1.1
Labor Senators on this Committee wish to note the following comments, in
addition to the Report.
1.2
Labor Senators do not consider that the statement in the Report that, 'Since
the existing state registers are not equipped to handle the new NCSP',[1]
is consistent with VCS's evidence. VCS told the Committee:
... we now operate a contemporary cancer screening register
platform, and as a condition of our funding from the Victoria[n] government we
were required to develop the capabilities to support Victorian women on 1 May
in the renewed program as a contingency should this be required.[2]
1.3
In addition, when asked whether VCS would have been able operate the
register without delay and meet that deadline of 1 May 2017, Professor Saville
told the Committee:
The deadline of 1 May is really critical for the National
Cervical Screening Program and not so critical, from a program point of view,
for the bowel program. Hypothetically—and we do not expect this to happen
because I think the contract has been awarded—if we were asked to deliver the
cervical screening program by 1 May, the task that would need to be done would
be data migration and laboratory interfaces. That could be achieved, but you
would want to get your skates on and you would want to be appropriately
resourced.[3]
1.4
Labor Senators are also concerned that the Report does not adequately
reflect the breadth of concern about the contract between Telstra Health and the
Department of Health, which was uncovered by the inquiry. For example, in his
submission Bruce Armstrong states:
For-profit, stock-market-listed corporations, such as Telstra
Corporation Ltd, have an irresolvable conflict of interest with the public
interest due to the responsibility of their directors, under the Corporations
Act 2001, to act in good faith in the interests of the company (effectively
their shareholders). ... There are ... many ways in which Telstra Corporation Ltd
could act, for example when staffing and resourcing register operations, that
would put the Corporation's interest ahead of the public interest; and it would
be obliged to act this way because of the Directors' (and therefore
management's) responsibility to the Corporation and its shareholders under the
Corporation's Act.[4]
1.5
The Australian Medical Association also stated in their submission to
the Committee:
Given the potential commercial value of the data contained in
the register, the AMA would be more comfortable with it being operated by
government, a tertiary institution, or not-for-profit entity that has little
interest in how the data in the register might otherwise be used.[5]
1.6
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners also told the
Committee:
RACGP would be far more comfortable with [the Register] 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.[6]
1.7
Labor Senators note that the Commonwealth has released a draft contract,
but do not regard the draft as sufficient because it preceded contract
negotiations between the Commonwealth and Telstra. At the time of releasing
this Report, the Commonwealth has provided a redacted version of the Contract
to the Committee, however it had not been released publically.
1.8
Labor Senators believe that the Report should reflect the Committee's
view that the Commonwealth should release its contract with Telstra to operate
the Register. This view was shared by the Acting Chair of the Committee,
Senator Reynolds:
While I understand commercial-in-confidence to certain
provisions, I think it would be very helpful if the [Health] Department could
release further information about the service standards. This would not be only
for the Committee but also for the public and people out there who have genuine
concerns about what this will actually mean.[7]
1.9
Finally, Labor Senators are concerned that the report does not reflect
the significant concern about the Bills' penalty provisions that was expressed
to the Committee. For example the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals
Association – a significant stakeholder that is currently not mentioned in the
report – said in its submission:
the size of the penalty in relation to unauthorised
collection, use or disclosure is only $21,600. While the penalties for
breaching the bills’ privacy provisions, inadvertent or not, are enough to
deter small, not-for-profit organisations, they are not enough to deter a
large, for-profit entity such as Telstra Health. The automatic penalties must
be great enough that any risk-management strategies will ensure the
organisation and its managers always have consumer privacy as a key concern ...
Legislation and the contract between the Commonwealth and Telstra Health should
prescribe tough financial penalties that have automatic effect after any
unauthorised data release.[8]
1.10
Even stakeholders that were generally supportive of the bills raised
this concern. For example, Pathology Australia said in its submission:
PA supports a review of the fine for offences related to the
unauthorised access of the Registry to ensure they are an appropriate deterrent
related to the confidential nature of the Registry.
Senator Murray Watt Senator
Sam Dastyari
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page