Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to amendments circulated on sheet 7797.

The genesis of this amendment is the information that was presented at the Senate inquiry, where the Department of Human Services wrote: 'In accordance with the phased expansion of the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register into a whole-of-life Australian Immunisation Register, a range of improvements will be implemented to the register's functions and operations. This includes new functionality to enable providers to correct errors online through the Australian immunisation register secure site, such as correction of an incorrect dose number or, indeed, an incorrect vaccine recorded.' This will begin to be implemented in September 2017.

That is of significant concern to us because the decision to withdraw someone's support, that is child care rebate, family tax benefit A supplement, child care benefit, is entirely dependent on the data that is listed in the Australian Immunisation Register. If we have an acknowledgement from the Department of Human Services that there are some flaws currently within the system—and we know there are because, for example, there is no capacity to go online and directly make alterations to dose numbers, or indeed if an incorrect vaccine has been recorded—then somebody can have their support payments withdrawn on the basis of that incorrect information. That is concerning. I just cannot understand why we would have a scheme that is reliant upon quality data to see who is and who is not fully vaccinated if the systems that support that are not going to be fully operational until late 2017. That is absolutely critical.

Again, restating our support for immunisation: we do strongly support measures that will increase our immunisation coverage, but we do believe that if we are going to introduce measures as drastic as those that have been proposed here in this bill, that remove support and payments from individuals on the basis of a database that may be inaccurate, then that has the potential to cause very serious problems.

This amendment addresses that specific issue by delaying the start date of the legislation until 1 January 2018, when data systems are ready to provide confidence that the immunisation data is accurate and that providers are resourced to undertake an extensive history and checking of the information. It allows consumers and health professionals who are using the Australian Immunisation Register secure site to correct errors online. It is about ensuring confidence in the systems; again noting how important it is that accurate data is used if we are going to take measures as drastic as the removal of these support payments.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not supporting this amendment. We believe that the information we received, not always immediately from the departments in our examination through the committee process, gave us the confidence that we would be able to move forward with the legislation at this time, provided that there is the injection of resources into ensuring that the publicity and information campaigns and also the maintenance of the register are both put in place. So we have accepted the department's views that that will occur and will ensure that the starting date can be the original in the legislation.

But I would like to take the opportunity in this committee stage to ask the minister for some comments on the committee recommendation, which you know very well, Mr Acting Deputy President Seselja, that there will be a review process in the department to ensure, as Senator Macdonald pointed out in his contribution, the need for this particular legislation to have a quite specific review process through the department to ensure that it is working and that the objections that have been put forward by many people in the community are taken seriously—that this is an important element of our agreement to the whole process.

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

It is important to note that the data match does not work. Obviously, there will be the opportunity for individuals to take documentary evidence to the department to demonstrate that they have the relevant immunisations for their child, and, clearly the government will be monitoring these arrangements as they roll out.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So just to clarify that specific issue: are we suggesting that somebody may have their payments ceased—that is, their child care benefit payments or family tax benefit A—that that might occur over a period of weeks, possibly months, and then that it is up to the individual to provide documentary evidence to the department that the information on which that decision was made is incorrect? If that is the case, it is of great concern to us.

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

I am advised that, for child care, there is a 63-day grace period but, for family tax benefit arrangements, families will need to be in a position to provide documentary evidence if there is advice that they do not have the requisite immunisations and that their payments will be ceasing.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that circumstance, at what point does the government believe it is appropriate to introduce other safeguards? If we start to see a rush of people who have their family tax benefit A payment ceased as a result of incorrect information in the register, at what point will the government decide that the system as it has been designed is not working and that in fact there is the need for a revision in terms of the way this is managed?

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

Just to clarify: there will not be any impact on the fortnightly payment in relation to FTB. It would only be in relation to the end-of-year supplement.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that it is related to the supplement, but, if people are relying on that supplement and they have it ceased as a result of the fact that the information provided on the register is inaccurate, at what point does the government decide that this is a problem—that we are having a number of people who were relying on that supplement not receiving the supplement as a result of faulty information listed in the database?

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

The end-of-year supplement is paid at the end of a financial year and, if that does not occur, then parents can present the relevant documentation and that payment will be made.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we just get some information from the department—not today but on record—about what the process is going to be in terms of the interaction between the department and the people who are going to be subject to these changes? At the committee process, that degree of detail was not known. We asked at that stage, but I think in view of the questions that Senator Di Natale has been asking, it would be very useful for us to get from the department what is going to be the exchange of correspondence, how people are going to be identified and what the communication process on that is going to be. Could we have that on notice, please?

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just further to that issue: was any consideration given to perhaps a warning letter or some correspondence flagging that somebody may not be receiving their family tax benefit A supplement and giving them a grace period in which to either seek to update their immunisation or to provide documentary evidence that the information on the register is inaccurate. It seems to me a much more sensible approach would be to at least advise individuals that this change is coming. Family tax benefit A supplement is really important for a lot of families. It might pay for the schoolbooks for the coming year. It might pay for birthday and Christmas presents. It is a really important bit of family support. It just strikes me as a much more sensible measure. We have already expressed our concerns broadly with the bill. There could be some provision or allowance made for individuals to take corrective action before the payment is actually withdrawn. I just wonder whether any consideration has been given in terms of a warning, a grace period et cetera.

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

I am advised that the Department of Human Services will be sending letters in advance to people who are not up to date, advising them that that is what the records of the department show and that, if they are not accurate, to make contact.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When are letters sent? What is the time that will elapse between the letter being sent and the payment being withdrawn?

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

My understanding is that the letters will be sent shortly after this legislation is passed.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the gap between the letter being sent and the payment being withdrawn? What is the period that will elapse between those two things? Let us assume that we are a year on and the legislation has passed. Let us look at December 2017. Will someone receive a letter and then have two weeks, four weeks, six weeks—or two days—to present the information if the register proves to have inaccurate information?

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

In effect, people will have the best part of six months, because the end-of-year supplement would not be paid until after the middle of the next year, so, if the letters go out in the very near future, then there is a reasonable period of time for the appropriate advice to be provided to the department.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that would be true once this legislation has passed. I am looking into the future. What is the time between the letters being sent and the supplement being withdrawn? Of course, if there is a plan to send letters out as soon as this legislation passes, people have got a lot of time, but what happens the following year and the year after that? What is the period of time that will elapse between letters or advice being given to an individual that the information on the register indicates that someone's immunisation schedule is not up to date and the time at which that payment is withdrawn?

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

Once the legislation has passed and we get through what you might call the transition period, it will be part of the routine information that is provided to individuals that they need to make sure that the information that they provide to the department in different forms is accurate. The onus is on individuals thereafter to make sure that the advice that they provide to the department is accurate.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear on that: are you suggesting that each person who might have a child whose vaccination status is listed on the register needs to get onto the register and check to see whether their immunisation information is accurate and up to date; and, if they do not do that and have their payment cut off, they are not going to be given any warning prior to that decision being made? To be frank, that strikes me as completely impractical. I suspect the majority of the community who have children would not have the faintest idea about the existence of an immunisation register. For the onus to be on the individual to make sure their immunisation information is up to date strikes me as a completely unsatisfactory way of dealing with that potential problem.

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

If someone does not make the register, the department will in the ordinary course of events write to the family, drawing their attention to the fact that it would appear that what is required has not happened. There are two points: the need for people to keep relevant information up to date; and communication from the department saying: 'It appears that you haven't undertaken what is necessary to remain eligible.'

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So again we get back to that critical point, which is beyond the transition period, as you have described it: when will the correspondence be issued by the department to the families involved; and how much time do they have to correct the record, if the information on the register is inaccurate?

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

Your specific question, Senator, goes to: when someone gets advice that they are not compliant, how many weeks will it be before they could potentially lose a payment? Obviously, in the case of the end-of-year supplement, the reconciliations will happen at the end of the year. I cannot give you any more specific advice at this point about what period of time there might be between when someone receives a letter and something happening, because you have got the end-of-year supplement, which is a reconciliation at the end of the year. You have got individual's birth dates, which determine when various vaccinations are required. I know what you are seeking but I just cannot give you a definitive time frame at this point in time.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That could easily be rectified by saying there had to be a minimum period of time from notification by the department to when the decision to withdraw a payment was made. This is a pretty big change. We do not know how many families will be affected, and this is going to be a big test of the reliability of the data on the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register. The last thing we want is for the department to be withdrawing support to thousands of families on the basis of information that is just not accurate. So it is going to be a big test of that database. I think there needs to be a minimum period from notification to the individual families involved—and we can have a discussion about what that minimum notification period needs to be, but I would have thought at least a fortnight and probably closer to a month to allow people to take the necessary action to ensure that the register is updated. I would have thought a commitment from the department that there will be a minimum period for people to be able to update the information before the decision to withdraw the payment is made would be something that had already been dealt with—I am surprised it has not. Obviously, this is an opportunity to raise that specific issue and get some undertaking from the department that there will be a period of two or four weeks for people to respond to a notice that a withdrawal of payment will be made, if the information on the register is not updated.

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

I have just been seeking further advice from those intimately involved in this legislation and have been advised that in effect there will be a two-week period between when the first letter comes saying, 'It would appear that you're not compliant' and the next letter advising that payments would be ceasing. So I think that is the time frame that you were seeking advice on. I am further advised that this is in effect the sort of mechanism that is currently in place when providing advice to people that they are not compliant and then a subsequent letter advising what the impact might be on their payments.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is helpful, if we are talking about a minimum two-week period. What action needs to be taken by the individual involved? Because clearly some people will have made the decision not to immunise their child, and that is clearly the intent of this legislation. In the instance where the information on the register is simply not accurate, what is the specific course of action that an individual needs to undertake to ensure that their payments are not withdrawn?

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

The provision of documentary evidence from a doctor or an immunisation service that the immunisations required have occurred.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suppose one of the concerns is the ability within a short space of time to get that documentary evidence. We all know how difficult it is in some circumstances to access a GP, and certainly for something like this it may take a little longer. Will there be any provision within the current arrangements that will allow, for example, a family to contact their department to say that an error has been made and to put a hold on withdrawing the payment and providing the opportunity for the register to be corrected, even if it is not within that two-week time frame?

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

The advice at the moment is, 'I don't think so,' in terms of putting a pre-emptive hold on the operation of that two-week period. But I should also indicate that what is commonly known as the 'blue book' would be one source of evidence that people could provide. I do not think it is an unreasonable expectation that, in most cases, people may have that, but I obviously recognise that there can be difficult circumstances in particular households.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, we do want the details that you have gone through in the actual process circulated when that is worked out. I know there is a transition process, but we do share a lot of the issues that Senator Di Natale has raised about the actual implementation. So I am just following up on that point.

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

Thanks, Senator Moore. Probably the best mechanism is if that is provided to the Senate Community Affairs Committee. That way it can be accessible for all colleagues.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.