of bills. We wish to vote differently in relation to the two groups. We too are asking for the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and the National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016 to be put separately, but we also would like the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 and the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 to be put separately. The omnibus bill is a large bill about which we heard of more changes about half an hour ago. We believe we need further time to discuss what are very significant changes that particularly focus on the most vulnerable Australians and also go to the future of renewable energy in this country. We think that bill needs more time to be considered. We also want to see the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 go to a Senate inquiry, so we do not believe that bill should be exempt from the cut-off order either. We ask that those two bills also be put separately.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there are no other colleagues who wish to speak I will sum up, as is my prerogative.

It is standard in the ordinary course of events in this place that the government seeks exemption from the cut-off so that a bill can be dealt with in the same session in which it is introduced. By and large this works on a cooperative basis and parties seldom abuse that process. I acknowledge to the chamber that that is the case and take at face value the reasons put forward by colleagues in relation to the bills that they would like to be put separately. I will turn to each of those in turn.

I should indicate at the outset that, while it is obviously the prerogative of the Senate to have bills put separately in this motion so that they can vote differently, the government will be voting to see all of these bills exempted from the cut-off. What happens is in the chamber's hands.

The Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 is one where there is a large degree of emerging commonality between the government and the opposition. We went to the election with our savings plan, and the opposition went to the election with their savings plan. This particular bill seeks to present to the parliament those savings measures that both the government and the opposition agree upon. I know that there has been good discussion taking place between our Treasury and finance team and that of the opposition and that we are very close, if not already at the point of agreement. I assume that we might be able to find common ground with the opposition in terms of exempting the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 from the requirement of the cut-off. It is an important bill to be dealt with quickly because it will go towards improving the financial position of the Commonwealth. For our part, on this side we hope that there will be other examples where both government and opposition can work together to repair the budget bottom line.

One of the reasons we came through the global financial crisis so well was the nation's strong fiscal position. I have to tip my lid to the former federal Treasurer, Mr Costello, for his work.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You used to iron his shirts!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection from Senator Wong. It is true that I did indeed iron the former Treasurer's budget night shirts in a previous incarnation. It is true, as Joe Aston chronicles from time to time. But it is important to give credit where it is due. Our response to the financial crisis was strong because of the nation's strong fiscal position.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was the worst Treasurer we ever had. He was weak and couldn't stand up to John Howard.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have to disagree with you there, Senator Cameron. It underlines the importance of collectively doing what we can as a parliament to return the Commonwealth budget to a much stronger position, so I do acknowledge the opposition coming together with us on the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016.

Senator Siewert indicated that the Australian Greens are not comfortable with the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill being exempt from the cut-off. Again, I think that this is important legislation. It is important for consumer transparency, and that is something that we are keen to get on with.

The Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate has indicated that the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and the National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016 are two bills that they, with the Australian Greens, would like to refer to a Senate committee. I will sound note of caution here: my understanding is that, in order for the arrangements to be put in place for this register, September is a critical month, and the reporting date proposed by the Manager of Opposition Business is in October. My understanding is that the concept of a national cancer screening register is not controversial. I think we are all agreed on the need to do what we can to assist in this area. Mr President, for your benefit, the bill seeks to establish the National Cancer Screening Register, a national electronic infrastructure for the collection, storage, analysis and reporting of cancer screening program data for the National Cervical Screening Program and the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. It also authorises the collection, use and disclosure of information for the purposes of the register, creates an offence of unauthorised disclosure of the information and mandates the reporting of screening information to the register. That is from the Senate Table Office bills list summary. I do not think there are many issues in this bill that are of great controversy.

I would urge my colleagues to seriously consider exempting all of the bills in the motion lodged by Senator McGrath to exempt the bills listed from the provisions of the cut-off. As I say, the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill is an important one for this chamber to consider quickly. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill, again, I think is timely legislation that the parliament should get on with addressing—and also, as I have indicated, the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016, which is one that is listed for today on the Dynamic Red. I would note that my advice is that that particular motion proposing reference to a Senate committee came in at about 9.45 this morning, so that is not in the ordinary course of events. Usually such motions are lodged much earlier. With those few remarks, I will put the motion in the hands of the chamber.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So that I am absolutely clear with both the opposition and the Greens, I discern that there are three questions I will need to put about the matters you want excluded from the cut-off. We can put the separate question on the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill, then the separate question on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill. Is it the will of the Senate that I combine the two national cancer screening bills into one question? Is there any objection to that? There being none, let's deal with them in order as they appear in the notice of motion.

The question before the chair at the moment is in relation to government business notice of motion No. 1, moved by Senator Fifield. I was asked to split the question, and we are now dealing with the first question, which is that the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 be exempt from the cut-off.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 be exempt from the cut-off.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the national cancer screening bills be exempt from the cut-off.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for clarity, and rather than go through each of the bills in notice of motion No. 1, if senators are happy I will put the question that, with the exception of the two national cancer screening bills, all the other bills under notice of motion No. 1, moved by Senator Fifield, be exempt from the cut-off.

Question agreed to.