HENNESSY, Mrs Shannon, Chief Executive Officer, Veterans, Emergency Services and Police Industry Institute of Australia [by video link] [17:05] CHAIR: Welcome. I understand information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. Do you have a brief opening statement you'd like to provide to the committee today? Mrs Hennessy : Yes, I'll just provide a quick overview of VESPIIA and what we do just for context for the committee. VESPIIA is the Veterans Emergency Services and Police Industry Institute Australia. We represent organisational and individual members across the country who are working to support veterans, first responders and families. We do that through providing professional development opportunities, advocacy in these sorts of forums, events such as conferences, and recognition through awards. That is a brief synopsis of what we do and that will conclude my opening statement. CHAIR: Excellent. Short and sharp—I like that. Senator Cox. Senator COX: Thank you, Mrs Hennessy, for joining us this afternoon. Your submission calls for flexibility in schedule 3, which is about safe separation payments. Can you walk the committee through what some of your concerns are with the 12-month period? Mrs Hennessy : Absolutely. We spoke briefly in our submission about our concerns that we have raised in previous submissions around these sorts of wordings. These sorts of scenarios playing out with families, especially where domestic violence may be a factor, are very rarely resolved on any kind of timeline, so the thought process that there's 12 months of a payment and then that's that is a bit restrictive. I was just listening to the gentleman before describe a similar scenario. There may be lag times. There are issues that crop up in trying to find housing. Especially if they then go to court and things like that, it's not going to be resolved within 12 months. The last thing we would want is for a defence family to be put in further harm's way by experiencing financial issues as well. So having the flexibility, especially on the minister's behalf, to say, 'Yes, we can see that this is an ongoing issue and that we need to continue to support this family and do what we can,' is paramount to their safety overall, instead of saying, 'The 12-month deadline has been met and that's that; you're on your own.' I think there's a duty of care in those sorts of scenarios that warrant additional scrutiny. Senator COX: You've gone into the second part of that question, but are there any specific changes that you would recommend to address this part particularly of the 12-month period that you've raised? Are there any specific changes that you would recommend to the committee? Mrs Hennessy : I think our recommendation really just speaks to giving those powers to extend those safe separation payments where necessary. Obviously, if someone is set up and good to go and everything's okay, of course those 12 months apply, but having a mechanism that allows review and for the minister or commissioner to make a decision to continue payments where it is warranted would be our recommendation. Senator COX: Thank you. Can you explain to the committee what you believe will be the important safeguards that need to be in place for information sharing between defence and DVA? Mrs Hennessy : As far as safeguards are concerned, I know that this is going to be a complex thing to try to do. I don't think that anyone would shy away from the fact that information sharing between departments is not an easy undertaking regardless. Especially where there are instances of misconduct, sexual violence or anything like that, I think safeguards such as de-identification for public reporting, for us, are really important. In our submission, we've also spoken about who can make decisions and the delegation of authority in the sense of ensuring that the people that are making decisions around what data is shared are trained and supported in doing that, not just told: 'You can make the decision. Now, off you go.' It is that we are making sure that anyone who is in those rooms and making those decisions is informed and is trained to do so. On a technological level, of course, there is ensuring your cybersafety and all those sorts of things that are really no-brainers. We are certainly very much in support of the sharing of data. I've been in the sector myself for about 10 years, and wouldn't it be great if the departments just talked to each other? That has been an ongoing discussion we've had that whole time. So we're certainly in support of governments having their procurement processes to make sure that their cyber needs are met and that anyone accessing that data is trained. Senator COX: Excellent. Thank you very much. CHAIR: Deputy Chair Senator Collins, you have the call. Senator COLLINS: This first question is on schedule 5 and transparency in the DVSC. I'm wondering about discretionary tabling. You have noted your concern about the change from mandatory to discretionary tabling for the own-motion inquiry report. Do you think that automatic transparency is particularly important, especially in the first few years? Mrs Hennessy : Absolutely. You asked if we should be transparent. Of course. It's something that we as an institute pride ourselves on; every decision that we can or need to be transparent about, we are as much as we can be. It's not to say that every minute detail needs to be made public, but transparency is the key to building trust. I think something we've seen over the last 12 months with a lot of this legislative action is that it's great that we're making strides in these areas, but underlying and even in our own consultation we've noted that trust has simply been eroded. So, the more that we opt to forgo transparency or even have an option that we could not be in any sense—that shouldn't be the path we take. Of course, in the first few years, how do we continue to grow and learn and build off the work that we've been doing? Well, that's through transparency and reporting. Senator COLLINS: On that public confidence issue, DVSC was established because public confidence in Defence's internal accountability had been tested. Just to be clear, you think moving to a discretionary table model risks undermining the independence of the royal commission that was intended for this body? Mrs Hennessy : Absolutely we would agree. The ability to, in a sense, hide data or hide information, especially in these first few years—the royal commission itself was such a massive push to even undertake this inquiry just to put forth what we already knew was happening in the sector. We knew the sentiment. We knew what was going on. To have such an in-depth report that we are now all as a sector accountable to—having any mechanism that would undermine the transparency of reporting—would itself be a failure to the community. Even if data weren't hidden or just didn't make sense to report, the fact that that mechanism is there leaves questions unanswered and allows that almost negative curiosity to breed. Community building and trust building are so important in this phase that we're where people have put so much on the line to tell their story, to improve things and to make change, so we certainly have almost a duty of care to be as transparent as we can across the board. Senator COLLINS: You've made the point in your submission that, if the government continues with the discretionary element, you recommend that the commissioner's annual report must at least record how many inquiries were finalised and whether they were tabled. How do you think that this minimum requirement ensures the practical effect of this change remains visible to parliament? Mrs Hennessy : In my opinion, it goes back to having eyes on what's happening. At the parliamentary level, if you guys aren't privy to what reports are coming through, what's been tabled and what the data is saying, how do we continue to have discussions around legislative change if things are being withheld? Even if your report says nothing happened, that's an important piece of work. Especially from a community standpoint, even to have a report that says nothing bad happened; nothing changed; this, that or the other; and it's all very boring—that's a great sign for us to show that maybe things are working, because we're not having reports come through or we're seeing this uptick of more positive data in that there is no data. I think that's still important. Having it be mandatory to table those reports also sets an expectation for us all. We know what to expect from the commissioner, like when things are going to be coming through. We're not sitting, waiting, going, 'Has anything happened?' Just removing that ambiguity is going to be very important. I hope that answered that one. Senator COLLINS: That's good. On schedules 1 and 2 and the oversight of data and health governance: you recommend a periodic independent review of ministerial guidelines and legislative instruments that will govern the new data-sharing framework. Why do you think the initial consultation with the Information Commissioner is insufficient to ensure the scale and durability of oversight once a framework is operational? Mrs Hennessy : I think that, with anything, it's unrealistic to expect that an initial inquiry will answer all questions and not allow for improvements over time. Especially when introducing something as large scale and as new as information sharing between departments, there has to be a growth mechanism there. We need to be able to see what is going wrong and what's going well and to be able to make sure that we're improving your every step of the way. That initial inquiry, especially for such a large-scale project, can't have everything included. Having independence in review, for us, is quite important as well. You can't mark your own homework. With the work that we do, we're very big on that. That independence is necessary to make sure that all of the good and the bad is raised to the top and dealt with accordingly. So we would always argue for independent review where feasible, allowing for the understanding that it may not go perfectly the first time but growth is a good thing. Changing and upscaling are difficult, but we always have a chance to learn more and to do better each time. Technology is going to continue to evolve and change, and we need to be on top of that as well. Senator COLLINS: You also recommended plain-English summaries. In your view, what are the risks to ADF members and veterans if they can't understand how their personal information is being shared across agencies? Mrs Hennessy : I think the most important thing to remember here is that we are dealing with potentially vulnerable communities. When we're talking about people's personal data, this is something that we're talking about not just in Defence but as an Australia-wide thing issue. It is about understanding how our data is being used and shared. This is a massive topic at the moment as technologies evolve, especially with the introduction of things like artificial intelligence. So when we are dealing with communities that are potentially vulnerable and we are introducing something new, like data sharing, that can seem big and scary and unknown then it's essential that the people who are going to be affected by this, whose data is going to be shared, understand what's happening. No communications that come out of department or out of government, and I say this as an ex-parliamentary staffer myself, should be in legislative jargon. We, as legislative professionals, understand what some of these terms mean, how they are phrased and why they are phrased that way. When we're communicating to any public, it has to be in plain English and in terms that they understand and can accept so that they are well-informed to make decisions on their own behalf as well. Senator COLLINS: Agreed. You've recommended a mechanism for the minister to extend the 12-month safe separation payment period in exceptional circumstances. Just on the specific legal or practical hurdles for the extension of support, like ongoing protection order proceedings, what have you observed that might not resolve within a rigid one-year timeframe? Mrs Hennessy : I can only speak from anecdotal experience, having worked in this space. It's unrealistic, especially if there is an instance of domestic and family violence, to expect that anything in that time happens to any kind of timeframe. We are just adding pressure to the victim, in this sense, by saying that they've only got 12 months of payments to get their life sorted. If there are court cases involved and if there are children involved, especially, things don't move at a pace that a department can mandate. Again, when we are dealing with that vulnerability, we have a duty of care to ensure that they are taken care of and that we're not adding those additional pressures. And if a defence family is in this position, as a result of the actions of a defence member, that extends even further and we need to make sure that they are taken care of at every stage. So expecting to say, 12 months on the dot, 'You're good to go off into the world,' is unrealistic. And so while I can't give you any specific circumstances where I've seen this happen, I do know that it has. From the things that we've seen and the consultations that we've had, with both defence and first-responder women who are actively serving, we know that some of these situations can be ongoing. Even if they report that six months from now something is going to be fixed and resolved, this could be ongoing for years. Having the option or the mechanisms for the minister to say, 'Okay, we need an extra six months just to make sure you're okay, you're set up, that everything is good to go,' need to be included. Senator COLLINS: On the delegation of decisions, you've expressed your concern that decisions regarding a person's fitness to serve could be delegated to members as junior as a chief petty officer or an APS executive level 1. This can be a pretty career-defining decision, these determinations, so what specific training or escalation pathways do you think can act as a safeguard against inconsistent application of these powers? Mrs Hennessy : As far as training goes, I think there is a multitude. You obviously need things that are trauma informed, that are legislatively informed. If junior officers or junior staffers are making that decision, they obviously need to be aware of and understand the severity of what they are doing—so internal training. We would be more than happy to take that on notice and further investigate, potentially do some consultation within our membership of professionals. So while we couldn't make that decision for defence and for the APS, we would like to at least see that it was victim led, potentially, and abuse-survivor-led training about what it is to have suffered at the hands of that level of perpetrator and that the people making those decisions are very well aware of what that means to make the decision not only in the moment but for the long-term reputation and longevity of defence and what that person's career could then entail. Senator COLLINS: Thank you, Mrs Hennessy. CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, do you have some questions for our witness? Senator SHOEBRIDGE: One of the issues that's repeatedly raised in the submissions here is about data security and ensuring that the data that is shared—and I'll say that, from my perspective and from the Greens' perspective, there are powerfully good reasons to ensure that data is shared so that veterans don't have to keep repeating trauma and repeating their history. There are powerfully good reasons to have data shared appropriately, but do you have any thoughts about whether the bill contains sufficient protections to ensure that privacy is protected and people who are serving—members of the Defence Force—feel free to actually go and get the help they need, knowing that the information they share with the medical practitioner and allied health won't find its way into the hands of their superiors, for example? Mrs Hennessy : Absolutely. That last point is one that needs to be focused on. We know that that's been a barrier for active service members to seek help for a multitude of reasons, not just mental health but physical health as well. In my experience, years ago, I had a girl that was discharged because she broke her ankle. I wished she just hadn't mentioned that there were ongoing issues with that, because she loved being in the navy and that derailed her career when she was only 23. It's not just help seeking as far as mental health is concerned; it's help seeking across the board and even for emotional supports and things like that. It is paramount that we ensure that members feel safe and that confidential information remains confidential. From an external point of view, in my personal opinion based on my experience, the data that we require as service providers—we don't need the minutiae. The numbers are enough, and that can help inform further research and further data collection. It can help inform how we build programs and design support networks and systems. Having the access to medical records and things like that shouldn't be in question. That should remain confidential. Whether this piece of legislation has enough safeguards—it's not that I'm not confident, but it's good to question. If we were like, 'Yes, this is perfect—no changes, no notes,' that would be unrealistic. As I mentioned before, the adaptation, the want and the ability to continue to grow and to perfect over time is important to the consistency of independent review, the structures that get put in place and the legislation itself so that we don't stop here. This isn't the last time we should ever talk about this. This needs to be an ongoing review. Again, that goes back to trust building as well—our ability and our want to continue to have these discussions, as difficult as they may be. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Many of the concerns that have been raised with my office have been around this issue of data security and privacy and ensuring that, if information is shared, it's not shared to the detriment of either veterans or of serving members in the Defence Force. Have you considered—and I'm more than happy for you to take it on notice—whether there are any additional protections that maybe we should consider as a parliament to give a level of comfort to the community? Mrs Hennessy : I would like to take that on notice if I may. That would be an interesting piece of consultation for us to do—going out to our member organisations and probe a little bit further. Holistically, data privacy and security is an ongoing topic, as I mentioned before, Australia-wide. We should always be questioning it, but we would be happy to do further consultation in that area. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I would really appreciate that because there is a tension here, isn't there, between ensuring that the information is getting where it's needed to help—but not potentially being accessed to cause detriment or to inappropriately breach the privacy. That is a kind of interesting tension. Some considered views from your organisation and those you talk with would be very helpful. Could I raise just one thing as you're doing that. I think there are good arguments for de-identified data to come so it can assist in research and assist in looking at trends. But one of the things I'm hearing in the work I do in relation to artificial intelligence is that there is a greater and greater capacity for data crunching and for AI to actually identify de-identified data. I don't know if you've had any experience of that or seen some of the trends in technology that are allowing for re-identification of de-identified data. Has that come up in any of the work you've done? Mrs Hennessy : Not so far—but it's certainly something for us to be conscious of. Especially where we're using data that should be in the hands of professionals, it shouldn't be run through AI, because we are dealing with an exceptionally human element here. The numbers are helpful to inform us, but we're not trying to improve efficiencies here; we're trying to better people's lives. Whether we're coming up against that is certainly something for us to consider in our travels, but it's not something I've seen so far. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: One of the concerns that have been raised with my office is that the data may get fed into AI at some point and that they therefore lose control of it. Perhaps that's something we should be checking with the government and the department—what their intentions are and what, if any, protections are in the bill. Mrs Hennessy : I would agree, absolutely. Those safeguards should be built into any internal policy and working policy that comes through from this. You want this mechanism in effect—how it gets used is going to be exceptionally important. AI is a serious question for many. How are we using it safely and ethically? I think this is an important question for government to be raising and for us as a community to be pressing as well. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Mrs Hennessy, I don't want to give you any more work, but I know your submission talks about how important reviews will be. Maybe, in your response, you might think about whether we should be highlighting these elements and making it obligatory for some of these elements to be covered in a review and how best we would do that. Mrs Hennessy : I'd agree. I spoke earlier about the importance of having mandatory reporting and about transparency being paramount. Even if it's bad data, we can learn from that. So I would agree that anything that can be reported on should be reported on, even if it's something we don't end up using. Transparency at the moment is exceptionally important in building trust and paving our way forward into bigger and better programs. CHAIR: Thank you very much for appearing today as a witness. The committee would appreciate responses to any questions that were taken on notice to be provided by 5 pm on Thursday 27 August. Mrs Hennessy : That's not a worry at all. Thank you very much for having me..