Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016. This bill seeks to make the Department of Veterans' Affairs digitally ready as part of the larger digital transformation process across government. It seeks to support planned business and ICT reforms, which will reduce processing times and automate and streamline existing processes. In addition, it provides the department with additional measures that enable the release of personal information in certain circumstances.

There are three schedules of this bill. Schedule 1 relates to digital preparedness. Schedule 2 deals with the release of personal information. Schedule 3 updates the provisions to take into account changes of drafting precedents and practices. Given the detail of this bill and of the potential impact on veterans, particularly of schedule 2, Labor referred the bill to the Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to consider it in detail and to ensure it was delivering the best outcomes for the veteran community. I would like to thank the committee for their diligence in examining this legislation and the feedback from the ex-service community and other interested parties.

Labor are committed to improving the lives of our veterans, and it is due to the forensic examination of the legislation that we are in a position to support it. Schedule 1 inserts a provision into existing veterans' legislation—the VEA, MRCA and SRCA—which enables the secretary of the department to authorise the use of computer programs to make decisions and determinations. This schedule will move the department towards an online platform for those seeking to make claims. This is part of the veterans-centric reform process, led by the government, and is designed to improve services for veterans and their families. This schedule did cause some anxiety amongst the veteran community, particularly in light of the government's complete mismanagement of the debt automation process within Centrelink that caused significant concern in the Australian community. As it stands, I understand that the department's ICT system is not in a position to begin using this legislation immediately. These legislative changes are in anticipation of a planned business and ICT reform, which aims to reduce claim processing times and automate and streamline existing processes.

In their submissions to the committee, most respondents highlighted concerns about the administration of the automation process and how it would interact with veterans. I have had many conversations with veterans and the ex-service community about the claims process of DVA and their concerns around the current ICT system. The complaints I have received mainly relate to the length of time claims take to be resolved and the impact that waiting has on veterans and their families. The department's ICT system has been struggling to cope for some time. As a submission from the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia highlighted:

The inability of the current computer systems to manage multiple acts and legislations has been obvious for many years …

They go on to say:

Delays in decision making by delegates of the department when assessing claims for treatment and compensation for service related injuries that could be improved by the use of modern computer systems.

Automation and digitalisation seek to improve this situation and the experience of veterans. The War Widows Guild of Australia said:

Digitalisation of a system, which is easily able to recognise well-documented items, would enhance the clients well being and potentially lead to a less stressful environment for staff, veterans and families

While this legislation change will not fix the department's ICT problems it is a step in the right direction. The condition of the department's ICT system is well known and highlighted in the Department of Finance's 2013 report. This report identified that DVA's rehabilitation and compensation ICT system were ageing and at risk of failure. To address this, there has been a business case to try to simplify and streamline the department's business processes and replace the ICT legacy systems. The government has provided money to improve the operation of DVA's existing compensation and rehabilitation systems while the business case is being completed. I understand this contract for the agency employed to undertake this report has recently expired. I call on the government to make the outcome of this second pass business case public as soon as possible so that there can be proper scrutiny. While I am supportive of the need to upgrade the department's ageing ICT systems, which are at risk of failure, let me be very clear: I firmly believe this should not come at the expense of veterans' frontline services or of veterans' face-to-face services and the support that they currently get.

The Ombudsman has made a series of suggestions about the administration of the digitalisation program, and I trust the department will take on board these suggestions in the implementation phase. The Ombudsman has highlighted several potential pitfalls within the implementation of an automated system and suggested ways to avoid unnecessary angst and poor user experience. It suggested the department focus on: data entry by limiting free text fields to ensure accurate and necessary information is provided; the introduction of robust risk management procedures to help prevent and track system errors; and ensuring the system follows all basic legal values of lawfulness, fairness, transparency and efficiency. They also stated that given the system will be integrated with a number of other agencies, consideration will need to be given to ensuring the system can integrate with any changes that occur with other agencies. They will also need to ensure staff are trained appropriately and said it is essential that the department introduces targeted user acceptance testing before any operational release.

The Ombudsman also highlighted that, given the vulnerability of some of the department's clientele, the department will need to ensure it has an accessible system, and alternative data and information collection avenues, including call centres, shopfronts and online options. The department should also consider contingency for when the automated process is unavailable whether as part of a system outage or a planned upgrade. Lastly, the Ombudsman highlighted the importance of the right to have the decision reviewed and that users are afforded the opportunity to provide feedback about their experiences. Labor urges the government to take on the expert advice of the Ombudsman in relation to these administrative issues and would expect this feedback would inform the department's consideration on how the system will operate in the future.

The Veterans Advice and Social Centre of Hervey Bay also raised concerns about the administration of the automated programs, highlighting issues around notification, claims process and the sharing of information calling for safeguards to be put in place for veterans. The victims of abuse and the Australian Defence Force Association were particularly concerned about the ability of the computer programs to handle the nuances of claims processes and discussed the recent issues with the Centrelink automation process. The department has addressed some of these concerns in its submission to the committee and emphasised that the only decisions which would be suitable for computerised decision-making are those that can be converted into an algorithm and generated based on information that is not open to interpretation.

Most importantly, the department expressly stated that it does not intend to use the computerised decision-making for debt collection purposes. The department assured the committee that debt management and collection will remain a matter where specific circumstances of the individual and the value of their debt are considered in what action should be taken and how that is communicated. Given the significant angst caused by the mismanagement of the debt collection system by the government in Centrelink, I was relieved to hear that this process will not be implemented as a result of this bill.

Many of the issues raised by respondents to the committee were concerned with the way the program will be administered, with several respondents in support of the automation process itself. Given the assurances from the government, the department and investigation by the committee, Labor is in a position to support this schedule. However, we will be carefully watching any implementation of this to make sure that all recommendations by the Ombudsman are taken into consideration.

The second schedule of this bill enables the secretary of the department to disclose information about a particular case, or class of cases, to such a person and for such purposes as the secretary determines, if it is in the public interest to do so. The schedule also inserts two information-sharing provisions into the SRCA which are based on the equivalent provisions under the MRCA, which are designed to align information-sharing between the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of Defence Force across both the MRCA and the SRCA. This is to overcome an historic anomaly which currently exists between the MRCA and the SRCA to ensure consistent information is being provided, regardless of which act the client falls under.

In relation to the disclosure of personal information, the explanatory memorandum of this bill advises examples of circumstances in which it might be appropriate for the secretary to disclose information about a case, or class of cases. This includes: where there is a threat to life; health and welfare; for the enforcement of laws; proceeds of crime orders; mistake of fact; misinformation; research and statistical analysis; APS Code of Conduct investigations; and, indeed, inappropriate provider practices.

The ability to make public interest disclosure already exists under a number of federal social security laws, including the Social Security Administration Act 1999. This bill also includes a number of safeguards to this schedule to ensure that this power is exercised appropriately. These safeguards suggest that the secretary must act in accordance with the rules the minister makes, which is the accompanying Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Public Interest Disclosure Certificate) Rules 2017. In addition, the minister is unable to delegate his or her powers about making these rules to anyone. And the secretary cannot delegate the public interest disclosure power to anyone either. Importantly, the secretary must notify the person in writing about his or her intention to disclose information and give the person a reasonable opportunity to make written comments before the disclosure. Finally, if these safeguards are not abided by, the secretary risks a fine of 60 penalty units, which is approximately a fine of $10,800.

Labor was particularly concerned—especially in light of some of the discussions around the disclosure of individual information in the current Centrelink robo-debt recovery program—about a number of criteria listed in the military rehabilitation and compensation rules, and particularly concerned about the impact it would have on veterans. During our preliminary conversations, I raised several concerns, including the broad nature of some of the criteria and the impact of the release of an individual's medical information in particular. As such, we negotiated with the minister, and I would like to thank the minister and his staff and the staff of DVA, who have been very open to discussing some of my concerns and incorporating those into the draft rules.

However, we still were concerned with a number of elements, and that is why Labor undertook to send the legislation to the Senate committee to examine the full impact of the schedule. During the Senate committee hearings, a number of concerns were raised about this accompanying instrument, and several respondents highlighted concerns about the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for the secretary to disclose individual information. It was identified that the instrument was very broad and could be open to interpretation. The Ombudsman also raised concerns about the release of personal information to the public at large and the impact it might have on veterans. During the public hearing, the Privacy Commissioner suggested the department consult with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. This suggestion formed part of the recommendations of the committee, and I understand the minister has accepted it and undertaken to do this.

Labor senators on the committee also raised concerns about the inclusion of two criteria: mistake of fact, and misinformation to the community. During the hearing, the department advised that there were very few times that this would have been used in the last few years, and Labor senators felt this highlighted a lack of need around these provisions. I have been working closely with the department, as I said, and the minister on the public interest disclosure instrument, and I am confident that we have strengthened these rules. We will continue to work and negotiate to ensure that those views of the Labor senators, as well as the interests or the need of the department, will be taken into account. This will continue, and the instrument will be tabled once the legislation has been passed. I note, though, that it is a disallowable instrument, which means that there is time for proper scrutiny and the legislation cannot be enacted until those rules have passed.

I would like to acknowledge the constructive and bipartisan approach that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has taken in negotiating this instrument. I think it is due to the work that we have done together that we have been able to strengthen the protections for veterans and to ensure that it is consistent with the expectations of the ex-service community, especially around the disclosure of medical information, which is often of a highly personal nature. While the department has indicated that it was never intended to do that, I think it is important that that is very explicitly outlined in the instrument. Obviously, negotiations are still ongoing, as I have said, but I am very confident that we can land in a position that makes the instrument serve all parties.

I would also like to acknowledge the diligent and thorough examination undertaken by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. In particular, I thank the Labor representatives, Senator Alex Gallacher and Senator Claire Moore, who I know undertook their work very diligently and forensically.

The second element of schedule 2 enables information sharing between DVA and the Department of Defence. The proposed provisions enable the MRCC to share information with the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force in limited circumstances. Currently the MRCC is able to provide information about serving members to the secretary of defence and the Chief of the Defence Force under both the MRCA and the SRCA; however, the two acts are not consistent. This bill will enable the MRCC to provide the same information, irrespective of which legislation the claim falls under.

Again, some concerns were raised by respondents to the committee inquiry about the information sharing, wanting to ensure it does not impact a claimant's military career or prevent people from coming forward to seek treatment. However, the department, in their submission to the committee, argued that the provision will apply consistency across the various acts, enhance the CDF's duty of care, promote healthier work practices, reduce compensation claims and ensure that health treatments outside of Defence arrangements are monitored.

Given all the information discussed, the committee came to the view that the benefits of the bill outweighed the concerns raised, and recommended the department consult with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner on the content of the public interest disclosure instrument. They also recommended the department undertake a privacy impact assessment of the regulations and make those findings public. Lastly, they recommended the bill be amended to include a mandatory review of the legislation and regulations two years from the commencement date. I understand the government has also accepted these recommendations and is working through the necessary steps.

Labor are committed to ensuring our veterans receive world-class care and support. An ICT system that is at risk of failure, is complicated and causes delays can have a significant impact on veterans and their families. Labor is supportive of a system which improves veterans' experiences and makes claim reimbursements and other basic processes easier. However, we do not support an ICT system that replaces face-to-face contact for veterans—the high quality of service and the individual compassion and commitment that the Department of Veterans' Affairs should and does provide to our veterans. So, while we do support an improvement to the ICT system, I must make it very clear that we do not support the shutting-down of face-to-face services. We do not support any diminishing of that quality, individualised support that our veterans need.

It is important that this system is not utilised in a manner which causes unnecessary anxiety, as witnessed in the debt automation process in Centrelink—and it is unfortunate that we are debating this bill at a time when the government has completely failed when it comes to that debt recovery automation process. That has not provided people with the confidence that this government can manage ICT, or how ICT is used and in what circumstances it is used.

In conclusion, I urge the government to take on these recommendations and make sure that, in the implementation and the rollout of this process and other automated processes, they do not make the mistakes that we have seen in recent days and weeks. I would like to thank everyone who provided input into this. I am pleased to say that I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context