House debates

Thursday, 2 March 2017

Bills

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016; Second Reading

10:45 am

Photo of Amanda RishworthAmanda 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.

11:06 am

Photo of Bert Van ManenBert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It was interesting listening to the member for Kingston's attempt to rewrite history. She would well know, because she was part of the government when it occurred, that those opposite were the ones responsible for putting in place the Centrelink debt repayment system. We have not made any changes to it; it is what those opposite put in place. But we have more important things to talk about this morning.

It is my pleasure to rise in this House to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016, which seeks to significantly improve services for veterans and their families. This is an important piece of legislation. I represent an electorate that has many veterans, so my office regularly gets representations from veterans and their families and advocates for veterans on issues they are having with the system at the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This legislation is important because it is vital that we do our best to look after our veterans after all they have done to protect our country and after they have done their best to look after us.

I am privileged to represent a community that contains organisations such as the Beenleigh RSL subbranch, which runs terrific veteran support programs and services. I always enjoy dropping in on diggers day to share a beer and a laugh. You are always guaranteed to be told what they think. I am also proud to support the neighbouring RSL subbranch at Greenbank and the North Gold Coast RSL subbranch at Upper Coomera. Each and every year our local RSL subbranches and their members go above and beyond to mark important anniversaries in our nation's history, anniversaries of battles fought that have won our freedom and that have created some of the wonderful traditions we have in this country today. Their commemorative services are a constant reminder of the service and sacrifice of our men and women, both past and present, and keep the spirit of national pride at the forefront of our minds. Importantly, they educate a younger generation, who have never experienced the vicissitudes of war because of the service these men and women have provided to our country.

RSLs around Australia play an important role in providing a voice for our service men and women. They maintain the lasting ties of mateship and perpetuate the spirit of the Anzac. It is always wonderful to visit a club for any event, but their community spirit spreads so much further than commemorative services. They also provide much-needed support to those who have served our nation and their families. When a current or ex-serviceperson is sick or down on their luck, our local RSL subbranches are there to help. Their arms of support are outstretched to help with pensions, welfare, medical attention and finding accommodation, housing or even suitable employment, or they just provide somebody to talk to. Our RSLs provide a strong voice for the ex-servicemen community.

RSLs advocate for serving and ex-servicemen in their dealings with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That is why this legislation is so important. As I said at the outset, I have had many occasions to speak with veterans who are having difficulties dealing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, whether it is because of lost or missing documents or because when a same issue arises a different decision has been made. I have spoken with the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan—and I congratulate him on the work he is doing to bring the Department of Veterans' Affairs into the digital age to better support our veterans—and previous ministers about the value and importance of upgrading the ICT system in the department to ensure we reduce claim processing times and automate and streamline existing processes.

This legislation will commence the process of enabling timely information sharing between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence with the objective—and this is the important thing—of ensuring we take better care of our veterans. In many instances this will be a very difficult time in their lives. This information sharing will also promote healthy workplace practices for existing serving members of our armed forces. The public interest disclosure provisions will help the department address the problems with being unable to share information that currently restrict their ability to take care of the health, welfare and other issues that face our veterans and serving service men and women.

The Senate inquiries have led to a number of recommendations. Two amendments to this bill will strengthen the safeguards around the public interest disclosure provision, as the member for Kingston touched on. The first amendment to the bill states that the minister 'must' rather than 'may' make rules governing this provision. If the rules are not issued, the provision cannot be used. The second amendment puts in place a mandatory review of this provision after two years. This review will be given to the government and must be tabled after 15 sitting days. With the DVA undertaking veteran-centric reforms to improve services for veterans and their families, it is important the coalition government supports their work with these necessary legislative amendments. I believe this bill provides some important changes that will better support the Department of Veterans' Affairs as they seek to improve the services that they provide to our veterans and their families.

I note that the Labor shadow minister has cooperated on this bill. I retract my earlier statement about Centrelink and DVA. I commend this bill to the House.

11:15 am

Photo of Ed HusicEd Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | | Hansard source

On any other given day, this bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016, would be completely and utterly non-controversial. In making those remarks, I want to stress that the intention is to leave it as just that. You heard from the shadow minister a very measured, detailed response to what is being proposed. You also could clearly tell from the contribution made by the shadow minister, the member for Kingston, that a degree of cooperation has been extended and there is an understanding of why this bill has been brought forward, an outline of what expectations are. But I also think that it is important, following the shadow minister's contribution to this debate, to reinforce that as an opposition—as much as this side obviously wants it to work and wishes for every single success in the project—we are watching this project like hawks. We are paying close attention to the way that this is being done. There is a clear reason why that is the case. This bill talks about an event that will see the system that has been designed to support our veterans and meet their needs being completely replaced with a new system, to ensure that the needs of veterans are met.

This digital transformation project, as I said, on any other given day would be non-controversial. However, we have had to watch in this country, through this government, a series of digital transformation projects that have gone off the rails. Of themselves they should have been no-brainers and should have just worked out, and they have not. It is not like this government does not have an agency in place to help the public sector with digital transformation. It has the Digital Transformation Agency, which is supposed to provide critical support for departments, like DVA, when they are undertaking projects like this. Yet what have we seen? We have seen the census fall over and become parodied, getting its own hashtag, 'censusfail', because the IT systems and the whole approach went off the rails. We saw what happened in Centrelink with the robo-debt disaster. We saw the ATO's website crash for days. After that period of time, the ATO were publicly asked, 'What happened?' and they said, 'We don't know.' They still do not have an answer as to why the ATO system, which sees the transfer of really sensitive data between the public and the ATO and accountants and the ATO, completely crashed. There was no answer for it. That crash was so bad that the ATO have sent out the signal that this year's tax time may be delayed until they work out what is going to happen with that system. We also saw the Child Support Agency and their IT system upgrade being flagged as potentially having problems. So we have seen it with the ABS, we have seen it with Centrelink, we have seen it with the ATO, we have seen it with the CSA, and now we are worried that it could happen with the DVA. It should not be the case.

The Digital Transformation Agency were before estimates this week, and their interim CEO, Nerida O'Loughlin, was asked: 'With all these things that happen, all these digital transformation projects, all these system upgrades, IT upgrades, what advice and support did the DTA, the Digital Transformation Agency, provide? What did you do to help government departments in their digital transformation efforts?' Stunningly, when all those things that I just mentioned to the House were put to the DTA in estimates, they said: 'We've not been involved. We were not previously involved in any of those particular projects you mentioned'—not one. The Digital Transformation Agency was not involved in digital transformation. DTA MIA—missing in action, not around when they are needed the most.

There is another important point to make on this. When people were being affected by the Centrelink robo-debt mess, where were the DTA? Missing. What happened as a result of that? The DTA announced in late January that they would get involved. The bulk of the mess was through early January—that is when we saw it really peak—and the DTA were completely missing in action and then said, 'We'll help.' After the bulk of the suffering and the pain and the inconvenience happened, the Digital Transformation Agency said, 'We'll get involved.'

Also what is important on a project like the one being debated in the bill is that the DTA set up last year—it was announced by Assistant Minister Angus Taylor—a program management office. It was described as a small, high-calibre team that would come in to help with all the IT projects happening across the place. Then, a few weeks ago, I noticed that the assistant minister proudly announced the creation of another body, called the investment management office. In estimates this week we said, 'You set up a project management office and now you've set up an investment management office. Both offices are within the DTA.' So within the DTA they have a PMO and an IMO. There is a growth sector in providing abbreviations within government. There are few answers for digital transformation, but 'We'll have an abbreviation for you in a jiffy.' When we asked them, 'Why do you have two bodies?' we were told it is effectively the same body. We asked, 'What? Why is it the same body and you have announced it twice?' They said, 'No, it's the same body. We renamed it because we didn't want the program management office, PMO, to be mistaken with the PMO which is the Prime Minister's Office.' It is almost straight out of Yes, Minister. But they renamed it. And the problem is: this is an office that is supposed to look, we are told, at IT investments over $10 million.

Any project within government will now be examined by what they now call the Digital Investment Management Office, the DIMO. So the DTA had PMO, which turned into IMO, which is now DIMO, and any project across government will fall within the view of this group. I am absolutely certain that the upgrade that will lie at the heart of this legislation will be more than $10 million—for sure; absolutely; I will bet that it will be. I do not know if there has been a figure publicly released on that; if there has been, I certainly welcome it. But it does not matter. The Digital Transformation Agency have said that they will be looking at and keeping a close eye on any project over $10 million.

So now the Digital Transformation Agency needs to spell out in clear and unambiguous terms what level of support it will be providing to the Department of Veterans' Affairs in the upgrade and implementation of this system. The DTA needs to spell out what its Digital Investment Management Office will be doing and what people within the agency—very capable people within the agency—will be doing to ensure that this program keeps on track and that it delivers, so that the system is in place and ready to help out our ex-service personnel and our ex-service organisations, which are the front line of managing, in many respects, concerns that veterans might have about the support given to them. These stakeholders are very important to everyone here in this place and in the community, and we need to make sure that the system that is supposed to support them is working. The Digital Transformation Agency, the DTA, can no longer be MIA, particularly in relation to this upgrade that is involving veterans. And, as I said, it needs to be able to tell us what it is going to do, because, at the moment, the DTA looks like nothing more than a think tank. It is not providing critical support. And I would be very interested to see what it has done in working with DVA on this.

The challenge is large. As the shadow minister spelt out in her contribution earlier, when the Commonwealth Ombudsman looked at the proposed implementation and what lies at the heart of this bill, the Ombudsman spelt out some of the challenges—in particular, that there needed to be an assurance that there would be better-practice principles in automated decision making and that there would be accuracy in data entry. The Ombudsman, I think, was quite fair in what it spelt out in the report, a copy of which I have here. It recognised that data entry errors are going to happen—it is understandable—but asked, 'What are you going to do to mitigate that risk and to minimise the prospect of that occurring?' It said, for example, that limiting the range of data to defined options can also result in limiting the effectiveness of information obtained, especially where there is a discretionary component requiring greater data capture to progress the decision process. So it has already spelt out some of the things that you have to be mindful of, and it said that it would be beneficial to include links to additional information where customers can explore in more depth the type and scope of information required.

So you have already had somebody spelling out the problem and a potential solution, talking about system errors and the impact that system errors have and saying that they are, in many instances, difficult to explain to members of the public and create a sense of suspicion around the motives of the agency. This has all been highlighted as a potential risk. Automated systems must follow basic legal values of lawfulness, fairness, transparency and efficiency, usability and accessibility. DVA needs to consider ongoing service provision for vulnerable clients. This includes providing a range of alternative data information collection avenues.

I think it is important that people do not get hypnotised by the words 'digital transformation' and believe that tech sorts everything out. The Ombudsman rightly points out that there should be call centres, shopfronts and other online options available to people when they need extra information. That is important as well. It also talks about system integration and testing. I have to say—and the shadow minister is present in the chamber today—that the reference to systems integration will be crucial. There will be legacy systems in place, and new systems in other departments. There will be a need to bring everything together so that it works cohesively. Again, what is the DTA going to do? What support and advice will it provide to the DVA in that enormously complex process? Again, we recognise that this is not easy. But there is already a body within government to provide support.

There are now questions and concerns as a result of the litany of problems with digital transformation. Will this flagged digital transformation within DVA go off the rails because the DTA is not providing support in things like system integration, or having alternative channels in place, or having information disseminated as the Ombudsman is saying needs to happen, or having a complaints-and-review process for where things go off the rails?

This is the thing: I think there is a realisation that, in even the best process, with the best plans and the best project management regime, there is going to be a problem at some point. Someone is going to have a problem with the system. We are not saying that this will be flawless and without error. But the Ombudsman rightly asks: 'What will be the complaint-and-review mechanism for when people do have that problem?' because it is going to occur. When you read the Commonwealth Ombudsman's contribution and you read the shadow minister's contribution, I think the community is genuinely concerned, based on track record and performance within other government departments.

This is not a partisan issue. On the digital transformation process itself, the opposition supported the government. We never criticised the government for forming, in the first place, a Digital Transformation Office. But you can see that things have been slow. You can see there is resistance within the highest levels of the public sector to digital transformation. They want to maintain fiefdoms. They want to maintain their own place and their own systems. But the fact of the matter is that, in this day and age, where systems integrate, everyone is working together and people depend on access to reliable government services, we cannot afford to have the silo mentality exist anymore. The DTA has an important role in bringing people together, and other departments have an important role in cooperating. We certainly wish the DVA and the government every success in this potential upgrade, but we will be watching them like hawks on this.

11:30 am

Photo of Ross HartRoss Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The purpose of this bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016, is to make the Department of Veterans' Affairs 'digitally ready' as part of the government's digital transformation agenda. It seeks to make legislative change in support of planned business and ICT reforms that will reduce processing times and automate and streamline existing processes. Labor is supportive of measures that will ease the claims process for veterans when dealing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

As government agencies move closer to a wholly digital platform, it is appropriate to include measures that allow the Department of Veterans' Affairs to engage this platform. However, I note that in his second reading speech, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs indicated that provisions in this bill would enable the secretary of DVA to arrange for computer programs to make decisions and determinations; exercise powers or comply with obligations; or do anything else related to making decisions and determinations, or exercising powers or complying with obligations. For example, where a particular provision requires notice of a decision to be given, this new automated decision-making provision would enable the computer program to both make the decision and send the notice.

It is important to understand that the use of automated decision-making by government departments and agencies has been in operation in various forms for in excess of 20 years. The pathway towards this legislation has been long. For example, a 2007 Australian government 'Better practice guide to automated assistance in administrative decision-making' provides the following description:

Automated systems range from conventional information technology systems (which may calculate a rate of payment in accordance with the formula set out in legislation) through to more specialised systems such as 'expert', 'business rules engines', 'rules-based' or 'intelligent' systems, and 'decision support' tools. Business rules engines or rules-based systems (types of expert systems used in administrative decision-making) are software systems that help manage and automate business rules.

The same document then goes on to say:

A hallmark of an automated system is its ability to examine a set of circumstances ... to 'decide' dynamically what further information is required, or what choices or information to present the user, or what conclusion is to be reached.

In some cases it can be fairly said that automation of business processes within a department might have been used as an aid to decision-making, whilst not displacing the matrix required to be assessed as part of an administrative decision. It is perfectly appropriate, where automation of decision-making is to be elevated beyond an aid to decision-making, that there is legislative sanction for the use of computer programs to make decisions or exercise other functions.

There have been reviews, including a 2004 report of the Administrative Review Council, which considered the administrative law implications of such decision-making. The ARC concluded that expert systems could assist by potentially reducing inaccuracy and human prejudice in the interpretation and application of complex rules and policy. Nevertheless, it appears that the ARC was somewhat prescient in noting, as follows:

… the use of expert systems in administrative decision making process is a developing area in which a mistake in the design or operation of such a system has the potential to affect many people.

I say again: 'A mistake in the design or operation of such a system has the potential to affect many people.' The problems reported with respect to the Centrelink robo-debt debt recovery issues are a case in point.

Labor believes that there are fundamental flaws in the design of the systems and algorithms associated with the data-matching program, which is generating letters and asserting that debts have arisen based upon flawed assumptions. I sincerely hope that the government will heed lessons from the debt recovery program in designing the processes and systems associated with decision-making in this space. I would be particularly concerned if our veteran community had to endure the same stress, worry and fear that the Centrelink robo-debt debacle imposed on thousands of innocent Australians. Centrelink's debt recovery scheme was a nightmare scenario that saw individuals having to prove the absence of a debt, against the state, in a system that, by design, made that task an unreasonable burden.

It is not enough to say that automated decisions might be subject to departmental appeal or to judicial review. There needs to be sufficient human oversight to ensure that decisions are made correctly and communicated accordingly. We cannot allow digital transformation to completely eliminate person-to-person contact in decision-making processes. This is particularly important when dealing with our veterans and our ex-service personnel communities. We know that the rate of suicide for veterans in Australia is tragically high, particularly among ex-serving men aged 18 to 23, for whom the suicide rate is almost twice that of Australian men of the same age.

A report from the DVA, released in July 2016, noted that veterans can experience a number of risk factors for suicidal behaviour, amongst them a high prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, traumatic brain injury and physical health problems. Veterans might also experience a number of veteran-specific risk factors such as difficulty returning to civilian life, including relationship problems, mental illness, alcohol and drug misuse, employment problems, bereavement, and a loss of routine and structure.

I must acknowledge the tireless work already done by RSLs and veteran support groups throughout Australia—particularly, in my electorate, the Launceston RSL. Your passion and dedication to ensure no-one is left behind inspires me. Certainly this is a cohort of our community that often needs particular support, and this is where incorrect decisions made by an automated system could potentially have very serious consequences.

I am pleased to note that, in addition to providing a legislative basis for the use of computer systems to make decisions and determinations, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has developed a strategic plan, which is called Towards 2020, which includes the goal of providing simpler and faster access to clients. DVA states in its plan:

Digital services will provide for faster provision of payments and will connect clients with services from Government and providers. Simplified access will reduce the need for third party representation. DVA will review and seek to amend legislation to better align and support change to enable automated determinations.

The department has acknowledged that the types of decisions which could be suitable for computerised decision-making include where the decision-making can be converted into an algorithm, in the automated granting of benefits in certain circumstances, and where the decision can be generated based upon information that is not subject to interpretation or discretion. It is particularly important to note that automated decision-making processes should not be applied to the types of decisions which involve the exercise of discretion.

This bill also provides the secretary of the department with the tools to make personal information of veterans and ex-service personnel available to the public. This issue has received notoriety, again in the context of disputes between Centrelink claimants and the department surrounding alleged robo-debts. The relevant minister was required to explain how it was that particular information was made available to the media which otherwise would have been confidential or private information concerning a claimant for benefit. The minister sought to justify the release of this information on grounds that the department was entitled to respond to alleged misinformation in the public domain. I have very real concerns as to whether that disclosure was, in fact, authorised by law. The explanatory memorandum to this bill makes it clear that the disclosure regime in the bill is based upon the equivalent in social security law, with some modifications. It is pleasing to note that the government proposes to extend the rights available to claimants to object to release of this information, something which, unfortunately, was not available in the most recent notorious instance of the use of this power.

Nonetheless, there are still concerns around the broad nature of the criteria provided in the explanatory memorandum and the necessity to include both misinformation and mistake of fact in the bill. This is a new power, in that there is no present provision in the defence compensation acts permitting disclosure of information by the secretary. There are, however, information-sharing provisions which permit the sharing or disclosure of information in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the legislation is not consistent. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the associated regulations enable the disclosure of information to defence agencies in relation to litigation of claims and to monitoring occupational health and safety performance and the cost of injuries, as well as to the Department of Human Services for the purposes of administering the social security law. The Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act's information-sharing provisions are more limited, permitting disclosure only to Centrelink, Medicare and the secretaries of the departments administering the National Health Act 1953, the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997.

Labor sent the bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee to investigate what circumstances are necessary to allow the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to make this type of information publicly available. The consideration of these issues resulted in the committee supporting the content of the proposed public interest disclosure provisions but with recommendations for additional safeguards. It was recommended that the DVA consult with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner on the content of the minister's regulations controlling the exercise of the secretary's public interest disclosures, before the regulations are finalised and introduced into parliament. It was also recommended that DVA undertake a privacy impact assessment of the regulations and that this completed assessment be made public, and, finally, that the bill be amended to include a mandatory review of the implementation of the legislation and the accompanying regulations two years from the commencement date. The Labor senators on the committee issued additional comments about public interest, in which they expressed concerns about the broad scope of disclosures provided for in the bill. There have been other concerns expressed. The Nick Xenophon Team also issued additional comments and recommended that the minister's rules on the exercise of the secretary's public interest disclosure power be made publicly available, and therefore subject to feedback from interested persons, before they are tabled in parliament as a legislative instrument.

Major interest groups have also had the opportunity to provide feedback on this bill. The War Widows' Guild of Australia and the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia have both expressed support for the broad objectives of the bill. However, the Commonwealth Ombudsman raised concerns with the information disclosure provisions within schedule 2. The particular issue is that the definition of 'public interest' is not defined in the bill or any of the relevant acts. The explanatory memorandum states:

Examples of the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for the Secretary to disclose information about a case or class of cases include where there is a threat to life, health or welfare, for the enforcement of laws, in relation to proceeds of crime orders, mistakes of fact, research and statistical analysis, APS code of conduct investigations, misinformation in the community and provider inappropriate practices.

The secretary is granted considerable discretion regarding the purposes for which or the persons to whom information can be provided. The provisions do place some constraints on the discretion. It is important to note that a public interest disclosure certificate issued by the secretary that applies to a class of cases is a legislative instrument and is subject to the disallowance process. However, a certificate issued for a particular case is not a legislative instrument and is, therefore, not disallowable.

It is fitting that I close with the concerns expressed by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has raised concerns with the scope of these proposed amendments, noting that they:

… would allow the Secretary to release sensitive personal information to the public at large where he or she is of the view that it is in the public interest to do so. The Ombudsman is concerned that the release of an individual's personal information has the potential to adversely affect veterans and ex-service personnel, particularly those who are already vulnerable.

I outlined earlier in my speech those particular vulnerabilities. It is clear. We owe a duty to our veteran communities to do what is right, particularly when we are dealing with their private and confidential information. If it were not for the fact that there has been, I suggest, a particularly egregious use of confidential information being released to the media in the last two weeks, I would suggest that the protections currently being afforded by this legislation would be sufficient. However, I think we need to act with utmost caution when we are dealing with the confidential information of our veterans community.

11:45 am

Photo of Steve GeorganasSteve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, for taking the Speaker's chair, relieving me of that duty so I can give this speech.

Photo of Rob MitchellRob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure, mate.

Photo of Steve GeorganasSteve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016, which aims to make the Department of Veterans' Affairs digitally ready. As we have heard from other speakers, anything that we do in Veterans' Affairs must have, front, centre and at its heart, the desire to make the lives of veterans easier and simpler. This is because they have contributed so much to this nation and, in many cases, have fought in wars and put their lives at risk in order for us to live the wonderful lives that we do in this wonderful nation of Australia, this democratic and egalitarian country.

But I am very concerned when I look at the track record of the current government and the horrendous disasters that have taken place—the different IT systems and the different make-up of Centrelink et cetera. One does not have to go too far back to remember the new system that was put in place for people to do their census online—what a disaster that was. Then there was the tax office outage that took place earlier this year, which was a total disaster. No-one has yet given us an answer about that. There is also the Centrelink disaster, with the robo-calls, and the new IT system that is clearly not working.

So I hope that this will work, because our veterans deserve a digitally-ready system. I hope it will not be like those examples of mistakes that I just gave. They were absolutely disastrous, I think—especially the census. We still not have gotten to the bottom of that to find out why that happened and what took place in their new IT system. I hope that will not be the case with this particular change that is being made. As I said, our service men and women have faced complex challenges, and it is not right that veterans face complicated and difficult-to-understand systems. That is why this system will be better, hopefully. It is not right that they face difficult systems and processes to deal with some of these challenges. So I welcome anything that addresses this problem. As I said, I do have my doubts, but I hope that this will work.

I am incredibly lucky, as all of us are in this place, to have a number of veterans groups in my electorate. I visit them and speak with them on a regular basis. For example, I have the Plympton Glenelg RSL, the Seaton Park RSL, the Henley & Grange RSL, the Hilton RSL and the Edwardstown RSL in my electorate. Another great group in my electorate that does some magnificent work for veterans is the William Kibby VC Veterans Shed. All these groups will benefit from this new system. A lot of the groups that I have just mentioned—the RSLs and the William Kibby VC Veterans Shed—do great work. They assist with the welfare issues of their members, the veterans. They assist with pension issues and even assist people in employment and with complications that arise out of dealings with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Specifically, the William Kibby VC Veterans Shed is a great example of people helping veterans. The William Kibby VC Veterans Shed is an initiative of a fantastic veteran in my electorate, Barry Heffernan. He is a Vietnam vet and a passionate advocate and supporter of our great service men and women. He started this wonderful shed. It was the first veterans shed registered with the Australian Men's Shed Association. It is specifically intended for veterans of all conflicts and for anyone who served in an Australian uniform, regardless of whether or not they saw operational service.

The aim of this particular veterans shed is to create and maintain an environment for veterans and ex-service personnel where concerns, past traumas, health issues and welfare issues can be discussed with other veterans who have empathy and understanding from similar life experiences in operational areas and in different areas of our Defence Force. Barry Heffernan is well known in the veteran community. He travels regularly across the country, assisting veterans and even contributing to Senate inquiries and other inquiries.

In addition to offering advocacy and support to veterans and their families, the veterans shed at Glenelg offers veterans the opportunity to learn new skills and put their existing skills to good use. They have woodworking classes. They have a great shed. They build wooden toys. They have lathes. They are constantly looking for people to assist, to help. They do great work. It shows real community spirit and an engagement with the community, which they do so well.

Veterans have given an incredible service to Australia, and it is humbling to see these ex-service men and women continuing to give back to the community. It is therefore our job as members of parliament, as elected representatives in this place, to listen to these men and women and address their concerns. This bill will hopefully assist by making legislative change in support of planned business and ICT reforms that will reduce processing times and automate and streamline existing processes. This is a good starting point. Let us hope that this system does work and does not follow in the footsteps of those other three examples that I gave: the census debacle, the Centrelink robo-IT system and the outage at the tax office earlier this year.

Labor is always supportive of measures that will ease the claims process for veterans when dealing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This bill has three schedules. Schedule 1 is designed to authorise the use of computer programs to make decisions and determinations, exercise powers or comply with obligations, amongst other things. The aim of this is to significantly improve services for veterans and their families by re-engineering the department's business processes. Specifically, it will hopefully reduce claims processing times and automate and streamline existing processes.

It will also deal with the disclosure of information about a particular case, or class of cases, if it is considered in the public interest to do so. This would use a similar tool to the one which the Department of Human Services uses when it believes it needs to correct the record on false or misleading information. This takes me back to where we are with Centrelink. Let's hope that the debacle there is not repeated here, because our veterans deserve much better than we have seen for Centrelink clients. Examples of the circumstances in which the department has advised it might be appropriate for the secretary to disclose information about a case or class of cases—and we had some concerns about this—include: where there is a threat to life, health or welfare; for the enforcement of laws in relation to proceeds of crime orders; mistakes of fact; and other situations. The final schedule is going to update provisions to take account of changes to drafting precedents and practices.

Schedules 1 and 3 are broadly supported. The reason that we sent the bill to committee is that our side wanted to ensure that everyone understood the purpose of this bill and why this bill was necessary, and to ensure that it actually addressed the real problems faced by veterans accessing the services that are there for them. In particular, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee was to look closely at schedule 2 and the criteria and circumstances that would allow the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to make publicly available the personal information of veterans and ex-service personnel. This could clearly be seen as a problem for some vets. When we are releasing public information we want to be absolutely sure that it is for the reasons I outlined earlier. We wanted to ensure that ex-service and veterans' organisations were able to raise their concerns about the bill if they had any.

It is pleasing to note that ex-service and veterans' organisations agreed that there were overwhelming beneficial outcomes to ensuring DVA has the ability to move to a digital platform. Organisations were also generally supportive of schedule 2 of the bill, noting that such disclosures are done in consultation with the department and only if or when it is in the public's interest to do so. I outlined when it was in the public interest to do so earlier in my speech.

However, some concerns remain in respect of two provisions. There is no doubt that some circumstances outlined in the bill make it appropriate to share personal information, especially with other federal and state agencies in circumstances relating to crime. However, we on this side feel it is necessary to ensure that measures are put in place to protect against misinformation and mistake of fact. In addition, the provisions of schedule 2 could unnecessarily exacerbate the claims process and undermine the confidence of those involved should they be used negligibly. This is the last thing that veterans need to deal with on top of all the other issues they have to deal with.

As a result, there were four recommendations that came out of the Senate committee's work. We heard about them earlier. The committee's first recommendation was that the Department of Veterans' Affairs consult with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner on the content of the minister's regulations before they are finalised and introduced in the parliament. The second recommendation was that the Department of Veterans' Affairs undertake a privacy impact assessment of the regulations and that the completed assessment be made public. The third recommendation was that the bill be amended to include a mandatory review of the implementation of the legislation and accompanying regulations two years from the commencement date. The fourth recommendation was that the bill be passed.

Labor welcomes the fact that the government has agreed to each of these recommendations. This includes making amendments to review the bill in two years. It has already begun consultation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Australian Information Commissioner. I am fairly comfortable, as all of us on this side are, with the consultation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Australian Information Commissioner to finalise the instrument.

We on this side will continue to work with the minister—we heard our shadow minister speak on this earlier—to ensure these recommendations are adhered to. It is important that we get this right, as I said, because veterans do not deserve to go through the things that some of the people on Centrelink have been going through or the things that happened to people who tried to log on the night of the census or who tried to deal with the Taxation Office when they had their outage. These are three examples of how, when we transitioned to a different IT system, it went horribly, horribly wrong. I do not wish to see the people who have fought in our wars, served in uniform and who are there to protect us and doing everything correctly, giving up their time and, in many cases, their lives be mucked around by another system that has perhaps not been implemented correctly.

So I welcome this bill and I ask the department and the minister to do everything possible so that we do not have a repeat of the blunders in IT transitions that we have seen in the past. We should be doing everything in our power to ensure that the processes our veterans have to use to access services do not further complicate their lives and make their lives more difficult. When they have served, they have made our lives better. We live these wonderful lives here in this great nation because of the veterans who have fought in previous wars and basically moulded the country into what it is today. We want to do everything we possibly can to make their lives better.

11:59 am

Photo of Julian HillJulian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I will say at the outset that I am proud to follow the previous member for Bruce in this place in many regards but in particular in relation to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016 because, as the House knows, he was an outstanding Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Even those opposite, I know, acknowledge and regard highly his contribution in his time as Minister for Veterans' Affairs. He is a self-deprecating person, as you know. Indeed, he had a theory, he has a line, that people kept voting for him only because they had never met him. But it is true to say that, as I see when I move around the RSLs and the veterans communities in my electorate, he is much loved. He is genuinely loved around the RSLs for his care and regard.

Photo of Greg HuntGreg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | | Hansard source

We miss him too!

Photo of Julian HillJulian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

You miss him too, I know. We all miss him. This is not a valedictory for the previous member for Bruce, but of course we all, I am sure, miss his free character assessments, which he would provide to you without a Medicare rebate. As the Minister for Health is sitting opposite, I will say that any health treatment without a rebate that is properly done is a good thing. I learnt 20 years ago—I was a staffer here before I stepped out of politics for many years, and we learnt pretty much straightaway—when I started working for the previous member for Bruce in his electorate office when I was at uni that one of the mortal sins that any staffer could commit was not to give gold-plated service to any veteran who rang the office or came in. It did not matter whether they were happy or grumpy. It did not matter how they voted. Anyone who did not pay immediate and close attention to the issues that a veteran raised would have the free character assessment provided to them rapidly, and their behaviour would be corrected. There were a lot of mortal sins of course, as you can imagine, but that was certainly high up there. So that respect for the service of veterans and people who have donned the uniform for our country was ingrained early.

Like many people here, I myself have never served. I myself have never served in any capacity. I have taken extra steps since being elected to try to connect and learn more about the Australian defence forces, those who serve and those who served. In that regard, I participated in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program last year and have enrolled in some more activities to try to do my bit—

Mr Tehan interjecting

hello, Minister for Veterans' Affairs—to bridge the divide in mutual understanding. I think that probably post-World War II—I do not have the precise percentage—there was a very high percentage of members of this House, 40 per cent, 50 per cent or more, who had served in the military and had that intimate and personal experience and understanding of what it is to serve. And yet, as society has changed and the size of the military has fallen and so on and so forth, the percentage of members in this parliament who have served actively in the military is very, very low, well under 10 per cent. We are talking about a few per cent. There are a few on both sides of the House. I think that as members of the national parliament, given that the military is an important part of our national power and our apparatus of state, if you like, in the Commonwealth, we have both a practical obligation and a moral obligation to spend some time and put a human face to those who serve our country and put their lives at risk.

I returned from the Middle East last year, from Afghanistan and elsewhere, from the sojourn with the military with an even deeper appreciation of the women and men of the ADF, their professionalism, their commitment and their black humour. There is a lot of black humour but also a degree of sophistication, wisdom and knowledge of the world and a sense of history that many perhaps would not immediately associate with them, given a lack of experience or exposure. But also it is interesting to try to understand the values which underpin different institutions. The values of the military around the mission, achieving the mission, safety and accuracy are first and foremost, looking after people, not always efficiency. I do not mean that just in the expenditure realm but also in the important motto of 'hurry up and wait', because things seem to take a while.

In my community we have three RSLs, Noble Park, Dandenong and Glen Waverley, and they all, of course, have very different flavours and cultures, reflecting their communities and members and the characters who put the time in to run them. In Noble Park we have the wonderful John Meehan, the president, who is renowned across Melbourne for his welfare work. They run an incredible welfare service. He is returning to Vietnam himself, I think this month, for the first time since his service there. That will be an emotional trip for him, which he has been preparing for, and I certainly wish him well. In Dandenong we have John Wells, who is a touch scary, an ex-school principal and a fierce advocate for his members, and in Waverley there is the president, George Cooney, and Dennis Everitt, who I know well, who coordinates the great welfare work. I have spent time listening and learning and trying to understand the current concerns of veterans, mental health and mateship. But there are also more recent veterans who do not always connect as well with the RSLs upon their return, so new models of outreach are an area of interest.

With that as the context, this bill has three parts. I will confine my comments to schedules 1 and 2, given that schedule 3 is really technical amendments. Schedule 1 is to support automated decision-making. It is hard not to support the objective to make decision-making more efficient. I have heard that from my local RSLs, and, broadly, people are supportive of engaging more online, subject to ensuring proper training, fair access to the IT systems and support, of course, for those who cannot engage online, particularly perhaps older people. More-automated decision-making, of course, has been a trend for many years under successive governments. It can help to provide rules and policies to decision-makers, assemble evidence for an applicant, ensure logical step-by-step decisions and, importantly, record evidence and rationales associated with every decision, which is important for accountability and for reviews and so on.

Concerns arise, though, where it is not to aid decision-makers but to automate decisions in a mindless fashion, such as we have seen with the government's flawed robo-debt policy in Centrelink, which, to understate it, takes the human out of human services. Minister Tehan said in the second reading speech that the aim of this is to 'improve services for veterans and their families', to 'reduce claims processing times' and 'streamline existing processes'. On the face of it, that is fine. That is something that we would all sign up to and support.

I just wish to record two major concerns though: firstly, predictably, if the robo-debt debacle were rolled out to DVA. It is bad enough that the government—not this minister but his colleague ministers—are picking on pensioners, disabled people, the unemployed and single parents, but imagine if they were to then start on veterans. Fortunately it seems, for now at least, that there is some decency left in the government with this minister, and I note and put on the record the assurances provided by the department to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee that the computerised system would not be used for debt recovery related purposes. The legislation permits that, but we have been assured that that is not how it will be, and there may still be humans left in this service. We need to record that, and we will see how long it lasts. Goodness help the veterans if the Minister for Social Services or the Minister for Human Services ever got this portfolio—you can just imagine them in charge of DVA—or indeed if Centrelink got control of DVA. Goodness gracious me: 'empathy bypass' does not begin to cover it. Minister Tehan, the member for Wannon, is a decent chap—he is in the chair, and I see him talking; I am probably distracting him from his reading—so we will trust his word and hope that DVA does not get Portered or Tudged up.

The second area of concern, as has been well covered by previous speakers, regards the government's record on IT rollouts. It does not exactly fill you with confidence. I hope the ministers responsible for the census, the NDIS, the ATO and Centrelink's 40 per cent error rate will be kept well away from the IT upgrade. The final thing I will record is that if indeed this does achieve efficiencies in the department it is a great thing. As a former public servant, I know that the more you can automate things and free up resources the more you can do other things you would wish to do with those resources. I do hope that, given the pressing needs in relation to mental health and other things in this portfolio, the minister is able to keep the savings in the portfolio and reinvest them in important initiatives. So we on this side are right behind you, Minister Tehan, in your battles at ERC with the cabinet.

Schedule 2, disclosure of information, aims to enable the Secretary of DVA to certify in certain cases that it is okay to make public interest disclosures of information about a case or cases. That is kind of bureaucratic gobbledegook, but what it means is the power to disclose externally personal information of any sort about our veterans. That warrants careful consideration by the parliament. On the face of it, it does seem like there are reasonable arguments to permit this. The Bills Digest points out that the capacity to make public interest disclosures which are otherwise restricted by the Privacy Act already exists in social security legislation, and this bill, I think the Bills Digest and the government have noted, is modelled on those provisions. They require the secretary to comply with any guidelines issued by the minister. We will support the bill, including this aspect, subject to the agreed amendments—which I understand the shadow minister has been working on very collaboratively with the minister, which is how this parliament should work—which will provide stronger safeguards to protect the private information of veterans and to review the bill in two years time to check that it is working as intended and that there are no unintended consequences. I trust that our shadow minister will reach sensible agreement with the minister regarding the details of the public interest disclosures.

My concern, having watched the Centrelink robo-debt debacle, is that however these safeguards are written into legislation, regulations or guidelines it may not be enough, because this government feels free to leak personal information to the media when it suits its political interests. We have seen this behaviour shamefully in recent weeks and months from other ministers in the government, and only yesterday the House debated these very matters in the portfolios on which these provisions are apparently modelled. The DHS/DSS legislation provides a range of criteria—things like to lessen threats to life; the enforcement of certain criminal laws; to brief a minister; to assist courts, coronial inquiries, royal commissions; to facilitate other calculations—but it is noticeable what is not there. There is no provision to leak information to feed the media to get a better story up or to obscure the truth about the stuff-ups you are making in your portfolio, but that apparently has not worried ministers in other portfolios, as we have seen them picking on vulnerable people and leaking their details to the media.

Examples of circumstances in which the Department of Veterans' Affairs has said it might be appropriate to disclose information seem sensible and, on the face of it, they are good. They have been recorded and include 'threats to life, health or welfare, enforcement of laws, proceeds of crime orders, research and analysis, investigations', and so on. I do note that mistakes of fact and misinformation in the community are included, and would hope that that does not provide an entree into leaking information about individuals as opposed to classes of people, which of course makes sense. I want to put those concerns on the record.

The reservation from our side is that it does not matter what agreement we reach. What we have seen from this government is that if it is not a decent minister, if it suits the political purposes—if the government disagrees with you—then it will just target you anyway, and you will not really know that it has even happened until the journalists hunt you down and start phoning you, and you find your name in the paper. Only yesterday the Department of Human Services confirmed that at no point did their secretary authorise the release of confidential information. The Minister for Human Services in his pathetic response to the House provided no explanation as to the basis or the head of power under which he had released this information. That matter clearly still has a way to run.

So we can do our best as legislators to pore over the detail and to construct sensible regimes to manage privacy and information appropriately, but executive power in our system rests with ministers, which is something I support. Our job is to hold them to account, to put these issues and concerns on the record, uncomfortable as that may be at times.

I will close with three hopes. Let us hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs runs his own race on the IT system changes and that they go better in DVA than elsewhere in the government. I saw that the Minister for Health was here before. He was the world's best minister! It must have been a lovely day for him, wandering into cabinet as the world's best minister. It was a wonderful award, a wonderful achievement. Let us hope that in future world's best minister competitions the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is a clear winner in the IT category. Let us hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is not infected by the disease which seems to permeate the rest of the cabinet and the behaviour of his colleagues, the little germ that says: 'Ooh, it's a good idea to start leaking confidential information and private information! I know, I'll ring The Australian. I'll tell them about what the vets have been up to.' Let us hope that that is not the case about clients of his department. And let us hope, for the sake of our veterans, that DVA does not get Portered or Tudged up, so they unleash their robo-debt stuff on veterans as well. But with the amendments we will support the bill.

12:14 pm

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | | Hansard source

It was great to hear the member for Bruce give us an entertaining contribution to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016.

Photo of Julian HillJulian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It was insightful! It was analytical!

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | | Hansard source

Insightful, analytical—indeed it was in some respects, and his eulogising of the former member for Bruce was most welcome.

Photo of Pat ConroyPat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Whether it was misleading the House is another question!

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | | Hansard source

That is right. But he is correct to say that the former member for Bruce was a very good and successful Minister for Veterans' Affairs and very well thought of in the veterans community. I know, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs who followed him, that he had done a lot of good work which we were able to build upon. I know the current minister is building even further upon that work, some of which was started by the former member for Bruce, Mr Griffith.

This bill is an important piece of legislation. As has been described by previous members, it has a number of components to it, but at the outset I just want to congratulate both the minister and the shadow minister, the member for Kingston, for working in a collaborative and bipartisan way. It seems to me that the best interests of our veterans community are always best served when we are working in a bipartisan fashion. It has been my experience both as a minister and as a former minister that that is the case. It was an open discussion with my shadow ministers at the time about what we were doing and any ideas they might have had. I welcomed them.

I think it is important that we understand that the veterans community expects that of us. If it can be avoided, they do not want to see politicised debates around issues to do with veterans. I know that the minister at the table is working assiduously to try to make sure that is not the case, and, similarly, the shadow minister has got the same mindset, so it is a very good thing to do. I know that, in the context of the meetings I had—now more occasional than they were before—with veterans, they are keen to make sure that those relationships continue to build.

And it is important. There are some big issues which confront the veterans community, and we have seen many of them come to light over the last little while around mental health, suicide and homelessness—issues which are important for us to have our minds around and to have a common approach to. I commend the minister for the work he is doing in that regard.

There are genuine concerns out there that at some point the Department of Veterans' Affairs might be absorbed into another department. I think it is fair to say that, certainly from my own personal perspective, I would see that as a very bad thing to do and a backward step, and I know that is a view which is shared by the minister. At the same time, however, it is very important that, whilst we learn the lessons from the departments of human services and social services, we do not follow their path. We have heard the debate elucidate issues around robocalls and the way debt recovery is taking place in those other agencies, and we need to make sure such things do not happen in the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

At the same time, however, it is absolutely imperative that the relationship between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence is as seamless as possible, and that includes in the information-sharing space. That is for the welfare of serving members and veterans, bearing in mind that anyone who walks into a recruitment base, does their recruit training, puts on a uniform and signs up is effectively potentially a client of the Department of Veterans' Affairs from the day they walk in and will be that until the day they die. That is important to understand.

I know we have gone through a range of issues over the years about how we get this closer working relationship without Defence subsuming Veterans' Affairs within it. It is really important. I note that the minister has, as I did, joint portfolio responsibility to do with personnel and Veterans' Affairs. That is a really good thing because he now has oversight of personnel in the Defence Force and has oversight of those former Defence members—or even current Defence members—who are clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We know many current serving members are clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs because of injuries and accidents that they have suffered from as a result of their service, so it is fundamentally important that that relationship is as close as possible, and I commend the government for making sure that the portfolio arrangements were set up so that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is also responsible for Defence personnel. That is as it should be, and I hope that future governments of whatever political persuasion keep that happening, because it makes the Defence Force accountable but it also means that the minister can take the knowledge of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio into the Defence portfolio and make sure there is a proper and clear understanding of the needs of our veterans whilst they are serving and when they leave service.

To that end, making sure there is a capacity to provide information from Veterans' Affairs to Defence is very important, and this bill provides for that. The minister is all too well aware that upgrading the digital platforms in Veterans' Affairs is extremely important, because that then provides the capacity for a seamless provision of information in a digital form to the Department of Defence and vice versa. And why is that important? It is because, if we have got a veteran who is making a claim against the government for an injury that that person has had and which caused an illness some years ago, historically that meant an enormous paper search and a prolonged process before the claim was settled. Once we have the electronic health record working efficiently and properly in the Department of Defence and we have got the seamless transfer of information between the two organisations around those particular sorts of issues, it will be far easier and a lot better in terms of dealing with the claims of veterans for benefits, treatment, medical help or whatever it is from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, because they will have that information almost automatically at hand. That is really important.

It also goes to the transition space. Handing people a document as they leave the organisation and saying, 'Give that to your Veterans' Affairs adviser,' is not the way things should be. People should know information which is agreed upon can be shared, and, when it is agreed upon and shared, it will make opportunities for working with veterans a lot better and they will feel a lot more satisfied with the way in which they have been treated. Now, we have heard in the past people complaining—properly complaining, I might say, in the time that I was a minister—about the time that it had taken to deal with their claims. What we need to do is expedite that process. The change in the digital platform and the other reforms that are taking place in the Department of Veterans' Affairs will provide that capacity, and that is important. It is important that we recognise that that work is underway and it will be a time before it is all finished, but nevertheless it is important that we do it.

I have a couple of issues, though, which I think we need to be aware of. When we have automated decision-making, it is true that there are relatively large numbers of people who are veterans, widows or widowers who are clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs who are not digitally aware. They still like snail mail and they still like to talk to someone, because that is the way they understand how to work. They may not have access to computers. Even if they do have access to computers, they might find it very challenging to use that interface.

It is important that we keep the capacity of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to be personally engaged with members of the veterans community who are their clients and potential clients, whether they are serving members, former members, veterans, widows, widowers or the children of veterans, who are all clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I am not sure who is the youngest client at the Department of Veterans' Affairs at the moment, but I am guessing they are a child of a former veteran who may not be with us and they are probably an infant. We take responsibility for that person—I beg your pardon, the government takes responsibility for them through the department.

Photo of Dan TehanDan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | | Hansard source

We all do.

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | | Hansard source

We all do, collectively. That is correct. We do that until that child is an adult. It is important that we understand that obligation so that, when we are providing the capacity for people to communicate, they are able to communicate effectively. It is a great privilege to be in this place, but I have to say the greatest honour I have had in being a member of this parliament was being in the role of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. That is because you get to deal with and meet the most courageous of people.

Yesterday, we heard about the 75th anniversary of the sinking of the Perth and the bravery of Hec Waller. These things are of legend. If you read about the legendary people of the past, who have shown such bravery in serving our nation, how can you not be enthralled by the opportunities that exist to help them and their families? We have the capacity in this place to see the opportunities that exist to make sure that we are looking after veterans appropriately and to work with the Department of Defence to make sure serving members who are veterans are being dealt with appropriately, have the treatment they require and have the assistance they need for themselves and their families. That is an obligation we should accept with glee. I know across the parliament that is the case. We may be critical from time to time around the edges, and we should expect that. But if we can work cooperatively together where we can then we will get the best outcomes for these brave Australians.

For those of us who have had the opportunity to travel across the world to visit our Australian Defence Force members currently in the Middle East or in Afghanistan, you walk away humbled by the opportunities that have been given to you to talk to these very brave people who are putting on their uniform for this country and who are prepared to sacrifice their lives. That is what this is about. When we walk in this place as members of parliament, we puff our chests out and think how good we are. That is all terrific, but the reality is that we are very minor beings. We like to think we are terrific. Some of us are more terrific than others—we know that! They will tell you, do not worry! But the truth of it is that when you engage with these brave men and women, who are working for us in uniform, you walk away knowing that this country is in very good hands.

It is a delight to now see that we have a number of veterans recently serving as members in the parliament. We may not agree politically on some things, but to have them in this place is very important. As the member for Bruce talked about, the parliaments of the past after the Second World War had very high numbers of veterans. Of course, Tom Uren was a famous prisoner of war who served on our side, and there are many such people on the other side. Those veterans shared a lot. Now, we cannot share what they shared because we did not have that experience, but we can share the opportunities that exist here to make sure we do the right thing. I think this legislation—as it has been amended as a result of the consultation and work of the Senate committee and the contribution made by the member for Kingston, which was agreed to by the minister—is something that we can all support, and we should be proud to do so.

12:28 pm

Photo of Dan TehanDan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank all members for their contributions. I mention in particular the contribution that has just been made by the member for Lingiari. I reiterate what he said: what a great honour and privilege it is to hold this portfolio, because it means that you are able to talk and meet with veterans and also current serving Defence personnel. As he was speaking, my mind drifted back to the commemorations we have just had for the Fall of Singapore and also for former prisoners of war. I was fortunate enough to spend some time in Ballarat with some of those ex-prisoners of war, and what outstanding individuals they are. They are just remarkable Australians. You feel so humble being in their presence because of what they went through and what they suffered on behalf of our nation. They have not a hint of bitterness, not a hint of, 'Oh, woe is me.' They still have that outlook and that twinkle in the eye; they still have their love of the country and of the fact that they served. They sacrificed but they do not hold it against anyone. It is truly inspiring and it makes this job an enormous honour. I think the member for Lingiari gets that from the time that he spent in this portfolio. It is something that I continue to pinch myself about every time I meet them, because they are truly great Australians. They should make those of us in this place walk a little bit more humbly.

I acknowledge the bipartisan support that we have had for this bill. I also take the opportunity to thank the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their examination and recommendations in relation to the bill. I think we can all agree that their suggestions have improved the bill, particularly the safeguards around the public interest disclosure provisions.

As we heard during the debate, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is undertaking veteran-centric reform to significantly improve services for veterans and their families by re-engineering DVA business processes. In anticipation of planned business and ICT reforms, amendment is required to provide a sound legislative basis for computerised decision-making. Computerised decision-making at DVA is expected to streamline services, free up resources and prepare DVA for future ICT upgrades.

Schedule 1 of the bill will enable the Secretary of DVA to arrange for computer programs to make decisions, exercise powers or comply with obligations and do other related things such as send a notice advising of a decision. The secretary cannot delegate this power to decide whether a computer program should be used to make decisions, ensuring high-level consideration about whether it is appropriate for a computer program to be used. Only decisions that would be suitable for computerised decision-making, such as those that can be converted into an algorithm or where there is no discretion or fact finding required, will be automated. While the department does use computers to assist in calculating debts, I would like to emphasise that DVA does not intend to use computerised decision-making for the purpose of automated debt collection, nor does it use a debt collection agency to recover payments. In regard to these powers, in a case where a computer program makes an incorrect decision, both the Repatriation Commission and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission will be able to substitute the correct decision on own-motion without DVA clients having to formally request a review. This own-motion power is in addition to existing review and appeal rights where clients are dissatisfied with the decision.

Schedule 2 of the bill contains two types of information-sharing provisions. These are the public interest disclosure provisions and the information-sharing provisions between DVA and Defence. The public interest disclosure provisions would enable the Secretary of DVA to disclose information about a case or class of cases if the secretary certifies that it is necessary in the public interest to do so. The power is accompanied by appropriate safeguards, including those recommended by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The sorts of circumstances where it may be appropriate for DVA to release information about a person include where there is a threat to life, a threat to health and welfare, an inappropriate practice as provider, misinformation in the community or APS Code of Conduct investigations.

The safeguards in the legislation include that the minister must make rules about how the power is to be exercised; that the Secretary of DVA must act in accordance with these rules; that the rules will be a disallowable instrument; that the minister cannot delegate his or her power to make rules about how the power is to be exercised by the Secretary of DVA; that the Secretary of DVA cannot delegate the public interest disclosure power to anyone else; that, before disclosing personal information about a person, the Secretary of DVA must notify the person in writing about his or her intention to disclose the information, give the person a reasonable opportunity to make written comments on the proposed disclosure of the information and consider any written comments made by the person; that, unless the secretary complies with these natural justice requirements before disclosing personal information, he or she will commit a criminal offence punishable by a fine of 60 penalty units, approximately $10,800; and that, after the public interest disclosure provisions and rules have been in operation for two years, there will be a review of the operation of those provisions, with a report to be tabled in both houses of the parliament.

In addition to the safeguards which I just mentioned and which are built into the legislation, DVA has consulted with both the Privacy Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman about the draft rules that I will make. I am pleased to advise the House that, as a result of those consultations, some amendments have already been made to the draft rules. Consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman will be ongoing. In addition, a privacy impact assessment has been completed with respect to the public interest disclosure rules. The assessment concluded that the public interest disclosure provisions contained detailed and stringent controls over the exercise of the disclosure power that reflect the importance of taking necessity and proportionality considerations into account before relying on the provisions to make a disclosure. DVA will ensure that privacy materials and published documents will be reviewed and updated to reflect the operation and effect of the public interest disclosure provisions. Specific staff training materials and guidelines will be prepared to ensure that departmental employees understand the public interest disclosure provisions.

The second type of information-sharing provisions would enable information sharing between DVA and the Department of Defence under limited circumstances. Currently, information about serving members can be provided to the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 but cannot be shared under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This is anomalous, especially since the CDF owes a duty of care to members, especially those members deployed in an operational context. Information sharing can also promote healthier work practices in the military—for example, the MRCC may notice a common pattern of injuries arising out of certain duties. This information should be shared appropriately so that work practices can be adjusted, resulting in fewer members being injured. These amendments would simply replicate the existing information-sharing provisions found in the MRCA.

The amendments in schedule 3 of the bill are minor and technical in nature. They update references to penalties expressed as a number of dollars with penalties expressed as a number of penalty units. Such changes enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book.

I would like to specifically acknowledge the contribution to the debate on this bill made by members. The member for Kingston noted what this bill means for the future development of the department's service provision. As she noted, there are many challenges faced by the department, and providing the right technology will make that work easier, with better outcomes for veterans. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution to the debate made by the member for Forde, who mentioned that serving our veterans should be a priority of any government. We have a duty to look after them, after they have done their duty in looking after us.

I also note the opposition members who have made contributions and their concerns around the development of a new ICT system for DVA. I would like to thank the way in which all sides have engaged with the development of this bill, which has had input from both sides and from the crossbench to ensure that it is the best result for veterans and for the department that serves them. It was parliamentary work at its best, with contributions from the shadow minister, a detailed committee inquiry and respectful consultation with concerned members and senators—something which everyone should be proud of. I would particularly like to thank several members and senators.

I would like to thank the shadow minister, Ms Rishworth, and her office for engaging with me and my office on developing the bill. I also thank her for her ongoing assistance in drafting the rules that will govern the public interest disclosure provision. Her views have made these rules stronger and more robust. By having these discussions together, we were able to take them to the crossbench for further consultation. I know that she shares my views that it is a duty of all members and senators to work together to get the best outcome for veterans, and I thank her for her bipartisanship and cooperation.

I would also like to thank the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, who have also provided recommendations that have made this a better bill. Senators Back and Gallacher have worked together to provide recommendations that the government has accepted and has implemented. I would also like to thank members and senators of the crossbench. In particular I would like to thank Senator Kakoschke-Moore for her engagement with the development of the bill through the committee inquiry and for providing her views on the rules, which we look forward to continuing to discuss. The bill will lay the ground for the future service of veterans, allowing for better processes and better practices. The Department of Veterans' Affairs can only be expected to provide 21st century service with 21st century technology, which this bill will allow.

I would like to conclude by acknowledging the Prime Minister and his commitment to veterans. As he has said continually through this Centenary of Anzac period: the best way that we can remember the service and sacrifice made by the fallen, especially those who gave their lives in vast number during the First World War, is by making sure we look after the veterans and those serving in our armed forces today. This bill will ensure that we are continuing to do that but doing it in a way which recognises that we need 21st century technology to able to provide those services in the 21st century. I would like to once again thank all those who have made a significant contribution to the bill. I commend the work of all members and senators on this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.