Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I want to endorse the remarks of my colleague Senator Griff that this is an important piece of legislation. We also need to look at the whole issue about the need for screening and to have a register. I think that we have learned from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry that has been headed by Professor Stephen Graves, who has done outstanding work on this for many years, that having registers and having that level of transparency are absolutely critical in our health system. It drives better outcomes.

We can learn from the Scandinavians, in particular, Sweden, where, as I understand it, they have a national cataract register that looks at the outcomes of that eye surgery and other registers that drive greater transparency in relation to the health system, because it is through those registers that you do get better outcomes—to see who is performing well, who could be performing better and what the outcome are along longitudinal bases—and that is absolutely critical. But when it comes to cancer screening, it is about reducing the terrible death toll of cancer in this country, and about getting that early intervention; the early diagnosis and treatment that can be a matter of life or death or, at the very least, prolonging someone's life and their quality of life quite significantly.

As my colleague Senator Griff outlined in his contribution, I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment aimed at addressing at least some of the concerns around the tender process. The tender process concerns me deeply. I believe that it could have been handled much better. That is why I will be moving a second reading amendment that the Senate requests the Auditor-General to conduct, within the next 12 months, a performance audit under the Auditor-General Act 1997 to assess: (a) whether the Department of Health appropriately managed the procurement of services relating to the register; and (b) whether the processes adopted for the procurement of services met the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules including consideration and achievement of value for money. These are important issues and I think that that it was somewhat arrogant and presumptuous—and maybe precipitous as well—on the part of the government to conclude the tender process without having had the appropriate scrutiny of the parliament. I think it showed a case of the executive arm of government not being subject to the appropriate scrutiny of the parliament. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of Senator Griff in relation to this.

The second reading amendment will not prevent the passage or implementation of the bill but it will request the Auditor-General to undertake a review. Of course, the Auditor-General is an independent statutory officer, and the Auditor-General can take it or leave it, in terms of whether the audit should take place or not. But I would like to think that if the Senate passes this second reading amendment, it sends a clear signal expressing the concerns of this chamber that the tender process ought to be looked at very closely. It could be that the Auditor-General will be looking at this in any event, but I think it is important that we express our alarm and our concerns in relation to this whole process. I hope there will be some opportunity in the committee stage to look at those issues.

As Senator Griff said, establishing a national register should go to reducing duplication and unnecessary red tape across jurisdictions. That is very important. I had some concerns with this bill and I agreed to a short inquiry so that the Senate could review the concerns raised by the opposition. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted in its seventh report that not allowing individuals to elect to have their personal information removed from the proposed national cancer screening register represented 'a significant impact on the privacy interests of those individuals,' and welcomed amendments made that addressed other aspects of the scrutiny committee's concerns. I also welcome these amendments, and I thank the minister for working constructively with my office and with my colleagues in order to facilitate the passage of this legislation.

I will raise something in the course of the committee stages of this bill that relates to the issue of whether there should be an opportunity for general practitioners to be more heavily involved in this process, because it seems to be quite binary at the moment. I also endorse the remarks of my colleague Senator Griff that we need a commitment from the government that the exposure draft of the bill relating to the mandatory notification of data privacy breaches ought to be dealt with by this parliament, or at the very least the bill ought to be introduced, this year, because these are important issues. This is something that affects the lives of millions of Australians. As a general principle, we need to have those safeguards and guarantees when it comes to issues of privacy, including mandatory notification. Having said that, I look forward to the committee stages of this bill. I believe that this is a very useful step forward. But we must also examine not only the tender process but also the efficacy of this piece of legislation.