Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because there has been quite a lot of ongoing argy-bargy for two weeks and we are all quite tired of it, I am withdrawing my amendments on sheet 8081 and 8082. That has now been taken care of and removed by the government and negotiations have gone on with one, so I am good with that. But, I would like to say a few words.

The government amendments to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017 to omit the public interest disclosure, otherwise known as PID, from Schedule 2 is a win for veterans as their privacy will continue to be protected. Labor's amendment to Schedule 1 of the bill that excludes decisions that are adverse to a client from computer decision making is also a win for veterans by protecting them from computer programs that say no to a claim which would then be assessed by a human delegate. While I would have preferred different language in the amendment such as the word 'liability' as opposed to the word 'service', the outcome, should this amendment be passed, provides a mechanism of protection in deciding veterans' claims by a computer program.

The bill, along with these two amendments, if passed, would permit the Department of Veteran's Affairs to undertake business reforms and implement new information and communications technology, otherwise known as ICT, so as to reduce times on claims processing and improve services to veterans and the community. The bill provides DVA's secretary with the authority to use computer programs to make decisions and determinations in any claims over three separate acts which include the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the VEA; the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, known as the MRCA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, known as the SRCA; and the defence related claims act, the DRCA. But Labor's amendment puts safeguards in place. The bill's intent and amendments are good, particularly in making the necessary reforms and introducing ICT. In doing so, it will likely benefit veterans in that their claims may be processed quickly and efficiently and it may improve overall veterans' services by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

The Change.org petition by the South Lake Macquarie sub-branch of the Returned and Services League of Australia, New South Wales had urged this Senate to stop the bill based upon serious privacy concerns by the veterans' community. In less than two weeks, the petition received over 10,000 supporters who electronically signed the petition. Luckily the government heeded the veterans' community concerns and introduced an amendment to address those serious privacy concerns.

In the future the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee should have oversight on the use of the computer programs in deciding veterans' claims. The need for such oversight is underscored by the recent debacle of Centrelink's flawed data-matching program, where the computer program was wrong an estimated 20 per cent of time.

Automated decision making will be useful to speed up claims processes. Noting the DVA computer system and software has yet to be designed and built, there is much concern in relation to initial decisions related to a service injury or disease or reassessment of such. The Labor amendment, if passed, should go a long way to address these concerns, but oversight by the legislative branch is warranted to protect veterans from any future flawed computer program systems. This parliament owes our veterans a duty of care in ensuring there are little to no errors, in permitting DVA to make computer program decisions and determinations, especially with respect to first getting a veteran's foot into the door of Department of Veterans' Affairs.

It was due to the hard work of the crossbench of this Senate last week and this week that caused both the government and Labor to act in introducing their amendments which would better protect veterans' privacy and prevent computer programs from making wrong decisions in rejecting claims for liability. This was achieved by the lawmakers of the crossbench to include me and others introducing amendments to address flaws in the original bill. What this bill and its amendments have demonstrated is that parliament, particularly the Senate, is able to work effectively if lawmakers work together to address flawed legislation.

Before I finish off, I want to say a very, very special thank you. I want to thank Senator Kakoschke-Moore of the Nick Xenophon Team, and especially Pat in her office. I want to make a very special thanks to Norbert, who is a new staff member of mine. I tell you, between the two of them they are a force to be reckoned with. I suggest you remember that for the future. I can see the Department of Veterans' Affairs sitting over there. We now have two very switched on people that are right on your tail. Even though the shadow minister, Amanda Rishworth, was a little slow off the starting block, she certainly made up for it in the end. So: thank you, Amanda. Thank you for your patience, thank you for hearing us out and thank you for making this happen.

I also want to thank, once again—he is always helping out the veterans—Senator Ludlam. Thank you and to your office as well. Thank you very much. This will make a veteran's life much easier instead of having to worry about their privacy being leaked all over the place, which I will not have going on. For thank sincerely those people who really stood up and fought over the last two weeks for Australian veterans.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just stating this for the benefit of the chamber: all amendments on sheets 8081 and 8082 have been withdrawn.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2) and (3) to schedule 1 on sheet 8095:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 16), after subsection 4A(1), insert:

  (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:

  (a) a decision or determination that the death of a person is not a service death;

  (b) a decision or determination that an injury sustained by a person is not a service injury;

  (c) a decision or determination that a disease contracted by a person is not a service disease.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 23), after subsection 3A(1), insert:

  (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:

  (a) a decision or determination that a disease suffered by an employee was not contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee;

  (b) a decision or determination that an injury (other than a disease) to an employee did not arise out of, or in the course of, his or her employment;

  (c) a decision or determination that an aggravation of an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee is not an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, his or her employment.

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (after line 30), after subsection 4B(1), insert:

  (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:

  (a) a decision that the death of a veteran was not war-caused;

  (b) a decision that an injury suffered by a veteran is not a war-caused injury;

  (c) a decision that a disease contracted by a veteran is not a war-caused disease;

  (d) a decision that the death of a member of the Forces (within the meaning of Part IV), or a member of a Peacekeeping Force (within the meaning of that Part), was not defence-caused;

  (e) a decision that an injury suffered by a member of the Forces (within the meaning of Part IV), or a member of a Peacekeeping Force (within the meaning of that Part), is not a defence-caused injury;

  (f) a decision that a disease contracted by a member of the Forces (within the meaning of Part IV), or a member of a Peacekeeping Force (within the meaning of that Part), is not a defence-caused disease.

Labor have raised our concerns about the removal of the human decision-making process for veterans who would not automatically receive a claim. As a result, our amendment ensures that any claim made by a veteran that was rejected in the computer decision-making process would be automatically sent to a delegate for review. Labor believes that by doing this, there is still the benefit of a more timely claims process and there is a safeguard of reviewing any claims that are not initially accepted in the computer system.

To be clear, as an example, should a veteran make six claims and five of those claims be accepted and one be rejected, the rejected claim is sent to a delegate for review, but the five that were accepted continue to be processed. This review process will not require the veteran to be consulted initially, which Labor believes is important, in order for a timely decision and to ensure that the veteran does not feel unnecessarily exacerbated during the process. Labor believes that this will ensure that there are no veterans worse off while also ensuring that the Department of Veterans' Affairs can begin to work towards its veterans-centric reform. Labor recognise the concerns and issues that Senator Lambie has just raised with regard to computer decision-making and on claims for liability, but believe our amendments cover this position and support the amendment.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government supports this amendment. It will place controls on the computer decision-making provision that will ensure that any adverse decision made by a computer program would be referred to a human delegate of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I would also like to table a supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is one of those rare occasions—all too rare—and I do not expect this is going to make the morning news broadcasts or the newspapers—where the Senate has actually been given the opportunity to do its job. We shared many of the concerns that Senator Lambie just put on the record, and indeed those that Senator Farrell just noted in introducing the opposition amendments.

For the sake of clarity, what I will do now is withdraw Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8084. For similar reasons, that the government and the opposition actually slowed down the process for long enough to hear the concerns of the crossbenches and, indeed, those outside the building who were working through us to make sure that this was a better bill. As I said at the outset, in my second reading contribution last week, we have absolutely no problem at all with the minister's basic ambition of bringing DVA into the 20th or maybe even the 21st century so that they can speed up some of the processes, automate some of the processes where that is appropriate and so that the human beings within the department can actually spend a lot more time in face-to-face conversations and dealing with the more knotty problems directly.

But if these systems are improperly applied, as Centrelink certainly discovered to their cost and to the enormous cost of some of the people who found themselves going under the wheels of Centrelink, then they can actually create enormous misery. I was going back to the Bills Digest to make sure that we covered off all of the different issues and came across this report in 2004 by the Administrative Review Council, Automated assistance in administrative decision-making. They found that basically, yes, sometimes you can speed up and you can 'reduce inaccuracy and human prejudice' in the interpretation and application of complex rules and 'provide the opportunity for more accurate, consistent and efficient and transparent decisions'. Fine; we understand that is what the minister is trying to do.

They also pointed out:

… 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.

The reason that the crossbenches jacked up last week, and eventually Labor cottoned on as well, is that potentially you will have decisions being made inside a black box by an algorithm, having had a spreadsheet fed into it. When a decision falls out that is non-reviewable, the veteran just has to suck it up. These are people who have suffered enough on many occasions, and they do not deserve that kind of treatment from the Public Service. I also take the minister at his word when he says they do want to bring things into the 21st century and that that is not the ambition of his officers either.

I think the solution that Labor eventually came to—I know Senator Lambie toyed with a couple of different ideas; so did we—means that basically the burden of proof now falls in the right direction. If a decision is adverse, if the software spits out an adverse finding, then that will go to a delegate, whereas the pay claims and the various other things can just move through much more rapidly if there are no problems. The Greens are very pleased to support this amendment.

I also want to thank Senator Lambie for her passion and her commitment in being the squeakiest of wheels on this issue, and being tenacious and not letting go, and for the constructive way in which Senator Kakoschke-Moore engaged. It was a pleasure dealing with Ms Rishworth, and I would also like to especially acknowledge the minister and his advisers, who did slow the process down. They could have rammed this thing through—we see that far too often in this place—and they chose not to. They chose to slow down, and so we will get a much better outcome tonight. We are pleased to support the opposition amendments.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a brief contribution and to make the chamber aware that the Nick Xenophon Team will also be supporting the amendments put forward by Labor to this bill. I would also like to join with my colleagues in acknowledging and recognising the incredible way we have had cross-party engagement and cross-party support for identifying, working through and then rectifying the issues that were raised about this bill.

Computerised decision-making can act for the benefit of veterans. We know this. We know the claims processing times at the moment are incredibly slow. If this amendment means that claims processing times can be sped up, that is a great thing. But I would like to caution that where computers are involved then we, as parliamentarians, need to maintain oversight of that process. If any issues are picked up with the way that this program is being used, any at all, then we must act swiftly on that.

But having said that, I welcome this amendment and the Nick Xenophon Team welcomes this amendment. I thank the opposition for the constructive way in which they have worked with us on this, in particular the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel, Ms Rishworth. Thank you, Senator Lambie, for being the vivacious and incredible representative you are for veterans in our community. And thank you to Senator Ludlam for also stepping in to support the push for some sensible reforms to this bill.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to endorse the comments of Senator Kakoschke-Moore about shadow minister Rishworth. I think she has played a terrific role in this process both in terms of the opposition's amendments and the government's amendments. I would like to speak briefly to the government's amendments.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not moved them yet.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, but I am anticipating that you will.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Saving time?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Saving a little bit of time, but I think I need to put it slightly in some context before you move it so that the chamber understands. There are two amendments. I have spoken to the opposition's amendments already, and it is been indicated that there is a general support for that. But as part of that arrangement, the opposition has agreed to support the government's amendments. We have been working with the government on the rules. The ex-service and veterans' community have continue to raise their concerns on the provisions of the bill. Labor senators raised similar issues in the Senate inquiry, specifically issues around the mistake of fact and misinformation.

Overall, the amount of confusion regarding the rules which accompany the legislation led to emerging community concern. Labor had always said that the rules were a disallowable motion and had reserved to our right to disallow them if we were not happy with them. Labor was continuing to work with the government to strengthen the rules to ensure that veterans were not left any worse off. However, we believe their amendment to remove the entirely is appropriate given the amount of community concern.

Labor believes that this has been the simplest solution to what has proven complex and confusing in the broader veterans' and ex-service community. We believe the removal of the instrument will allay the concerns of Labor and those raised by the crossbench. We are pleased that the government and Minister Tehan have listened to and now acted on our concerns and those of the broader veterans' community in dealing with this legislation to better deliver outcomes. As I have indicated, we will be supporting the amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8095 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (2), (5), (6) and (1) on sheet JC394 together:

(2) Schedule 2, page 8 (line 3), omit the heading.

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 12 (line 1), omit "amendments made by items 5 and 7 apply", substitute "amendment made by item 5 applies".

(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 12 (line 2), omit "those items", substitute "that item".

(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 5 to 7), omit the table items, substitute:

The government moves these amendments in order to secure passage of this important computer decision-making powers that are required for the department's ICT reform. The government believes that this provision would have secured safeguards to protect veterans' privacy. Unfortunately, due to persistent misinformation in the community, this provision will not proceed and the status quo will remain.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we were all getting along so well! I have got to say that sounded to me like something of a cheap shot, to be honest. I am rethinking my decision to withdraw the Australian Greens amendments, but I guess it is probably a little bit too late to do that. This was one of the first issues that came to light. It is probably the issue that most people outside of this building—if they had come across or heard of this bill—would have heard of, particularly in the light of the debacle unfolding around Centrelink.

I will just read very briefly again from the bill's digest so that people who might be listening to the broadcast are aware of what we are talking about. This is the ability of the minister or any future minister to disclose, for any reason that he or she sees fit, private information of Australian veterans—who have potentially been put into the line of fire or damaged in the course of their service to this country—into the newspaper to clean up a public debate or run a particular political line, as we saw Mr Tudge doing in the last couple of weeks. It is absolutely unacceptable. I do not think there is misinformation about it at all.

If it is misinformation, then the Australian Parliamentary Library is also obviously misinformed. Here is the way that they characterised it:

Under these proposed provisions, where the Secretary—

That is the secretary of DVA.

… certifies that it is in the public interest to do so in relation to a particular case or class of cases, the Secretary may disclose any information obtained by any person under the relevant Act, to such persons and for such persons as the Secretary determines. ‘Public interest’ is not defined in the Bill or any of the relevant Acts.

The explanatory memorandum goes on to state some examples that the minister thought was appropriate, but the examples are somewhat moot: it is any person and any information for any reason whatsoever, and there is no definition of what is considered the public interest.

We strongly believe, not on the basis of misinformation but on the basis of analysis, that this allows a senior public servant to leak a veteran's private information to a newspaper in order to win a political argument. That is absolutely unacceptable. I just withdrew that Greens amendments because the minister appeared to take our case at face value, without the kind of snark that we just heard from Senator McGrath. He appeared to take our case at face value that the community are extremely concerned—the veteran community in particular are concerned—that they are going to be put through the same meat grinder that Ms Andie Fox was put through by Centrelink. You find your name and your personal details in the newspaper when the government wants to win a political argument someday.

Our proposal was probably quite a bit simpler than what the government eventually came up with. What the government has come up with here is that they have simply removed the entire section of the bill that made that kind of behaviour possible. I would have congratulated the government for that move. Maybe I will just go over Senator McGrath's head and say to the minister's advisors and presumably the minister who is listening in: thanks for listening to reason; it was not that hard. We support these government amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (2), (5), (6) and (1) on sheet JC394 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—In a similar vein, I move government amendments (3), (4) and (7) on sheet JC394 together:

(3) Schedule 2, items 1 and 2, page 8 (line 4) to page 9 (line 17), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 2, item 7, page 10 (line 20) to page 11 (line 26), to be opposed.

(7) Schedule 2, items 10 to 14, page 12 (line 10) to page 14 (line 18), to be opposed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that items (1), (2), (7) and (10) to (14) of schedule 2 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.